GUWAHATI, India, June 7 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 7:

1. Heard Mr. A. Roshid, the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the judgment and order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the learned learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta in G.R. Case No.1315/2003, affirmed by the judgment dated 20.11.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Criminal Appeal No.21/2011.

3. On 03.10.2003, Ghanakanta Baishya had lodged an FIR before police alleging that on that day at about 11 P.M., the appellant Abdul Hasen @ Firdus Ali (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant" only) was caught red handed while stealing a cow. The stolen cow was also recovered from the possession of the appellant. Police field the charge sheet under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 411 of the said Code.

4. The prosecution side examined 7 witnesses. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 411 of the said Code. The trial court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs 500/- with default stipulations.

5. The learned appellate court agreed with the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

7. In normal circumstances, a revisional court is not required to go through the evidence. But in this case, I have decided to peruse the evidence.

8. The first prosecution witness was the informant. He has stated that when he found his cow missing from his house, he started a search for the cow. He said that the other villagers brought the appellant and the cow in his house.

9. The second prosecution witness was Monoj Baishya. He is a younger brother of the informant. He has stated in his evidence that on a particular day, in the evening, some villagers brought the appellant along with a cow to the house of his elder brother.

10. The third prosecution witness is Robin Kalita. He stated in his evidence that he did not know anything about the occurrence.

11. The fourth prosecution witness is Niranjan Baishya. He has stated in his evidence that about 6 years ago, villagers had apprehended a thief along with a cow. This witness has disclosed that he had handed over that thief to police. This witness did not know as to who was the owner of the so-called stolen cow.

12. In cross-examination, the aforementioned witnesses did not state any material facts. Therefore, their cross-examination do not deserve to be discussed in this judgment.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=T2Oj5Y97nX2tmju2FyqIU5aeY1H6K1Vt%2F5ea%2F3Ef4O6M2zZWtTf%2BY6S9XqiatXee&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./57/2013&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010004242013&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.