Taijuddin Ahmed @ Taizuddin vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3210 Gua

                                                                            Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010053942021




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

                                Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/184/2021

            .TAIJUDDIN AHMED @ TAIZUDDIN
            S/O- LATE KARIM FAKIR, VILL.- PACHIM BARBALA, P.S. AND DIST.-
            BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781316.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
            REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM

            2:MD. AFJAL HUSSAIN
             S/O- LATE ANUWAR HUSSAIN
            VILL.- PACHIM BARBALA
             P..S AND DIST.- BARPETA
            ASSAM- 781316

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR K BHUYAN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                  BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

                                          ORDER

Date : 30-11-2021 Suman Shyam, J

Heard Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the applicant. We have also heard Ms. B.

Page No.# 2/5

Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State.

By the impugned judgment and order dated 04-02-2021 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Barpeta in connection with Sessions Case No. 117/2014, the applicant,

viz. Taijuddin Ahmed, along with the other accused persons was convicted under Sections

302/ 149/ 325/ 323 IPC for committing the murder of the deceased Anowar Hussain and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine. Since then he is

in jail. Hence, this bail application.

In support of the prayer made in this I.A., Mr. Bhuyan has argued that the PW-1

has deposed that the applicant Taijuddin Ahmed was not present at the place of

occurrence when the incident took place. The PW-2, who had initially implicated the

applicant, had also admitted during his cross-examination that he had not seen the

occurrence. Contending that the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, besides

being full of contradictions, omissions, exaggeration, also did not specifically ascribe any

role to the accused persons. Save and except making a general statement that the

accused persons had assaulted the deceased with lathi, no particulars of the manner in

which the alleged assault took place has been furnished by any of the prosecution

witnesses.

In view of the above, submits Mr. Bhuyan having regard to the evidence of the

Doctor (PW-13) who had conducted the postmortem examination on the deceased and

has mentioned about only one injury in the head resulting to the death of the victim, the

conviction of the applicant with the aid of Section 149 IPC would not be sustainable in the

eye of law, more so, when there is no finding of the learned trial court as regards Page No.# 3/5

common object of unlawful assembly to cause death to the victim.

Opposing the said submission, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam has argued

that there is no dispute about the fact that the incident did take place on 09-11-2011

wherein the victim was attacked by an assembly of persons constituted by the accused

persons. There is evidence to show that the victim was assaulted by the accused persons

by means of stick, resulting into grievous injury on his head leading to his death. Ms.

Bhuyan further submits that since there are ocular evidence to show that the accused

persons had assaulted the victim, the evidence of the Doctor (PW-13) be appreciated and

understood in the light of the total evidence available on record, in which event, there

would be no scope to interfere with the conviction of the applicants. Ms. Bhuyan has also

relied on the evidence of the injured eye witnesses to submit that the assault made by

the accused persons upon the victim on the day of the occurrence is established beyond

doubt and therefore, there is no scope for the Court to take a lenient view as regards the

role played by the accused persons in this case.

In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, we

have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and find that the informant/ PW-1

had mentioned that the accused Abdul Mannan and Taizuddin were not present at the

place of occurrence. We also find that the PW-2, during his cross-examination, has stated

that he had not seen the occurrence and therefore, the evidence of this witness

implicating the accused persons during his examination-in-chief also does not inspire

confidence. Other prosecution witness had deposed that the accused persons had

assaulted the victim due to a quarrel which broke out on account of cutting of a Page No.# 4/5

sheesham tree. However, it prima facie appears that the prosecution witnesses did not

ascribe any specific role to the accused persons.

We also find that there are some contradictions in the testimony of some of the

prosecution witnesses. Whether those are material contradictions causing a dent in the

prosecution case, is a matter that can be gone into during the final hearing of the appeal.

However, having regard to the nature of evidence brought on record, more particularly,

the medical evidence of PW-13 which apparently indicates that there was single injury in

the head of the victim leading to his death, we are of the view that the applicant has

made out a strong prima facie case to consider his prayer for release on bail.

We, accordingly, direct that the applicant, viz. Taijuddin Ahmed @ Taizuddin be

released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 30,000/- and one surety of like amount to the

satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta.

We also make it clear that the applicant shall appear before the learned court

below every fortnightly and he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the District and Sessions

Judge, Barpeta, without prior permission.

Violation of the above conditions may lead to cancellation of the bail.

Before parting with the record, we make it clear that the observations made

hereinabove are for the limited purpose of disposing of this I.A. and the same shall not

have any bearing during the final hearing of the appeal on merit.

With the above observation, this bail application stands disposed of.

Page No.# 5/5

JUDGE JUDGE GS

Comparing Assistant