Smti Kunjalata Hazarika vs The State Of Assam
2021 Latest Caselaw 264 Gua

                                                                                           Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010224572014




                                THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                       Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./7/2014

             SMTI KUNJALATA HAZARIKA
             W/O SRI JOGEN HAZARIKA R/O VILL- NAVAPUR, CHAPAKHOWA, DIST.
             TINSUKIA, ASSAM.



             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM




Advocate for the Petitioner     : MR.A BORA

Advocate for the Respondent :




                                      BEFORE
                         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

                                                ORDER

Date : 28-01-2021

Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.BB Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 05-10-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Crl. A. 29(2)/2013. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge confirmed and upheld the conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the present petitioner u/s 384 of the IPC by Page No.# 2/3

the learned Judicial Magistrate in G.R. Case No. 35/2010.

3. The facts of the case in brief, which may be relevant for disposal of the revision is that the present petitioner demanded Rs. 2 lakhs from the informant under threat that unless Rs. 2 lakhs is paid, he would be picked up by the Army. Immediately the informant informed the Sadia Mahila Kalyan Manch about the said demand allegedly made by the petitioner. The said Mahila Kalyan Manch made an enquiry and found that the fact stated by the petitioner, for which the money was demanded was false. On 20-04-2010, when the petitioner came to the house of the informant to collect the money, he was apprehended and handed over to police. The FIR was lodged by Pradip Dutta (PW-1) on the basis of which, the police registered as case being Sadiya P.S. Case No. 23/2010. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner and eventually he stood convicted u/s 384 IPC and awarded sentence of imprisonment for 6 months by both the courts below.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients to constitute an offence u/s 384 IPC was totally absent and both the courts below failed to appreciate the fact that no ingredient of offence u/s 384 of the IPC has been established and wrongly convicted the appellant.

5. The informant was examined as PW-1, who deposed that on 19-04-2010, while he was going to school, the appellant met him on the way and told that one Monika Phukan has filed a complaint against him (the informant) before the army alleging that she became pregnant through the informant. The petitioner also told him, that he would try to save him demanded Rs. 2 lakhs to settle the dispute. The PW- 1 further deposed that he informed the matter to the Sadia Mahila Kalyan Manch and on enquiry, they found that the story narrated by the petitioner before the informant with regard to filing of complaint by Monika Phukan or she being pregnant was false. Later on, when the petitioner came to the house of the informant to collect the money, he was caught and handed over to police.

6. PW-2 deposed that the story disclosed by the petitioner that a complaint was lodged before the Army by Monika Phukan was false. The oral testimony of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 was also to the effect that on being informed by PW-1 about the matter, they enquired the matter and found that the entire story was false.

7. In order to constitute an offence u/s 384 IPC as defined by Section 383 IPC prosecution needs to prove the following ingredients :-

(i) accused put the informant/victim in fear of some injury to himself or to another.

(ii) Accused dishonestly induced the person put in fear to deliver to any person any property or any valuable security.

8. Therefore, to establish the charge u/s 384 IPC prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the Page No.# 3/3

accused put the person in fear of injury and delivery of property or valuable security by the person put in the fear of injury. Thus, in order to constitute an offence u/s 384 IPC, as defined in Section 383 IPC, the threat must produce the result meaning thereby that the person put in fear must deliver or part with the property or must be ready to yield to the pressure because of threat given to him.

9. From the allegation made in the FIR and the evidence adduced, it is apparent that no evidence was brought on record to show that the petitioner put the informant or any other person in fear of injury. In the instant case, evidently no property was delivered, nor the informant was ready to pay the money yielding to the fear of injury. In fact, the prosecution has also not been able to prove that the petitioner put the informant into fear of injury. It is a settled law that to establish any offence prosecution needs to prove all the ingredients of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. From the evidence brought on record, it is abundantly clear that the prosecution has not been able to prove the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence u/s 384 IPC, and as such, the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by both the courts below to the petitioner for the offence u/s 384 of the IPC appears to be illegal and is not sustainable.

10. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Crl. A. 29(2)/2013 is hereby set aside. The revision stands allowed.

11. Send down the record.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant