Skip to content


Rostam Ali and ors. Vs. State of Assam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 340 of 1974
Judge
Reported in1981Supp(1)SCC5602
AppellantRostam Ali and ors.
RespondentState of Assam
Excerpt:
- [ a.c. gupta and; o. chinnappa reddy, jj.] - criminal trial — benefit of doubt — presence and participation of accused, held on facts and in the circumstances, doubtful in view of non-mention of names of accused in fir and failure to attribute any overt act to the accused -- under sections 325/149 ipc — rigorous imprisonment for two years and also a fine of rs 100 each, in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment; and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently......rigorous imprisonment for two years and also a fine of rs 100 each, in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment; and4. under section 304 part ii read with section 149 ipc — rigorous imprisonment for five years and also a fine of rs 500 each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. it appears that only two out of the five appellants — mohinuddin and jaripullah sheikh — had been named in the fir. no overt act has been attributed to any of these five appellants. having considered facts and circumstances of the case we think that one can entertain a legitimate doubt about the presence and participation of these five accused in the occurrence. in our opinion the conviction of these.....
Judgment:

A.C. GUPTA, J.

1. The five appellants before us were tried and convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhubri along with 12 others and all of them were convicted and sentenced as follows:

1. Under Section 147 IPC — rigorous imprisonment for one year;

2. Under Section 447 IPC — rigorous imprisonment for two months;

3. Under Sections 325/149 IPC — rigorous imprisonment for two years and also a fine of Rs 100 each, in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment; and

4. Under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC — rigorous imprisonment for five years and also a fine of Rs 500 each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. It appears that only two out of the five appellants — Mohinuddin and Jaripullah Sheikh — had been named in the FIR. No overt act has been attributed to any of these five appellants. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case we think that one can entertain a legitimate doubt about the presence and participation of these five accused in the occurrence. In our opinion the conviction of these five appellants cannot be sustained. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and the sentences passed against them. Their bail bonds are discharged.


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