GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER FOR MAJIBUR RAHMAN AND ORS. V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 28 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 28:

1. Heard Mr. J. C. Gogoi, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate/Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.

2. The instant criminal appeal is presented against the judgment & order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Nagaon, Assam, (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") in Sessions (T-1) Case No. 36(N)/2015 whereby the accused/appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") and sentenced thereof to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and, in default of payment of the fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year under Section 302 of the IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the PW3/informant lodged an F.I.R. on 21.06.2013 stating, inter alia, that on 20.06.2013 the accused/appellants, i.e., her stepbrothers-in-law, by dragging her husband, Ali Hussain (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"), to their courtyard, killed him by assaulting him with a spear, pieces of wood, and dao. It is further alleged that the accused/appellants also injured her mother-in-law, i.e., PW-4. Accordingly, an F.I.R. was registered, and upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer, i.e., PW-10, submitted a charge-sheet against the accused/appellants and one co-accused Amir Hussain, under Section 302/34 of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned committal Magistrate court, upon appearance of the accused/appellants and the other co-accused, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nagaon, and was further pleased to abate the case of the co-accused Amir Hussain. Thereafter, the learned trial court formally charged the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 10 (ten) witnesses, including the informant and the Investigating Officer, and after cross-examination and closure of the evidence of the prosecution, all the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused/appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.,") which they generally denied.

5. Thereafter, the trial court, upon considering the evidence and hearing the parties, convicted the accused/appellants and sentenced them under the impugned judgment & order. Situated thus, the present appeal has been preferred.

6. Mr. J. C. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellants, submits that the conviction of the trial court is based on the testimonies of interested eyewitnesses, which have not been corroborated by independent witnesses, and the impugned judgment & order is erroneous. He further submits that the alleged weapon not having been sent for forensic examination, the impugned conviction and sentence is fatal. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court: -

(i) The State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SCC 990.

(ii) Hem Raj & Ors., v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2110,

(iii) Mathura Yadav alias Mathura Mahato and Ors., v. State of Bihar, reported in 2002 CRL. L. J 3538,

(iv) State of Rajasthan vs. Wakteng, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2020.

7. Per contra, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate/Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, submits that the impugned conviction is based on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, whose presence in the place of occurrence cannot be doubted, and their evidence, being consistent, is of a reliable, trustworthy, and credible nature. She accordingly submits that the impugned judgment & sentence warrants no interference from this appellate court.

8. We have given our prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have carefully examined the material available on record. We have also considered the case laws cited at the bar.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpP16oSwcl2LOP%2BqEDrSpLY34CFr8QbER72%2B2e4ObtTWc&caseno=Crl.A./229/2023&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010139822023&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.