Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/36 vs The State Of Assam on 24 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/36
GAHC010031002009
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./16/2009
MD. MUBSESWAR ALI SHEIK @ MUBOI and ORS
S/O LATE KOTOI MIA.
2: MD. WATIR ALI @ ATU
S/O LATE JAHIR ALI BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE LAHAMALI UNDER
KATIGORA POLICE STATION IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR
ASSAM.
3: MD. NUMANUDDIN
S/O LATE DULU MIA.
4: MD. ABDUL MONAF @ MONAF
S/O LATE ASAID ALI BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE JAGADISHPUR
PART-V UNDER KATIGORA POLICE STATION IN THE DISTRICT OF
CACHAR
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J M CHOUDHURY, MR.U CHOUDHURY,MR.B M
CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ,
Page No.# 2/36
Linked Case : Crl.Rev.P./101/2009
MUSSTT. KULSUMA BIBI
W/O MD FOIZUL HOQUE R/O VILL- LAHMALI
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
2:IMAD UDDIN BARBHUIYA @ LECHU MASTER
S/O LT. MUHIB ALI R/O NIJ KATIGORAH PT-III
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
3:MAKLISUR RAHMAN 2
S/O LT. MUHIB ALI R/O JAGADISHPUR PT-V
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
4:BULUR UDDIN
S/O LT. MAJAR ALI R/O JAGADISHPUR PT.-V
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
5:ABDUL MALIK
S/O LT. IRFAN ALI R/O JAGADISHPUR PT.V
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
6:SALEK UDDIN
S/O LT. HAKAI SHAIKH R/O LAHMALI
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
7:ALEK UDDIN
S/O LT. FAJAL SHAIKH
Page No.# 3/36
R/O LAHMALI
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
8:EKLASH UDDIN
S/O LT. RIASAD ALI
R/O JAGADISHPUR PT.-III
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
9:AZIR UDDIN
S/O LT. RIASAD ALI
R/O JAGADISHPUR PT.-III
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
10:ANOWAR UDDIN
S/O MD SIRAJ UDDIN R/O JAGADISHPUR PT.-III
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
11:RAIOB ALI
S/O LT. KALU MIA R/O VILL- LAHMALI
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
12:MAKLISUR RAHMAN I
S/O LT. RIASAD ALI
R/O JAGADISHPUR PT.-III
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
13:TAMIZ UDDIN
S/O LT. RIASAD ALI
R/O JAGADISHPUR PT.-III
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
14:AMIR ALI
S/O LT. DULU MIA
R/O VILL- JAGADISHPUR PT.V P.S. KATIGORAH
Page No.# 4/36
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR.A K GOSWAMI
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
Linked Case : Crl.A./79/2009
THE STATE OF ASSAM
VERSUS
IMAD UDDIN @ LACHU MASTER and ORS.
S/O LT. MAYAB ALI VILL. KATIGORAH PART-3 P.O. LATHIMARA P.S.
KATIGORAH DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
2:ABDUL MALIK
S/O LT. IRFAN ALI VILL. JAGADISHPUR PART-5
P.O. JAGADISHPUR
P.S. KATIGORHA
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
3:MAKLISHUR RAHMAN
S/O LT. MAYAB ALI VILL. JAGADISHPUR PART-5
P.O. JAGADISHPUR
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
4:BULUR UDDIN
S/O LT. MAJOR ALI VILL. JAGADISHPUR PT. 3
P.O. JAGADISHPUR
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
5:EKLAS UDDIN
S/IO LT. RIASAD ALI VILL. JAGADISHPUR PT. 3
P.O. JAGADISHPUR
Page No.# 5/36
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
6:MAKLISUR RAHMAN @ MAKLISH UDDIN
S/O LT. RIASOD ALI
VILL. JAGADISHPURK PT. 3
P.O. JAGADISHPUR
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
7:AZIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA
S/O LT. RIASOD ALI VILL. JAGADISHPUR PT.3
P.O. JAGADISHPUR
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
8:TAMIZ UDDIN
S/O LT. RIASOD ALI VILL. JAGADISHPURK PT. 3
P.O. JAGADISHPUR
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
9:AMIR ALI
S/O LT. DULU MIA VILL. JAGADISHPUR PT.5
P.O. JAGADISHPUR
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
10:SALEK UDDIN SHEIKH
S/O LT. HAKAI SHEIKH VILL. LAHAMALI P.O. LATHIMARA
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR ASSAM.
11:RIYOB ALI RAIYOB UDDIN
S/O LT. KALUSHEIKH
VILL. LAHAMALI P.O. LATHIMARA
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CAHCAR
Page No.# 6/36
ASSAM.
12:ALEK UDDIN SHEIKH
S/O LT. FAJAL SHEIKH VILL. LAHAMALI P.O. LATHIMARA
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
13:ANWAR UDDIN BARBHUIYA
S/O MD. SIRAJ UDDIN VILL. JAGADISHPURK PT.3
P.O. JAGADISHPUR
P.S. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM
Advocate for : MR.U CHOUDHURY appearing for IMAD UDDIN @ LACHU
MASTER and ORS.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Appellant :Mr. B. M. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A. M. Bora, Sr. Advocate.
Assisted by Mr. V. A. Choudhury, Advocate.
Mr. P. Borthakur, Additional PP, Assam
Date of Hearing : 06.12.2022, 26.06.2025
Date of Judgement : 24.07.2025
JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V. A.
Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent in Crl.A./79/2009; Mr. B. M.
Choudhury, learned Counsel for the appellant in Crl.A./16/2009; Ms. B. Sarma,
Page No.# 7/36
learned Counsel for the petitioner/informant in Crl.Rev.P./101/2009 and Mr. P.
Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. These three revision/appeals are taken up together as the challenge
made in this revision and the appeals are the same Judgment and Order
dated 28.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 118/06 (GR Case No.
674/04).
3. By the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2009, the
appellants namely, Md. Mubseswar Ali Sheikh @ Muboi, Md. Watir Ali @
Atu, Md. Numanuddin and Md. Abdul Monaf @ Monaf, were convicted
under Sections 147/436/149 of the IPC and they were sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year under Section 147 of IPC
and Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (five) years under Sections 436/149 IPC
and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) each only and in
default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for another 6 (six)
months. The sentences were to run concurrently.
4. The four persons acquitted by the learned trial Court who are, Eklash
Uddin (respondent No.8), Azir Uddin (respondent No. 9), Bulur Uddin
(respondent No. 4) and Amir Ali (respondent No. 14), in Crl.Rev.P No.
101/2009 has in the meantime expired and therefore, the revision as well
as State appeal is abated against them.
5. The prosecution was launched on the basis of an FIR by one Musstt.
Kulsuma Bibi (petitioner in Crl.Rev.P./101/2009) on 16.03.2004 before the
Katigorah police station, inter-alia, alleging that on 16.03.2004 at about
09:00 AM, the accused named in the FIR armed with deadly weapons
Page No.# 8/36
forming an unlawful assembly forcefully entered into the house of the
informant and thereafter, they sprinkled kerosene oil and petrol over the
residential house. Accused No. 10 namely, Atu @ Watir Ali set her house
on fire. It was further alleged that when her daughter in law Hayaton
Nessa resisted, the accused No. 3, namely Tamiz Uddin, grievously injured
her with the rod in his hand. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Katigorah
Police Station Case No. 108/04 under Section 147/149/447/436/325 of IPC
was registered.
6. The investigating officer thereafter, started the investigation and
after completion of the investigation, laid charge sheet being CS No. 185
dated 29.07.2005 against 13 accused persons.
7. Initially, the charges were framed by the learned trial Court below
under Section 147/149/436 of IPC. However, it is to be noted herein that
subsequently, the charges framed were amended and additionally, charges
under Section 323 of IPC was added. The appellants did not plead guilty
and accordingly trial was comments.
8. The learned trial Court below subsequently, added 4 (four) more
accused persons in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Thus, total
17 (seventeen) accused persons were tried. Out of 17 (seventeen)
accused, the appellants in Crl.A.No. 16/2009 as recorded hereinabove
were only convicted and the rest of the accused persons were acquitted
from the charges. Being aggrieved by such acquittal, the State has
preferred the connected Crl.A. No. 79/2009 and the informant Musstt.
Kulsuma Bibi preferred the connected Crl.Rev.Petition No. 101/2009 and
accordingly, all three petitions were taken up together for final disposal.
Page No.# 9/36
9. To bring whom the charges against the appellant, the prosecution
examined as many as 9 witnesses. The accused were examined under the
provision of Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The defence also laid evidence of 8
witnesses and thereafter the learned trial court below convicted the
appellants in Crl.A. No. 16/2009 and acquitted the appellants/respondent
in Crl.A.No.79/2009 and Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 101/2009 and sentenced them as
discussed hereinabove.
10. Before having the determination, let this court first examine the
depositions of the PWs.
I. PW1, Musstt. Kulsuna Bibi was the informant. During
her first examination, she deposed that the accused namely Lechu
Master, Maklis, Abdul Malik, Bulur, Tomiz, Maklis, Eklas, Azir, Anwar,
Monaf, Amir, Numan, Atu @ Watir, Salek, Alek, Rayob and others
came from the house of the Lechu Master having dao, rod and
kerosene etc. in their hands and at the direction of Lechu Master,
said accused persons set fire the dwelling house of the informant
and according to her, accused Monaf sprinkled kerosene oil and
accused Atu @ Watir set fire to her house. She further deposed
that the accused Salek, Alek and all other accused persons also
participated in setting fire. According to her, her house was
completely gutted along with paddy, wooden almirahs, CI Sheets
and gold ornaments. According to her, her daughter in law
Hawarun Nessa (PW-4) was assaulted by accused Tomiz, Azizul,
Khalilur Rahman, Adbur Rahman, Alim Uddin, Foizul. According to
her the accused Tomiz, Azizul, Khalilur Rahman, Adbur Rahman,
Alim Uddin, Foizul tried to extinguish the fire but the accused
Page No.# 10/36
persons obstructed to it.
During her cross-examination, she deposed that she could not say
what was written in the FIR.
She denied the suggestion of the prosecution that she has not
stated before the police as regards involvement of accused Maklis,
Eklas, Azir, Anwar, Monaf, Amir, Numan etc. She further denied the
suggestion that she had not stated before the police as regards
instigation of Lechu Master. She also denied the suggestion of the
defence that she did not state before the police that Monaf
sprinkled kerosene in the house.
In her cross-examination, she stated that somebody amongst the
group had set the house on fire. She further deposed during cross-
examination that she could not identify who set the house on fire.
She also denied the suggestion of the defence that she did not
state before the police as regards her daughter in law being
assaulted by Tamiz. During cross-examination, she also admitted
that a litigation is pending before the learned Sessions Court
wherein her son is an accused and the said case was lodged with
an allegation of beating Aklasuddin and his brother Aklesuddin.
She denied the suggestion that accused Amiruddin was implicated
in the case for the reason that he was a witnessed against the son
of the informant in the aforesaid Sessions case pending. She denied
the suggestion of approaching for compromise with Aklasuddin as
regards Sessions case pending against her son. She denied the
suggestion of the defence that accused Aklasuddin, Moklisur, Tamiz
Page No.# 11/36
and Ajiruddin were not present at the place of occurrence rather
they were present in Silchar Medical College and Hospital. During
her cross-examination she admitted that as many as 44 Nos. of
cases were pending against her husband in different Court's in
Silchar. She denied the suggestion that the prosecution case is false
and that accused were wrongly been implicated in the case.
The said PW-1 was again re-examined and during her re-
examination deposed that accused Imad Uddin @ Lechu Master
ordered the other accused persons to set fire to her dwelling house.
The accused Abdul Malik set fire on the hay stack. She further
deposed that the accused Bulur @ Aklis and Lechu Master
assaulted her daughter in law Rejia and Hawarun Nessa with rod.
She further deposed that all the accused persons were came in a
mass and set fire.
During her cross-examination after re-examination, she deposed
that the accused Maklisur Rahman was a Rly employee and he has
been living in the Rly quarter at Badarpur and accused Abdul Malik
was a teacher and served in the same School with accused Imad
Uddin and accused Bulur is a GP member. She stated that she was
unaware of any pending litigation between her husband and
accused Ilias Ali where accused Imad Uddin was an accused. She
denied the suggestion that she did not state before the police that
the accused Abdul Malik set fire on the hay stack. She denied the
suggestion that the accused Bulur and Malik did not assault her two
daughters in law. She also denied the suggestion that she did not
state before the police that all the four accused persons namely
Page No.# 12/36
Imad Uddin, Mukbeswar Rahman, Bulur Uddin and Abdul Malik
assaulted her daughter in law.
The prosecution examined PW-3 and PW-4 as eye witnesses and
therefore, let us first consider the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4.
II. PW3 Rejia Begum is the daughter in law of the PW-1.
During her examination in chief, she deposed that, the accused
persons namely, Imad Uddin @ Lechu Master and his brother
Maklis, Abdul Malik, Monaf, Bulur, Maklis, Eklas, Tomij, Ajir, Numan,
Amir, Anward, Atu, Salek, Alek, Muboi and Rayab came to their
house with rod etc. along the kerosene oil. Accused Imad Uddin,
according to her ordered to sprinkle the petrol and kerosene in their
dwelling house. She deposed that the accused Monaf and Numan
climbed on the roof of the house and sprinkled kerosene and petrol
then, accused Atu, Moboi and Salek also sprinkled kerosene oil and
set fire in the house. All other accused also took part in setting fire.
She also deposed that the house was completely gutted with
paddy, cash money, land documents etc. According to her,
accused Tamiz assaulted PW-4 Hawarun Nessa on her head
and she sustained injury. According to her, accused Moboi also
assaulted her causing fracture on her hands and fingers. According
to her, after hearing the hue and cry, their sons namely Khalil, Alim,
Abdur Rahim, Asan and Sirai came to the place of occurrence and
rescued them. She deposed that due to the mischief, police came
to the place of occurrence and thereafter they took them to Kalain
CGC for treatment and thereafter, referred to Silchar Medical
Page No.# 13/36
College Hospital for better treatment.
During cross-examination, she deposed that on the date of
occurrence, none except the accused came to their house. She
denied the suggestion that she did not sate before the police about
the names of 17 accused persons. She further denied the
suggestion that she did not state before the police that Sirai, Khalil,
Alim and Asan came to the place of occurrence on hearing their
hulla. She denied the suggestion that she did not state before the
police that accused Numan and Monaf climbed over the roof and
sprinkled kerosene oil. She denied the suggestion that a sessions
case was pending against her husband for cutting off the hand of
Ilias Uddin. She further denied the suggestion that accused Eklas
Uddin filed the FIR against her husband. She denied the suggestion
that she did state earlier that about 400/500 villagers gathered at
the place of occurrence and she could not say out of them who had
set fire.
This PW-3 was also re-cross examined after the accused Imad
Uddin, Bulur, Maklis and Abdul Malik were brought to trial in
exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
During her re-examination she deposed that the accused Abdul
Malik set fire to their hay stack. Accused Maklis and Bulur sprinkled
petrol to their house and thereafter set fire and accused Maklis and
Bulur assaulted her and torn out her wearing saree.
During her cross-examination, she deposed that she did not state
before the police as regards implicating accused Imad Uddin, Abdul
Page No.# 14/36
Malik and Bulur at any state.
III. PW4, Hawarun Nessa is another daughter in law of PW-
1 informant. During her examination, she deposed that accused
namely Emad Uddin and his brother Maklis, Abdul Malik, Bulur,
Monaf, Tomij, Anwar, Eklas and his brother Maklis, Ajir Atu @ Watir
Ali, Muboi, Salek, Alek, Rayab, Amir and Numan having dao, lathi,
rod, gallon came to their house. According to her, accused Emad
Uddin ordered the accused persons to set fire to their dwelling
house. According to her, accused Moboi, Salek, Monaf and Numan
sprinkled petrol and the remaining persons set fire to their house.
She also deposed that Tamij assaulted on her head causing injures.
She also deposed that the accused Moboi also assaulted her
causing fracture in hand.
During cross-examination, she deposed that except seventeen
accused persons and four witnesses, none of the villagers came to
their house at the time of occurrence. She deposed that there were
many people living in their village but she could not say the exact
number of families. According to her, police brought her along with
Kulsuma, Rejia and Sajna Begum. Police dropped her in her father's
house and the others were also dropped at their father's houses.
She denied the suggestion that, she did not state before the police
that four women were present in the house at the time of the
alleged occurrence. She denied the suggestion that she did not
state before the police that Emad, Maklis, Abdul Malik, Bulur,
Monaf, Tomij, Anowar, Eklas, Ajir, Atu @ Watir Ali, Moboi, Salek,
Page No.# 15/36
Alek, Rayab, Amir Numan entered into their house with dao lathi
rod and gallon, accused Atu, Moboi, and Salek had sprinkled petrol
to their house. She denied the suggestion that she did not state
before the police that other accused persons set fire to their house
after sprinkling oil. She also denied the suggestion that she did not
state before the police that accused Moboi assaulted her causing
fracture in her hand. Khalil, abdur Rahman and other two witnesses
came to the place of occurrence about ½ to 1 hour of the
occurrence. She further denied the suggestion that a criminal case
is going on against the elder brother of her husband and her father
in law for severing the hand of Ilias Uddin. She denied the
suggestion that she did not state before the police that all the
accused persons came to their house with dao, lathi, rod and
gallon. She denied the suggestion that she did not state before the
police that Emad Uddin ordered the accused persons to set fire to
their house. She denied the suggestion that accused Tomij did not
assault her on the head with rod and Moboi by bamboo stick
causing fracture in her hand.
During her re-examination, she deposed that accused Imad Uddin
ordered to sprinkle petrol around their dwelling house and to set
fire. Accused Bulur and Maklis set fire accordingly. Accused Bulur
and Maklis assaulted her and her sister in law. Accused Abdul Malik
set fire to their hay stack. She deposed that they found accused
Lechu Master sitting in the police station. She further deposed that
she was taken to Kalain hospital and her sister in law i.e. (PW-3)
was also taken to the said hospital. She further deposed that the
Page No.# 16/36
officer-in-charge refused to register the FIR for the reason of Lechu
Master and Abdul Malik being named as accused. Thereafter, on
direction of the Officer-in-Charge, a new FIR was lodged.
During cross-examination she denied the suggestion that she did
not state before the police that accused Maklis and Bulur assaulted
her and also PW-3. She also denied the suggestion that she did not
state before the police that accused Abdul Malik set fire to the hay
stack. She denied the suggestion that her father in law had land
disputes and many cases against accused Abdul Malik. She denied
the suggestion that she did not state before the police that accused
Lechu Master was found sitting in the police station when they
were taken to the police station.
IV. PW-5 Md. Alimuddin was examined as independent
witness. According to him, while he was coming home from daily
work, suddenly heard hue and cry of PW-1 and went there. Then
he saw accused Imad Uddin @ Lichu Master, Maklis Uddin, Watir
Ali, Moboi, Salekh, Raiyob, Alekh, Amir Ali, Numan, Monaf, Bulur,
Eklas Uddin, Tomij Uddin, Azir Uddin, Maklis and Anwar Uddin with
petrol, kerosene, lathi and rod in their hands. He further deposed
that accused Muboi and Atu Watir and Salekh jumped over the roof
of the house and poured petrol from their gallon and then Eklas &
Tomij and other accused persons took hay stack and dry leaves of
betal nut threes and these were put into the house and then
accused Imad Uddin ordered to set fire. At first accused Watir set
fire and Moboi and others also participated in setting fire. It was
completely gutted with all belongings including paddy. According to
Page No.# 17/36
him, Atu, Moboi and Tomiz assaulted Hawarun nessa (PW-4) and
Rejia (PW-3) was assaulted by Maklis and Bulur. Thereafter,
according to him, police arrived at the place of occurrence and the
witness boarded in the police vehicle and went to Katigorah Police
Station where they found Imad Uddin sitting. Then, they proceeded
to Kalain Hospital with the injured with police. According to him,
Kalain Hospital did not admit the injured and then they came back
to the police station and thereafter, went to Silchar Medical College
and Hospital. Thereafter, the PW-1 got an ejahar written by a
scribe. According to him, Katigorah Police Station refused to accept
the FIR for naming of Imad Uddin as accused. Thereafter, another
FIR was written and filed.
During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion of the defence
as regards the statement made in the chief. The defence tried to
bring a contradiction that whatever he had stated in his chief was
not stated before the police. However, this witness denied all such
defence suggestion.
V. PW6 is the minor. During his examination-in-chief, he
deposed that the accused persons with dao, rod, gallon, lath in
their hands, entered into the house. According to him, accused
Imad Uddin ordered to sprinkle the petrol around the house and to
set fire. Accused Monaf and Numan climbed over the roof and
spread the petrol and set fire. Watir also set fire and Tomiz and
Muboi assaulted PW-3. According to him, accused Bulur and Maklis
assaulted PW-4. He further deposed that when they raised hue and
Page No.# 18/36
cry, Alim Uddin, Asan, Siraj and Abdur Rahman came to their
rescue. According to him, all the accused persons were involved in
setting fire. When they came out their house, they saw police
arrived with vehicle and the police took them to the police station.
According to him, Police took Rejia (PW-3) and Hawarun (PW-4) to
Kalain Hospital but the said hospital did not admit the injured.
Thereafter, they were sent to Silchar Medical College and Hospital.
According to the defence, this witness had not stated anything
whatever he had stated during his examination as witness and
accordingly, suggested that those statements were not made
before the police which this witness had denied.
VI. PW-7 Dr. S. Bhowmick, is the Doctor who according to the
prosecution examined the injured witnesses at Silchar Medical
College and Hospital. He proved the Exhibit-1, and Injury Register
of Kalain CHC.
According to him, Sl No.465 dated 16.03.2004 entered into the
Register relates to injured Hawarun Nessa (PW-4) and in the said
entry, it was recorded that the injured sustained lacerated injury on
the right frontal region.
He further deposed that SL. No. 466 dated 16.03.2004 entered in
the said register relates to Rejia Begum (PW-3), wherein it was
written that she sustained injury on the muscle. However, he
denied that such register was not written by him. Such document
was exhibited under objection (Exhibit-1).
Page No.# 19/36
He proved another document i.e. Exhibit-3. According to him,
Exhibit-3 was issued on 28.06.2005 and according to him, Exhibit-3
was his report and Exhibit-3(1), was his signature.
He further deposed that there was no mention, when he examined
the aforesaid patients.
During cross-examination, he deposed that the Sl. No. 465 and
466 in Exhibit-1 dated 16.03.2004 was not written by him and he
cannot say in whose handwriting was written. However, he
admitted that Exhibit-3 was written by him and by the said
document, it was certified that the persons examined by him on
police requisition and he found no sign of injury on their parts.
VII. PW8 Mr. Abdul Hai Choudhury, was the Investigating
Officer of the case. In his examination-in-chief, deposed that on
16.03.2004, he received the ejahar and registered the case. He
visited the place of occurrence, drew the sketch map and he proved
the sketch map and his signature. He also deposed that he sent the
injured PW-3 and PW-4 to Kalain CHC for treatment which in turn,
referred to Silchar Medical College and Hospital. He further deposed
that he recorded the statements, seized some burnt materials,
including the half burnt wooden piece, CI sheet etc and he
exhibited the seizure list of those materials. He further deposed
that he also collected that injury report and on completion of the
investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the accused
persons. He deposed in his examination-in-chief that he cannot say
whether informant filed an FIR mentioning the name of Lechu
Master @ Imad Uddin and three others along with other accused
Page No.# 20/36
persons as the case was registered by the Officer-in-Charge. .
During cross-examination, he deposed that the FIR was
registered by the Officer-in-Charge at 01.05 P.M., he opened the
case diary at 01.10 P.M. and reached the place of occurrence which
was 3 KM away from the police station at around 02:00 PM.
During cross-examination, he further deposed that the nearest
neighbor of the house which was gutted, was of one Khalil Ahmed
and he recorded the statement of Kahlil Ahmed. (Khalil was not
examined).
During cross-examination, he further deposed that PW-1
Kulsuma Bibi did not state before him that accused Maklis, Abdul
Malik, Bulur, tomij, Maklis brother of Tomij, Aklas, Ajir, Anwar,
Monaf, Amin, Numan, Watir, Moboi, Salek, Alek, Roib and others
came from the house of Lechu Master with dao, rod and kerosene
in their hand entered towards her house but stated that her
dwelling house was set on fire after spreading kerosene.
PW-1 also did not state before him that accused Monaf sprinkled
kerosene on the dwelling house and Watir set fire.
The PW-1 did not state before him that her daughter-in-law
Hawarun Nessa was assaulted by accused Tomij.
The PW-1 also stated before him that they had long standing
litigation with the accused persons.
The PW-1 did not state that accused Alek and Salek participated in
setting fire to their house.
Page No.# 21/36
The PW-1 also did not state before him that 8 numbers of wooden
almirahs were gutted.
The PW-1 also did not state before him that Ajijur, Khalilur, Abdur
Rahman, alim Uddin, Oizul and others tried to extinguish the fire
but the accused persons obstructed them. The PW-1 also did not
state before him that after the occurrence, she reported the matter
to the male members of the family. The PW-1 also did not state
before him that the accused persons assaulted her two daughters-
in-law.
He recorded the statement of PW-1 at 1:15 PM at the police
station. The PW-1 did not state before him that she found Imad
Uddin @ Lechu Master sitting in the police station while she came
to lodge the FIR.
PW-2 Foizul Hoque was examined at the place of occurrence on
16.03.2004 at 2:30 PM. The PW-2 did not state before him that the
accused persons sprinkled petrol to his house and thereafter, set
fire. But he stated that they set fire. The PW-2 did not state before
him that he got information of the occurrence from his daughter-in-
law. the PW-2 also did not states before him that unless he brought
out his son, the accused persons would set fire to his house and he
would be assaulted but stated that they created pressure to hand
over his son.
VIII. PW-9 is the another Doctor who examined the injured at
Silchar Medical College and Hospital. According to him, he
examined Hawarun Nessa (PW-4) and found lacerated wound on
Page No.# 22/36
the right side of the forehead 2 cm, multiple abrasions on right
hand and forearm and tenderness over left shoulder. He further
deposed that on examination of Mst. Rejia Begum (PW-3), he found
that tenderness over right hip and right back. He exhibited the
medical report as Exhibit-7 and his signature as Exhibit 7(1).
He further deposed that he prepared the report on the basis of the
injury register of SMCH.
During cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot say the name
of the doctor, who examined the above patients. According to him,
injuries were written and recorded by the same doctor in the injury
register.
He further deposed that all the injuries were superficial and that
may be caused by fall on hard substance. He further deposed that
tenderness is not a visible injury. He further admitted that against
the Sl. No. 4117/04 registered against Hawatun Nessa (PW-4), in
the column diagnosis and treatment, there was an erasing and over
writing. He further deposed that there was also an over writing in
injury register.
11. Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the convicted appellants
argues that from the evidence on record and the circumstances, it is not
conclusively proved that the accused appellants are the perpetrators of the
offence of rioting and mischief by fire with intent to destroy the house etc.
inasmuch as the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses are not reliable
being vitiated by vital inconsistencies, contractions and improvements in
Page No.# 23/36
their deposition at two stage during Trial and under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.,
made before the police as well as the allegations made in the FIR and
such material contradictions etc. has duly been established by the defence
during their cross-examination of the said witnesses as well as of the I.O.
Therefore, based on such evidence, the accused ought not to have been
convicted.
12. According to Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel, there are major
contradictions in the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 as regards the
involvement of the accused appellants in the commission of the alleged
offence. At the same time, there are vital inconsistencies in evidence of
the projected eyewitnesses viz PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 and
thus, there are serious doubts as regards the role of the accused
appellants as well as trustworthiness of these witnesses.
13. The eyewitnesses implicated one Lechu Master @ Imad Uddin to be
present at the place of occurrence and the instigator of the offences, but it
was duly proved by the defence that the said person was not present at
the place of occurrence. In fact such a person was acquitted by the
learned trial Court.
14. It is also argued by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel that though the
prosecution witnesses projected that large number of villagers gathered
and tried extinguish the fire, itself is doubtful for the reason of the failure
on the part of the prosecution to examine any of such person and entire
trial was based on the evidence of the interested witnesses and the
relatives/family members of the informant.
15. While concluding his argument, Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel
Page No.# 24/36
submits that on the same set of evidences, 13 accused persons, on the
same standing, have been acquitted and therefore considering the
inconsistencies and major contradictions in the evidence of the
eyewitnesses to the occurrence, the convicted accused/appellants are also
entitled for acquittal inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to prove their
case beyond all reasonable doubt that the present accused appellants are
the perpetrators of the alleged offence.
16. Per contra, Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State, submits that the learned trial Court, while acquitting the 13
accused, failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper
perspective and arrived at an erroneous decision. The learned trial Court
conveniently ignored the evidence of PW-1, i.e. the informant recorded on
25.04.2007, inasmuch as in the said deposition she had specifically
implicated all the accused persons. The findings of the learned trial Court
that the PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4, the three eyewitnesses did not implicate
the acquitted accused Abdul Malik at the first instance of evidence that he
had set fire on the hay-stack and that the prosecution has developed a
further story, is perverse since evidence of PW-1 was duly corroborated by
evidence of PW-2 and PW-3.
17. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned trial
Court failed to appreciate that though Imad Uddin @ Lechu Master and
Abdul Malik were not implicated in the FIR, however, PW-1 has given a
reasonable explanation in this regard, however, the learned trial Court
disbelieved the explanation of the PW-1 resulting in acquittal of the
aforesaid two accused persons.
Page No.# 25/36
18. It is his further contention that though the acquitted accused Imad
Uddin @ Lechu Master, Abdul Malik, Maklishur Rahman, Bulur Uddin, Eklas
Uddin, Maklishur Rahman, Azir Uddin Barbhuiya and Tamiz Uddin took a
plea of alibi, however, they failed to substantiate their plea by adducing
cogent and unrebuttable evidence; rather, they were duly implicated by
the eyewitnesses.
19. It is also contended by Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, that the injury sustained by PW-4 has not properly been
appreciated by the learned trial Court inasmuch as the available evidence
on record shows that accused Tamiz, Muboi attacked her. According to
him, the learned trial Court perversely held that the evidence of the Doctor
i.e. the PW-7 has created a great suspicion as to the injuries of PW-3 and
PW-4 contrary to the evidence on record.
20. Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision
Petition No. 101/2009, while adopting the argument of the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, she further argues that the findings of the
learned trial Court that the Maklishur Rahman was not there at the time
and place of occurrence, is based on surmises and conjunctures and
according to her, the prosecution had duly proved the guilt of all the
accused persons for offences under Sections 147/436/149/323 IPC beyond
reasonable doubt. According to her, the inconsistencies, contradictions,
and improvements are minor in nature and can not be said to be material
contradictions, vitiating the testimonies of such witnesses.
21. This Court has given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties. Also, perused the materials
Page No.# 26/36
available on record.
22. The prosecution projected PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 as the
eyewitnesses. The PW-1, in her examination at the first instance
implicated accused Lechu Master, Malkis, Abdul Malik, Bulur, Tamiz and his
brother Maklis, Aklas, Azir, Anwar, Mannaf, Amin, Numon, Atu@ Watir,
Muboi, Salek, Alek, Rayob, and it is testified that they came from the
house of Lechu Master, having dao, rod and kerosene in their hands. She
implicated that the acquitted accused Lechu Master directed accused
Mannaf to sprinkle kerosene, and accused Atu @ Watir set fire to the
house of PW-1. She also implicated all the accused persons in setting fire.
According to her, PW-3 was assaulted by the accused Tamiz. The villagers,
Azizul, Khalilur Rahman, Abdur Rahman, Alimuddin, Foizul and others tried
to extinguish the fire, but the accused persons obstructed it.
23. It is to be recorded that none of the aforesaid persons, who tried to
extinguish the fire, have been examined by the prosecution.
24. In her cross-examination in the first instance, she admitted that she had
not stated before the police that the accused persons had set fire to the
house and that she also did not mention in the FIR that the accused
persons had set fire to the house. In her cross-examination, she admitted
that among the accused persons, somebody set fire, whom she could not
identify.
25. As recorded hereinabove, this witness was once again examined,
invoking the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C., and during such examination,
she stated that the accused Abdul Malik Set fire, accused Bulur, Maklis and
Page No.# 27/36
Imad Uddin assaulted her daughter-in-law with a rod. And during cross-
examination, she testified that she could not identify who set fire.
26. The PW-8, i.e. I.O., in his cross-examination admitted that the PW-1 did
not state before him that the accused persons came from the house of
Lechu Master with dao and kerosene and then entered to the house. The
PW-8 also admitted that the PW-1 did not state before him that the
accused Mannaf sprinkled kerosene on the dwelling house and Watir set
fire, and that her daughter-in-law (PW-4) was assaulted by the accused
Tamiz. According to this witness, PW-1 did not state before him that the
accused, Alek and Salek, participated in setting fire to their house and that
the accused persons assaulted her two daughter-in-laws.
27. Thus, from a close scrutiny of the testimony of PW-1, more particularly,
the aforesaid two sets of testimony of PW-1, it is seen that in the First
testimony, PW-1 is silent about Mannaf sprinkling kerosene and also about
the accused, Watir, but stated accused Abdul Malik set fire. However, in
her re-examination, she had now implicated, accused Bulur, Maklis, and
Imad Uddin for the first time for assaulting her daughter-in-laws, whereas
in her first statement, she had implicated accused Tamiz on this count.
From the evidence of PW-8 i.e. the I.O., it is seen that her subsequent
deposition does not corroborate her earlier deposition as well as her
statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Beyond that, she testified
during cross-examination by the defence that she could not identify the
culprit, who set fire to the house. In the backdrop of the aforesaid
evidence, it is the considered opinion of this Court that the defence was
able to establish the there are material contradictions, inconsistencies and
Page No.# 28/36
improvements in the statement of the PW1.
28. Now, let this Court appreciate the testimony of PW-3, which is another
star eyewitness for the prosecution i.e. the daughter-in-law of PW-1.
When her evidence was recorded for the first time, she projected that the
accused Imad Uddin ordered to sprinkle petrol and kerosene, and that the
accused Mannaf and Numan climbed on the roof of the house and
sprinkled petrol and kerosene. She further implicated that Watir, Muboi,
and Salek also sprinkled kerosene and set fire. According to her, accused
Tamiz assaulted PW-4 on her head and accused Muboi assaulted her,
causing fractures on her hands and fingers. When her statement was
recorded invoking the provision of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., now she
implicated the accused Abdul Malik, Maklis and Bulur for sprinkling petrol
and setting fire and that the accused Maklis and Bulur assaulted her and
tore her saree. Thus, in her re-examination, she was silent about the
accused Numan Uddin and Abdul Mannaf, but implicated accused Abdul
Malik, Maklis and Bulur, who were not implicated by her in her earlier
statement recorded.
29. The I.O., during his cross-examination, also affirmed that this witness,
while recording her statement under section 161 CrPC, did not implicate
the accused Muboi and Tamiz in assaulting PW-4 and that she did not
implicate accused Maklis and Bulur in setting fire to their house and also
did not implicate the accused Imad Uddin, Abdul Malik and Bulur. Thus,
this witness is also not consistent at different stages, rather implicating
different accused persons at different stages of recording statements.
30. Now coming to the other star witness i.e. PW-4, another daughter-in-
Page No.# 29/36
law of the PW-1. According to her, accused Imad Uddin ordered the
accused persons to set fire and accused Atu, Muboi, Salek, Mannaf, and
Numan sprinkled petrol, and others set fire to the house. Now she
implicates accused Tamiz as the assailant on her head, causing injury and
implicates accused Muboi for assaulting her and causing a fracture in her
hand. During her re-examination invoking Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., she
now implicated accused Bulur and Maklis for setting fire, and the accused
Bulur and Maklis for assaulting her and her sister-in-law (PW-3). Thus, she
was silent about accused Tamiz assaulting her in her first statement and
now, implicated the accused Bulur and Maklis for the assault. During her
re-examination, she was also silent about the role of the accused Muboi,
Atu, Salek, Mannaf, sprinkling petrol as stated in her earlier statement.
31. The PW-8, in his cross-examination, affirmed that this witness did not
state before him that the accused Mannaf and Numan sprinkled petrol and
did not state that accused Muboi assaulted her, causing fracture in her
hand. PW-8 also affirmed that the PW-4 did not state before him that the
accused persons came to their house with dao, lathi, rod and gallon and
that the accused Imad Uddin ordered the accused persons to set fire. This
witness (PW-8) further admitted that the PW-4 did not state before him
that the accused persons entered into their house with lathi, dao and
gallon. PW-4 did not state before PW-8 that the accused Muboi assaulted
her, and that accused Bulur and Maklis assaulted her and PW-3.
32. So far, relating to the injury upon PW-3 and PW-4, the PW-7 (Doctor),
though admitted that he medically examined PW-4 and PW-3 on police
requisition, however, found no sign of injury on their persons. During
Page No.# 30/36
cross-examination, this witness admitted that though the medical register
shows that PW-4 sustained lacerated injury on the right side of the
forehead and PW-3 sustained injury on muscle, however, this witness (PW-
7), deposed that such entry was not written by him and he cannot say in
whose hand writing, it was written. That being the position, the learned
trial Court was right in not relying upon this witness, however, at the same
time, the learned trial Court ignored that the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4
so far relating to their injury, which are alleged to be serious injuries like
fracture, head injury etc., was not even remotely corroborated by the
evidence of Doctor (PW-7), even if it is accepted to be correct and
however, creates a serious doubt on credibility of the evidence of PW-3
and PW-4 together with the inconsistencies, contradictions and
improvements in their statement at different stages as recorded
hereinabove. The other Doctor PW-9 though exhibited medical report as
Ext.6 and supported such injury, however, those injuries are also donot
disclosed any fracture in the hand of PW-3 and PW-4 as projected by them
and this Doctors for reasons not know had also deposed during his cross
examination that he cannot say the name of the doctor who examined the
above patients and injuries were written and recorded by the same doctor
in the injury register. He also admitted that so far regarding the admission
registrar of PW-4 under SL No. 4117/04, there was an erasing and
overwriting and that there were overwriting in the injury register.
33. PW-5 Alim Uddin is also projected as an eyewitness. According to this
witness, he saw all the accused persons with petrol, kerosene, lathi and a
rod in their hands. He implicated accused Imad Uddin as the instigator
who ordered to set fire, and that accused Atu, Muboi and Tamiz assaulted
Page No.# 31/36
the PW-4, and accused Maklis and Bulur assaulted the PW-3.
34. The PW-8 i.e. I.O., in his cross-examination admitted that this witness
did not mention the name of any accused person before him. During
cross-examination, the defence contradicted PW-5 that whatever he stated
in chief, was not stated before the police though such defence suggestion
was denied but as seen hereinabove, PW-8 (IO) admitted that PW-5 did
not state whatever he has stated before the Court and such statements
are made for the first time in Court.
35. PW-6, a minor witness of 12 years, though implicated the accused
persons as recorded hereinabove, however, he was contradicted by the
defence that whatever he had stated in the Court, was not stated before
the police and though this witness denied such suggestion, however, PW-8
(IO), in his cross-examination admitted that this witness did not implicate
the accused, namely, Imad Uddin, Maklis, Abdul Malik, Bulur, Tamiz, Aklas,
Ajir, Anwar, Mannaf, Amir, Numan and Royab before him. According to the
I.O, this witness also did not state before him that the accused persons
entered into the house of PW-1 with dao, lathi, rod and gallon and that
the accused Lachu Master ordered to sprinkle petrol around the house and
to set fire. He also did not state before the PW-8 that accused Mannaf and
Numan climbed over the roof of the house and sprinkled petrol and set
fire. According to the I.O., this witness also did not state before him that
the accused Alek, Muboi and Watir sprinkled kerosene on their house and
that accused Tamiz and Muboi assaulted PW-4 and accused Bulur and
Maklis assaulted PW-3. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
defence was successful in bringing material improvement by this witness
Page No.# 32/36
also.
36. The primary allegation in the present case is an offence under Section
436 of the IPC committed by the accused persons (acquitted and
convicted) having a common object and that the assembly of the accused
persons were an unlawful assembly. Therefore, first, this Court is to
consider whether the prosecution has been able to establish beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused persons assembled with a common
unlawful object to do mischief by fire with the intent to destroy the house
of PW-1.
37. To establish the projection of the prosecution as regards the mischief by
fire, the prosecution heavily placed reliance on the testimonies of the PW-
1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, which, as recorded herein above, do not
inspire confidence in this Court to convict the accused persons.
38. The contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies as recorded
hereinabove, in the opinion of this Court, are material and significant
contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies for which the
testimony/statement of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 has significantly weakened
its reliability. Not only version of each of these projected eye witnesses are
different but also contradictory and irreconcilable to held, based on such
testimonies, that prosecution has been able to establish beyond all
reasonable doubt that offences under section 436 IPC is committed by any
one of the member of these alleged unlawful assembly, to rope in all the
members of unlawful assembly. The material contradiction and
inconsistencies cast a doubt in the mind of this Court as to the reliability
and trustworthiness of these witnesses. In the present case, the different
Page No.# 33/36
inconsistencies and discrepancies at different stages, as highlighted
hereinabove, in the opinion of this Court, go to the root of the matter
inasmuch as such contradictions etc. cannot be said to be minor
inconsistencies and discrepancies but substantial in nature, affecting the
core of the prosecution case.
39. Further, the defence through their cross-examination, had successfully
challenged the credibility of these prosecution witnesses creating serious
doubt upon the basic factum of commission of an offence under Section
436 of IPC inasmuch as in a case under Section 436 of IPC, the
persecution is required to establish that atleast any one of the accused
persons set fire to a human dwelling house with an intention or knowing
that it is likely to cause or damage to the person or property in the said
house. Here, in the case in hand, it cannot be said that the accused
appellants have committed such mischief, and a serious doubt has been
created as to the involvement of the accused appellants in the commission
of such a crime. In fact, the learned trial Court on the same set of
evidence had acquitted 13 accused persons out of a total 17 (seventeen)
accused.
40. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, it cannot be
said that such evidence leads to a conclusion that it was none, but the
accused appellants, who had set fire in the house. It is true that to convict
under Section 149 IPC, there doesn't need to be an individual overact of
each of the member of unlawful assembly, however, the prosecution is
firstly, to establish that an offence is committed by any of the member of
such group, in the case in hand offence under Section 436 IPC. When, as
Page No.# 34/36
record hereinabove, a serious doubt has been created as regards
commission of offence under Section 436 IPC by any of the member of the
accused group, rather majority of the accused has been acquitted on the
same set of evidence, it can be said that an offence under Section 149 IPC
was committed. To summaries, when there is a serious doubt of
commission of offence under Section 436 IPC by any of the member of
such alleged unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that it was an unlawful
assembly inasmuch as it will become an unlawful assembly only when they
had a common object to commit some offence.
41. To infer the common object of an unlawful assembly, there may not be
any direct evidence, but the facts and circumstances surrounding the
incident, including the nature of the assembly, the weapons and tools used
and the action and behavior of the group before, during and after the
event is shall be very vital. In the case in hand, as recorded hereinabove,
from the prosecution witnesses more particularly, of the projected
eyewitnesses, it was not even clear whether all the accused initial charge-
sheeted and subsequently added, were part of the assembly, though these
witnesses named different persons at different point of time to be part of
such assembly inasmuch as the 17 accused alleged to be part of such
unlawful assembly has already been acquitted on the same set of
evidence. At the cost of repetition, it is recorded herein that the evidence
of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 does not inspire confidence in this
Court to safely conclude that these accused were even part of any such
assembly.
42. Similar is the case in respect of conviction under Section 146 IPC. That
Page No.# 35/36
being the position, this Court is of the unhesitant view that there is a
serious doubt in the version of the prosecution evidence to convict the
accused appellants under Section 146/149/436 IPC.
43. This Court cannot also be unmindful of the fact that to reverse an
acquittal to conviction, the appellant State and the informant revisionist
must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law and fact in the
decision of the learned trial Court. This Court as recorded hereinabove, did
not find any illegality, perversity or error of law and fact in the decision of
the learned trial Court in acquitting the other accused persons, rather it is
the opinion of this Court for the reasons recorded herein above that, the
present appellants ought to have also been aquited giving them benefit of
doubt.
44. Upon the overall re-appreciation of the evidence, this Court has found
that the evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 are not clinching
evidence to conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt
of the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt inasmuch as their
testimonies are vitiated by material contradiction, inconsistencies and
improvements creating a dent upon the prosecution story.
45. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the unhesitant
view that the accused persons are entitled for acquittal by giving them
benefit of doubt.
46. That being the position, for the same reason, this Court also cannot find
fault with the acquittal of the respondent Nos. 1 to 13, in Criminal Appeal
No. 79/2009 preferred by the State and in Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 101/2009
Page No.# 36/36
preferred by the informant.
47. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence dated 28.01.2009 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case
No. 118/06 corresponding to GR Case No. 674/04, convicting the appellant
in Crl.A.No.16/2009 stands set aside and quashed. Resultantly,
Crl.A.No./16/2009 stands allowed and Crl.A.No./79/2009 and
Crl.Rev.P.No.101/2009 stands dismissed. The appellants shall be put at
liberty forthwith. Bail bond stands discharged. TCR be returned back.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
