Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 18 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010192982013
2025:GAU-AS:13390
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./187/2013
JAMELA KHATOON
W/O HANIFUDDIN, R/O VILL. KURSAKATI, P.S. LAKHIPUR, P.O. AOLATOLI,
DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
2:MONIR UDDIN @ MONIR UDDAIN SK
S/O LATE JONAB ALI
R/O VILL. PUB SIMULBARI
P.O. AOLATOLI
P.S. LAKHIPUR
PIN CODE 783129
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
3:GOLAP ALI
S/O LATE ABDUR RAHMAN
R/O VILL. PUB SIMULBARI
P.O. AOLATOLI
P.S. LAKHIPUR
PIN CODE 783129
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM.
4:NURUL AMIN
S/O LATE AZAHAR ALI
Page No.# 2/7
R/O VILL. KHONAR PUBPAR
P.O. AOLATOLI
P.S. BAGUAN
PIN CODE 783129
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM.
5:HABEJ ALI
S/O LATE KAILA BEPARI
R/O VILL. MADHYA SIMULBARI
P.O. ALLATOLI
P.S LAKHIPUR
PIN CODE 783129
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM.
6:SORHAB ALI
R/O VILL. KHONAR PUB PAR
PO. AOLATOLI
P.S. BAGUAN
PIN CODE 783129
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S RAHMAN, MR.B CHOUDHURY,MR.S C BISWAS,MR.S H
SIKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.H DAS, ,PP, ASSAM,MR.H GOGOI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
18/09/2025 Heard Mr. S C Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.
2. The appellant, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has assailed the judgment and order dated 12.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Page No.# 3/7 Goalpara, in Sessions Case No. 177/2011, praying for interference with the sentencing of the accused persons, therein and imposition upon them of adequate compensation.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 07.03.2010 at about 8:30 AM, a group of 50-60 miscreants had damaged and destroyed two houses, club house, plants and trees, standing on a plot of land covered by Dag No. 39 (old) and 33/7 (new) under the possession of the informant for more than a decade, situated at Kursakati Bazar.
It was alleged in the FIR that the assailants were armed with lathi, jong, dao, pistol etc. and they had attacked the informant with dao and had caused injury to her. It was further alleged that the miscreants had also damaged the house of the informant and looted Rs.28,000/-, in cash, along with ornaments, educational testimonials, by breaking the box. It was further alleged that on being prevented by the members of the club, the miscreants had threatened to shoot them. It was also alleged that the miscreants had also tried to outrage her modesty and that after injuring the informant, the miscreants had set the house on fire after tying the informant.
On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 48/2010 came to be registered against the accused persons under Sections 147/148/149/447/427/380/506/354/511/342/456 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, police laid a charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 147/148/149/447/427/380/506/354/511/342/436 IPC.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara on taking cognizance of the matter, transferred the case to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara for trial. On appearance of the accused persons, the case after complying with the statutory provisions came to be committed to the Court of Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Goalpara for trial, as offence under Section 436 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Goalpara, on receipt of the records transferred the case to the then Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Goalpara for disposal.
The learned Trial Court framed a charge under Sections 147/148/149/447/436/395 IPC against the accused persons. The charges being read over and explained to the accused persons, they having pleaded not guilty, a trial ensued.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses including the informant and Page No.# 4/7 the I/O of the case. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased to convict the accused persons under Sections 148/149/436/395 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days for committing offence under Section 447 IPC; to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) each, in default, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for another period of 1 (one) month for committing the offence under Section 147 IPC.
The appellant, herein, as informant, being aggrieved by the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court upon the accused persons, had instituted the present proceeding assailing the same.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
5. This Court has meticulously perused the evidences coming on record during the trial.
6. On perusal of the said evidences, this Court had examined the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court in the matter. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions:-
"52. Thus, it is clear from the above discussion and evidence on record that accused persons entered into the house of informant and remained there unlawfully to damage the house or to cause annoy, intimidate the informant which amounts to committing an offence punishable u/s 447 IPC.
53. Now as regards charge of dacoity, which is punishable u/s 395 of IPC it is seen that there is no iota of any evidence to hold that the accused persons committed dacoity in the house of informant on the date of alleged incident.
54. In this regard, evidence of informant (P/W-1) shows that 50-60 persons entered into her house and took away her belongings including cash, ornaments, educational testimonials etc. However, there is no evidence of prosecution side that it was accused persons who took away the belonging of the P/W-1. The incident took place in the broad day light and it is very unlikely that accused persons, some of whom, who are office Page No.# 5/7 bearer of Kursikata bazaar Samity will commit dacoity in front of large gathering of people. It might happened that out of those 50-60 persons the belongings of informant might have been taken out by some of them.
55. But in absence of any specific evidence it cannot be held with certainity that accused looted the belongings of informant and no wonder for this reason police could not recover any looted articles from the possession of accused persons during investigation.
56. Hence, I hold that prosecution side had not been able to prove the charge of offence u/s 395 IPC against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
57. It is pertinent to mention here that accused persons at the time of recording their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. also stated that as dispute is pending with the family members of informant so only for this reason informant had lodged a false case against them
58. However, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, as said above and as per discussion, made herein above I hold that prosecution had been able to prove the presence of accused persons in the mob constituting an unlawful assembly, the object of which was to damage the house of informant and they made criminal trespassed into the house of informant/victim to commit an offence, as said above.
59. I, further hold that guilt of the accused for committing offence u/s 147/447 IPC has been proved by the prosecution side, beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the fact that there are some minor contradiction in the evidence of witnesses, which in my considered opinion do not affect the merit of the case.
60. In the light of the evidence on record, it is seen that though the prosecution could not prove the charge u/s 148/149/436/395 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused persons. But at the same time, prosecution side has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused on the day of incident entered into the house of informant/victim and were members of an unlawful assembly, as said above, and thereby liable for committing an offence u/s 447/147 IPC.
61. Thus, I hold that the prosecution side has been able to prove the charge u/s 147/447 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accused are not found guilty for committing offence u/s Page No.# 6/7 148/149/436/395 IPC, as stated herein above, and accused are discharged from those charges."
7. On drawing the said conclusions and after hearing the accused on the point of sentence, the learned Trial Court passed the following order:-
"64. Considering the entire circumstances, accused are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo S.I. for 15 (fifteen) days for committing offence u/s 447 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to further undergo S.I. for another period of 1 (one) month for committing offence u/s 147 IPC, which in my consider opinion shall meet the ends of justice. Both the sentence shall run concurrently.
The fine amount, if so realized, be paid to informant immediately, as provided u/s 357 Cr.P.C."
8. On a perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court for the purpose of convicting the accused under Sections 147/447 IPC, this Court finds that the same to be supported by the materials coming on record. No infirmity has been found with regard to the said conclusions drawn in the matter by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court had on convicting the accused under Sections 147/447 IPC passed an order of sentence, as noticed hereinabove.
9. Section 147 IPC mandates that whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
10. The provisions of Section 147 IPC having mandated imposition of penalty or fine or with both, this Court does not find any error, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the learned Trial Court imposing the penalty of fine only upon the accused, herein. The said sentencing being a discretion and also being found to be adequate on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the sentencing of the accused, herein, under Section 147 IPC would not call for any interference.
11. Section 447 IPC provides for Punishment for criminal trespass. The provisions of Section 447 IPC mandates that whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment Page No.# 7/7 of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
12. An alternative punishment having been provided for commission of the offence under Section 447 IPC, this Court is of the considered view that sentencing of the accused by the learned Trial Court to payment of fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred), corresponds to the punishment as set out in the provisions of Section 447 IPC. The sentencing is also found to be adequate, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. The present appeal instituted by the appellant being only with regard to the adequacy of the sentencing passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court having found that the sentence as passed to be adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case and to have met the ends of justice, this Court is of the considered view that the same would not mandate any interference. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
14. Registry to send down the Trial Court Records to the learned Trial Court forthwith.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant