Skip to content


Abdul Sukkur and ors. Vs. State of Assam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Criminal
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantAbdul Sukkur and ors.
RespondentState of Assam
Prior history
Baharul Islam, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and order of conviction and sentences passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge No. L Cachar, Silchar, against the five appellants. This order, therefore, will dispose of both the appeals.
2. Appellants Abdul Sukkur, Nazafat Ah, Abdul Rezak and Nowab Ali were convicted under Section 395 read with S. 397 of the Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suff
Excerpt:
- - in the instant case the prosecution has failed to prove any of the above ingredients, no offence under section 412, penal code, has been made out against appellant, radharaman ghose......nazafat ah, abdul rezak and nowab ali were convicted under section 395 read with s. 397 of the penal code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each, and to pay a fine of rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more, each. appellant radharaman ghose was convicted under section 412 of the penal code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more,3. the prosecution case is that on 23-10-1970 at village alamkani a dacoity was committed in the house of one basir ali in the small hours of the morning between 2.30 to 3. tuta mia, p.w. 2, was sleeping during that night in the house of basir ali. some miscreants broke open the wall of the house.....
Judgment:

Baharul Islam, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and order of conviction and sentences passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge No. L Cachar, Silchar, against the five appellants. This order, therefore, will dispose of both the appeals.

2. Appellants Abdul Sukkur, Nazafat Ah, Abdul Rezak and Nowab Ali were convicted under Section 395 read with S. 397 of the Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more, each. Appellant Radharaman Ghose was convicted under Section 412 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more,

3. The prosecution case is that on 23-10-1970 at village Alamkani a dacoity was committed in the house of one Basir Ali in the small hours of the morning between 2.30 to 3. Tuta Mia, P.W. 2, was sleeping during that night in the house of Basir Ali. Some miscreants broke open the wall of the house and entered into it. Basir Ali and Tuta Mia woke up. Tuta Mia focussed his torch light and saw the appellants Abdul Sukkur, Rezak, Nazafat, Nowab and accused Panki and some other persons. The miscreants assaulted Basir Ali and Tuta Mia by daggers and iron rods, Both of them sustained injuries. They were also tied. Some property including a radio set were looted by the miscreants. After the departure of the miscreants Basir Ali and Tuta Mia raised an outcry whereupon their neighbours came to the place o{ occurrence. In the momine Amzol Hussain, P.W. 1, lodged the First Information Report. The two infured persons were sent to the hospital. After some days Basir Ali died, The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and some others. Accused Panki is alleged to have absconded.

Appellants Abdul Sukkur, Nazafat AH, Abdul Rezak and Nowab Ali were charged under Sections 395/397 of the Penal Code. Appellant Radharaman Ghose and three others were charged under Section 412 of the Penal Code,

4. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges.

5. For the conviction of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No, 3/74 the pro- secution relies on the evidence of P.W. 2, Tuta Mia who is alleged to be an eye witness of the occurrence and on the evidence of P.W. 1, Amzol Hussain, P.W. 3, Abdul Rouf and P.W. 4, Ayas Ali, who allegedly came to the' place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence, and to whom the names of the miscreants were allegedly reported.

6. The defence does not challenge that a dacoity was committed in the house of Haji Basir Ali, as alleged by the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 proves beyond reasonable doubt that a dacoity was committed in the house of Haji Basir Ali as alleged by the prosecution, The only challenge is with regard to the recognition of the miscreants. Their defence is that they were falsely implicated as there was rivalry between the family of Basir Ali and the family of the accused persons.

7. (After considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses his Lordship proceeded).

The guilt of the appellants Abdul Suk-kur, Nazafat Ali, Abdul Rezak and Nowab Ali has, therefore, not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to acquittal.

8. With regard to appellant Radha-raman Ghose in Criminal Appeal No. 12/74 the evidence is of P, W. 7 only. His evidence is that on getting a secret information he surrounded the house of appellant Radharaman Ghose in the night and in the morning of 6-11-1970, he recovered the radio (material Ext. 2). The appellant could not produce any license, on the other hand this radio (M. Ext. 2) has been proved to have belonged to Basir Ali. The explanation of the appellant was that the radio was taken to his house by accused Sonahor Ali who went to his house to bring some medicine. This explanation was rejected, and in our opinion correctly, by the Assistant Sessions Judge, For conviction under Section 412, Penal Code, the prosecution must prove (i) that the property in question is stolen property, (ii) that the accused dishonestly receives or retains it; and (iii) he knows or has reason to believe that its possession has been transferred by the commission of dacoity. In the instant case the prosecution has failed to prove any of the above ingredients, No offence under Section 412, Penal Code, has been made out against appellant, Radharaman Ghose.

9. In the result both the appeals are allowed and their convictions and sentences are set aside.

10. We have been told that appellant Radharaman Ghose is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. We are also told that appellants Abdul Sukkur, Nazafat Ali, Abdul Rezak and Nowab Ali are in jail. They shall be set at liberty forthwith.

11. The appeals are allowed.

Pathak, J.

12. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //