Gauhati High Court
Ayub Ali vs Sahar Ali Dewan And 4 Ors on 24 October, 2019
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010160852011
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A. 33/2011
1:AYUB ALI,
S/O LATE IBRAHIM ALI, R/O VILL. MOHAMMADPUR, P.S. BARPETA, DIST.
BARPETA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
1:SAHAR ALI DEWAN and 4 ORS,
S/O MUNNAF ALI.
2:SAH ALOM DEWAN
S/O MUNNAF ALI
3:MUNNAF ALI
SO LATE SAHABULLAH DEWAN
4:KAFIL UDDIN
S/O SATTAR ALI
5:SATTAR ALI
S/O LATE SAHABULLAH DEWAN
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL. NO. 7 MOHAMMADPUR
P.O. KADONG P.S. BARPETA
DIST. BARPETA ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.I A HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.J LASKAR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
Date : 24-10-2019
Page No.# 2/9
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Manish Choudhury, J Heard Mr. I.A. Hazarika, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal, initially filed as a Criminal Revision Petition and, later on, converted into an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), is against the judgment and order dated 12.10.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 49/2008, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who stood trial, from the charges framed under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The prosecution machinery was set into motion by a First Information report (FIR) lodged by one Md. Ayub Ali (PW-2) before the Officer In-charge, Barpeta Sadar Police Station on 01.02.2007, wherein, he had, inter-alia alleged that at around 11 AM on that day while his brother, Abdul Awal was returning from Kadong Bazar, 9 (nine) number of accused persons, named in the FIR, had killed his brother he was on his way to the market and out of them, the accused No. 1, Sahar Ali Dewan and the accused No. 2, Shah Alom stabbed his brother on his chest with daggers, which the accused persons had in their possession. The rest of the accused persons, as the informant alleged, had instigated them to assault his brother. The accused No. 7, Abul Hussain also kicked his brother on his chest. It was further alleged that due to such assault, his brother died immediately thereafter. On receipt of the said FIR, the Officer In-charge, Barpeta Sadar Police Station registered a case being Barpeta P.S. Case No. 90/2007 (corresponding GR Case No. 174/2007) under Section 147/341/302, IPC and entrusted the investigation of the case to one Sri Mrinal Kanti Das (PW-8).
4. During the course of investigation, PW-8, the Investigating Officer of the case visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses, held inquest on the dead Page No.# 3/9 body of the deceased and sent the dead body to hospital for conducting post-mortem examination. The statements of 4 (four) witnesses were also recorded under Section 164, CrPC. The Investigating Officer (IO) also sent a knife, seized during the course of investigation, for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati. On completion of investigation, the IO finding a prima facie case against 2 (two) accused persons viz. Sahar Ali Dewwan and Shah Alom Dewan under Section 302/34, IPC submitted a charge sheet against them.
5. On submission of the charge sheet in GR Case No. 174/2007, the appearances of the 2 (two) accused persons were caused before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Barpeta. The Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Barpeta after compliance of the procedure under Section 207, CrPC, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Barpeta finding the case to be a Sessions triable one. On receipt of the case records of GR Case No. 174/2007, Sessions Case No. 49/2008 was registered by the Court of Sessions. On appearance of the afore-mentioned 2 (two) accused persons before the Court of Sessions, learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties, framed charges against the said 2 (two) accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC. When the charges so framed, were read over and explained to the said 2 (two) accused persons, they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of trial and in course of recording of evidence of the informant (PW-
2), the learned trial court was of the opinion that 4 (four) other accused persons viz. (i) Munnaf Ali, (ii) Kafil Uddin, (iii) Abul Hussain and (iv) Sattar Ali were also involved in the occurrence of alleged murder of the deceased Abdul Awal. Invoking the powers under Section 319, CrPC, learned Sessions Court also arraigned those 4 (four) persons as accused in the case, Session Case No. 49/2008 to face trial. After hearing the sides and on perusal of the records, charge of similar nature as framed against the originally arraigned 2 (two) accused persons, were also framed against those newly arraigned 4 (four) accused persons and when the charges were read over and explained, they also pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial of the said case proceeded. During the course of trial, the prosecution side examined 8 (eight) number of witnesses viz. (1) Dr. N.N. Sarma, (2) Md. Ayub Ali, (3) Golap Hussain, (4) Abdul Ali, (5) Mohammad Ali, (6) Abu Bakkar Siddique, (7) Md. Lal Mia and (8) Shri Mrinal Kanti Das and exhibited 5 (five) documents, viz. Ext.1:- Post Mortem Page No.# 4/9 Report, Ext.2:- FIR, Ext.3:- Statement, Ext.4:- Charge Sheet and Ext. 5:- Sketch Map.
7. After closure of evidence of the prosecution side, the accused persons were examined under Section 313, CrPC. The defence side, however, adduced no evidence. On completion of the trial, learned trial Court was of the opinion that the prosecution had failed in its duty to prove the charges against the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC and consequently, they were acquitted and set at liberty by the judgment and order dated 12.10.2010, which is impugned in the present appeal.
8. Mr. I.A. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the chain of circumstances appearing from the evidence on record had pointed to the guilt of the respondents and the learned trial Court had erred in holding that there was failure on the part of the prosecution to bring home the charge of murder against the respondents. The learned trial Court did not consider, he submits, the evidence led by the prosecution in the correct perspective despite the fact that the prosecution witnesses were very much present nearby the place of alleged occurrence. No importance was attached to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, recorded under Section 164, CrPC. As a result, miscarriage of justice has occasioned thereby and therefore, this Court in exercise of appellate power should reverse the finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction.
9. Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., has fairly submitted that there was no error on the part of the learned trial court in appreciation of the evidence on record. The evidence on record, she has submitted, does not conclusively show that the accused persons who stood the trial, had committed the crime, which resulted into the death of the deceased.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record available in the case records of Sessions Case No. 49/2008, in original.
11. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it is apt to examine the evidence advanced by the prosecution witnesses during trial.
Page No.# 5/9
12. PW-1, Dr. Nabanindra Nath Sarma, when he was serving as Sub-Divisional Medical & Health Officer (SDM&HO) in Barpeta Civil Hospital, on 02.07.2007, conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Abdul Awal. On such examination, he found the following injuries and opinion as under:-
"Wounds:
(1) One incised wound 2" X 1" X 3" (length X Breadth X Depth) on right side of chest 1" away from right shoulder joint with profuse ante-mortem bleeding and damage of 3rd, 4th and 5th costal ribs, right lung damaged. (2) One incised superficial wound 1 ½" in length on left chest.
All injuries are ante-mortem in nature.
Opinion:
In my opinion the death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injury with sharp weapon."
13. PW-2, the informant, deposed that he knew the accused persons. On the alleged date of occurrence, at about 11.30 AM, he received an information that there was a fight at Kadong Bazar. Having received the information, he went there and found his brother lying dead with bleeding injuries on his right below collar bone and on left cheek. When he asked the persons present in the market at that time, he was informed that Sahar Ali, Saha Alam, Sattar Ali, Munnaf Ali, Kafil Ali, Abul Hussain and three other persons, whose names he could not recollect, assaulted his brother and killed him. He said to have lodged the FIR before the police station accordingly. In his cross-examination, he stated that the ejahar was written by one scribe as per his instruction. He admitted that he did not mention the source of his information from whom and where he got the names of the accused persons. He also admitted that he did not name them when his statement was recorded by the IO (PW 8). He further deposed that he heard about the assailants from the witnesses, namely, Abdul, Golap, Mohammad Ali, Bakkar, etc. He clearly admitted that he did not see the occurrence himself and for that reason, he could not say who assaulted whom. He stated that the alleged date of occurrence was a market day and for that reason, there were many shops in the market and there were Page No.# 6/9 many people present at the place of occurrence, which is located in the market itself.
14. PW-3 is a shop owner at Kadong Bazar. On the date of occurrence, he was in his shop. At about 11.30 AM, he heard that some altercation had taken place between the accused persons and the deceased. At that time, there were few hundred people present in the market. When he proceeded towards the spot, he found the dead body of Abdul Awal lying there with injuries on his person. He stated that he was not aware who had caused the injuries and how the injury was sustained by the deceased. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not narrate the story regarding occurrence to any other person. At the time of occurrence, he was inside his shop and because of that reason, he did not see the occurrence. As regards the statement recorded before the Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, he stated that the IO instructed him to say about the occurrence in that manner and to mention the names of the accused persons, as had been tutored by the Investigating Officer.
15. PW-4 is an owner of a tea stall located at Kadong Bazar. He deposed that on hearing hue and cry inside the market, he came out of his tea stall and found many people gathered at the place of occurrence where the dead body of Abdul Awal was lying on the ground with blood stains. He stated that his statement was recorded before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate and he exhibited the same as Ext.3. During cross-examination, this witness had stated that he did not see the occurrence. He further stated that he did not state anything about the incident to any other person. What he had stated in the statement recorded before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta was as per instruction of the IO and he took the names of the persons in the said statement, as he was threatened to do the same.
16. PW-5, like PW-3 and PW-4, is also a shop owner at the same market. He deposed that the occurrence took place at 11 AM and at that time, he was not in the market, but on his return, he saw a huge gathering in the market and he went to the spot and he saw the dead body of the deceased Abdul Awal. In his cross examination, PW-5 clearly admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the occurrence.
17. PW-6 is another owner of shop located at Kadong Bazar. About the alleged incident, he Page No.# 7/9 deposed that at about 10.30 AM while he was sitting inside his shop, he saw the deceased Abdul Awal running from the northern side of the market with injuries on his person and knife in his hand. Abdul Awal entered into his shop and immediately thereafter, he breathed his last. Thereafter, many people assembled at his shop. Police after arriving there, took the dead body. This witness also, in his cross-examination, admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the occurrence. He further stated that he did not meet the informant after the occurrence. He stated that the deceased was involved in many dacoity cases including in 2/3 cases of theft committed at Kadong Bazar.
18. PW-7 was only an witness to the dead body of Abdul Awal lying in the market. He had neither seen the occurrence nor had any knowledge as to the occurrence.
19. PW-8, the IO of the case, apart from describing the steps he had taken during his investigation, had stated that the place of occurrence was on the PWD road at Kadong Bazar and the same was surrounded by shops which were near about 100.
20. The learned trial Court after having appreciated the evidence advanced by prosecution side, had reached the finding that there was not enough evidence so as to implicate the accused persons, who stood trial with the charge of murdering the deceased. From the testimony of PW-1 and the post-mortem examination report (Ext.1) wherein it was opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injury inflicted by a sharp weapon, it is established that the death of the deceased Abdul Awal was a homicidal death. Whether such homicidal death of the deceased was due to any over act of the accused persons or not is to be established by prosecution by way of cogent and reliable evidence. Having examined the testimony of the informant, PW-1, it is found that he had implicated 9 (nine) number of accused persons in the FIR on the basis of information he received from the people who had gathered in the market after the death of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he went on to state that he heard about the same from Abdul (PW-4), Golap (PW-3), Mohammed Ali (PW-5) and Bakkar (PW-6), but PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 & PW-6 had, in their testimony, categorically stated that they did not inform anybody regarding the incident and also regarding the assailants. Apparently, there is no eye-witness account in the present Page No.# 8/9 case as none of the witnesses had stated that they had witnessed the incident of assault on Abdul Awal. Apart from witnessing the dead body of Abdul Awal lying inside the market area during day time on a busy market day where a large number of people gathered, none of the witnesses had stated anything as to how the deceased had sustained the injury, which resulted into his homicidal death. Thus, we do not concur with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court did not assess the evidence of the prosecution side in correct perspective. On perusal of the judgment and order impugned here, we found that the learned trial court had discussed the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and no relevant evidence was omitted from discussion.
21. In a matter of an appeal against acquittal, the Apex Court in the case of Gorle S. Naidu Vs. State of A.P., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 449 has observed as under:
"There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference."
22. In the light of the principles laid down in Gorle S. Naidu (supra) and in order to find out as to whether any miscarriage of justice had occasioned due to non-consideration of any relevant evidence and consideration of irrelevant materials, we once again re-visited the evidence available on record and we are persuaded to hold that the learned trial court did not commit error of any kind in reaching the finding of acquittal against the respondents arrayed Page No.# 9/9 herein. Thus, we do not find any reason, much less any good and sufficient reason, to differ with the view arrived at by the learned Trial Court regarding acquittal of the respondents. As a consequence of our above observation, we find that this appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
23. Send down the LCR.
JUDGE JUDGE Mkk Comparing Assistant