Page No.# 1/13 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 8635 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/13 vs The State Of Assam on 18 November, 2025

                                                                Page No.# 1/13

GAHC010234032013




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:15553

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

                       Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./255/2013

         NIRENDRA BARMAN and 6 ORS
         S/O SRI BHABENDRA BARMAN R/O VILL- BANGNABARI P.S. and DIST.
         NALBARI, ASSAM.

         2: SRI JINTU TAMULI
          S/O LT. NAREN CHANDRA TAMULI R/O DIROK HUNJAN GAON P.S.
         KAKOPATHAR DIST. TINSUKIA
         ASSAM.

         3: SRI AMIT BISWAS
          S/O SRI KUMAR BISWAS R/O UDAY NAGAR
         WARD NO. 25
          BONGAIGAON TOWN P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON
         ASSAM.

         4: SRI CHINMOY BHAKTIARY
          S/O SRI LAKHI BHAKTIARY R/O RUPAI SIDING
          BISHNU NAGAR P.S. DOOMDOOMA DIST. TINSUKIA
         ASSAM.

         5: SRI NABA GOGOI
          S/O LT. PULIN GOGOI R/O BAZALTOLI GAON
          BORGURI P.S. and DIST. TINSUKIA
         ASSAM.

         6: SRI DIGANTA KALITA
          S/O SRI NILAKANTA KALITA R/O AJAN GAON
          P.S. PULIBOR DIST. JORHAT
         ASSAM.

         7: SRI SANJIB MORAN
          S/O TULESWAR MORAN R/O RUPAI SANTIPUR P.S. DOOMDOOMA DIST.
         TINSUKIA
         ASSAM
                                                                       Page No.# 2/13


            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM




Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.A K DEKA, MR.K M HALOI,MR.A DASGUPTA,MS.G
MAHANTA

Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,PP, ASSAM

                              Date of Hearing          :02.09.2025
                              Date of Judgment (CAV)   :18.11.2025




                                          BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

                              JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. K. M. Haloi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. H. Borah, the learned Addl. PP for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 01.06.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Crl.A.No. 09(1)/2013 whereby, the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia in G. R. No. 739/2007 was partly confirmed to the effect that conviction of the petitioners under Section 342/506 IPC was upheld and confirmed whereas conviction under Section 147 (rioting) was Page No.# 3/13

negated.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.07.2007 at about 02.00 PM, about 18 members of the Management staff of Hindustan Unilever Limited, Doomdooma were illegally confined into two separate rooms by the workers union in the factory premises for about 16.00 Hrs. Subsequently, they were rescued with the help of Police and Cr.P.F. in the morning about 06.00 AM. It was also alleged that the air condition was shut off from 09.00 PM onwards and windows and doors were also closed. It was alleged that the accused persons, the petitioners who were members of the workers union criminally intimidated the Management staff with slang and abusing language. On the basis of the FIR filed by one Manash Baruah on 10.07.2007 before the Officer-in-Charge, Dhoomdooma Police Station case No.203/2007 was registered under Section 120(B)/147/294/ 342/427/506 IPC.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners. Subsequently, charges were framed against the petitioners under Section 120(B)/147/294/342/506 IPC. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses whereas, the defence examined only one witness in their support. On examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied all the charges against them. After completion of the trial, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia vide its judgment and order dated 28.02.2013, convicted the petitioners under Section 147/342/506 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 2 years and Page No.# 4/13

fine of Rs.2,000/- (in default R.I. for two more months) under Section 147; sentence to undergo R.I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (in default R.I. for one more month) under Section 342 IPC; sentence to undergo R.I. for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (in default R.I. for two more months) under Section 506 IPC. Aggrieved by such conviction and sentence, the petitioners filed Crl. A. No. 9(1)/2023 which was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, vide the Judgment and Order dated 01.06.2013 which is under challenge in the instant Criminal Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the prosecution case which emanated from the FIR lodged by the Management against the petitioners is totally baseless and the same is a motivated one. The learned counsel submits that there was a long pending issue of non-payment of certain implementation allowance due to the employees by the Management and therefore, there existed a tension in between the Management and the workers union. The learned counsel submits that, in fact, on the date of alleged occurrence of the incidents, there was a prolonged meeting between the workers union and the Management staffs. He submits that though the meeting went on for a long time, nothing as alleged in the FIR had taken place on that date. He submits that there were huge security personnel present within the factory premises as well as the Police personnel from Dhoomdooma Police Station also visited the premises during the aforesaid discussion between the Management and the workers union. Therefore, he submits that the there was no occasion of any criminal intimidation and wrongful Page No.# 5/13

confinement by the petitioners. He submits that at that point of time, only to deprive the workers of their legitimate allowances, the Management filed the FIR against the petitioners at a delayed stage, i.e. after 4 (four) days of the occurrence of the alleged incident. He submits that there are material contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses which reveal that there was no criminal intimidation or wrongful confinement committed by the petitioners. He further submits that Section 506 IPC which provides for punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation is not attracted in the instant case, at all. He submits that in the instant case, the intention of committing criminal intimidation could not be found from the facts of the case, which is very important to bring home a case of criminal intimidation. In this aspect, he relied on the case of Manik Taneja and Anr-Vs-State of Karnataka and Anr; reported in 2015 7 SCC 423 and the case of Parminder Kaur @ P.P. Kaur @ Soni-Vs-State of Punjab reported in 2020 8 SCC 811. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that prosecution failed miserably to prove their case against the petitioners and therefore, the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia should be set aside and quashed.

6. Per contra, the learned Addl. PP appearing for the respondent- State submits that the evidence available before this Court makes it crystal clear that the petitioners were involved in wrongful confinement of the Management staff as well as criminal intimidation by the petitioners. The learned Addl. PP submits that Management Page No.# 6/13

personnel were confined in small rooms for more than 16 hours without any food and without allowing them to attend their natural calls by the petitioners which are evident from the depositions of the prosecution witness Nos. 1 to 4. The learned Addl. PP further submits that the version of PW. Nos. 1 to 4 is also supported by the PW Nos. 5 to 8. Therefore, the learned Addl. PP submits that this is not a case for this Court to interfere and accordingly, prays that the instant Crl. Rev. Petition should be dismissed.

7. PW. 1, Shri Manash Baruah, the commercial Manager of the Company who had filed the FIR in the instant case, in his evidence, stated in details about the incident and incriminated the petitioners. He stated that they were confined in the hall, namely, Vidyalaya Hall by the petitioners and others by locking the doors and windows of the hall. He stated that A.C. was shut down and they were confined in hazardous condition in the aforesaid hall till 06.00 O'clock in the morning when the Police and Cr.P.F. personnel came for their rescue and rescued them. In his cross-examination, he stated that there were security guards in the premises who were there to provide security to the company's property as well as Managers inside the factory. He further stated that though he had personal security guard, they normally stay outside the factory. During his cross-examination, he further stated that he and PW. 2 were provided with personal armed security. He stated that he, PW.2 as well as one K.N. Jha were having mobile phones with them at the time of the alleged confinement. He stated that during the period of their confinement, they did not inform police though it takes only twenty minutes by Page No.# 7/13

vehicle to reach Doomdhoma Police Station. In his further cross- examination, he stated that the Labour Officer visited the factory premises at 04.00 PM and held discussion with the workers union at the Vidyalaya premises. He further stated that the Labour Commissioner also came to the factory and the Labour officers talked to them for about 15-20 minutes. He stated that they did not inform the Labour Officers about their illegal confinement.

8. PW. 2, Shri Swapan Bhattacharjee, Factory Manager in his deposition alleged their wrongful confinement by the petitioners. He stated that during the confinement, their telephone lines were disconnected, AC was put off, windows were closed and electricity line was disconnected. In the morning at 06.00 O'clock, police came and rescued them. He stated that they were threatened by the petitioners as their demands were not met by the Management. During his cross-examination, the PW. 2 stated that during their confinement in the Vidyalaya which was having 8 windows and 2 doors, he was allowed once to go out of the room to the toilet. He stated that they had about 42 armed guards and other 50 armed security personnel in the factory. He stated that he was unaware whether the security personnel did anything to save them from such illegal confinement. He stated that at the time of the occurrence, the officers were having mobile phones but he did not use the mobile phone to inform the Police about the occurrence. He was not aware as to who informed the police later on. During his further cross- examination, he stated that he was not locked in the room though they were confined.

Page No.# 8/13

9. The PW. 3, Shri Gautam Dutta is an employee of the company. He stated that they were confined in the hall and power supply in the hall was disconnected. They were not provided with any food or drinking water inside the hall till 06.00 AM in the morning when they were rescued by the Police. He stated that he did not make any effort to go outside the hall till morning. He stated that he was having a mobile phone but he did not intimate about the occurrence to the police. He stated that one Ms. Rini Kashyap who was also confined in the room went out of the room to answer natures call during the alleged confinement. He stated that prior to the filing of the case, the workers agitated for many demands against the management.

10. The PW. 4, Ms. Rini Kashyap who is also an employee of the company stated that she was confined in the hall till the morning and the petitioners behaved in an unruly manner. She stated that they were rescued by the security personnel in the morning and they were not allowed to answer to nature's call. During her cross-examination, she stated that though security personnel were there, she did not inform the security personnel regarding the occurrence. She stated that she did not know why PW. 1, PW.2 or other executives did not intimate the police regarding the occurrence over the phone. She stated that she tried to go to the toilet but she was not allowed to. During her further cross-examination, she stated that she did not personally apprise the Labour secretary about the incident. She stated that she did not know how much time the Labour secretary was present in their factory. She stated that one Rajesh Ayapilla and Page No.# 9/13

other executives held discussion with the Labour secretary in the conference room.

11. The PW. 5, Shri Rustom Kumar Bora who is the security supervisor stated that he was on duty on that particular date in the main gate from 02.00 PM to 10.00 PM. He stated that on that day, at around 03.00 PM, his colleague U.S. Rao was going to H.R. Department when he was obstructed by some employees. He stated that when he went to make an enquiry, he was also obstructed and he came to know that there was a meeting going on between the management and the employees. He stated that he later on came to know that the management personnel were rescued by the Police and C.R.P.F. personnel in the morning.

12. The PW. 6, Shri Indreswar Borgohain who is a security personnel in his deposition stated that the incident took place on 06.07.2007 and he was on duty from 10.00 O'clock in the night till 06.00 AM in the morning in the main gate. He stated that he came to know that there was a meeting between the management and the workers from his colleague Rustom Bora. During his cross-examination, he stated that during the night about 12.00 midnight, police came to the place of occurrence and stayed there for about half an hour before returning. He stated that during the meeting, about 11.00 PM, the Manager, Rajesh Ayapilla came out from the H.R. Block and was smoking cigarette.

13. The PW. 7, Shri Shyam Sonar who is the driver in the company stated in his deposition that he heard about confinement of Page No.# 10/13

management staff inside a room.

14. The PW. 8, Shri Satyanath Gogoi who was also a security personnel, in his deposition, stated that he was on duty on 06.07.2007 when the alleged incident took place. He stated that he was on duty from 10.00 PM at night till 06.00 AM in the morning in the main gate. During his cross-examination, he stated that on the night of the occurrence, police came to the place of occurrence at about 12.30 PM and after staying there for half an hour, they went back. However, later on, Cr.P.F. personnel came to the factory and they also went back after staying there for half an hour. He stated that when the police and Cr.P.F. personnel came, the meeting was going on and he opened the gate on the instruction of his supervisor to let in the police personnel. He stated that he had seen the Management people with the Police personnel coming from the Vidyalaya hall located in the H.R. Block.

15. A close scrutiny and perusal of the evidence brought on record, it is seen that undisputedly an incident regarding some discussion or alleged confinement occurred during the night of 06.07.2007. The allegations against the petitioners were that they illegally confined some of the management staffs inside the Vidyalaya hall and threatened them that if their demands were not met than the management had to face serious consequences. The allegations were made against the petitioners that the confined managerial staffs were not allowed to go out of the hall for even to meet their natural calls. It was also alleged that they were not provided any food or water Page No.# 11/13

during their alleged confinement. The AC inside the rooms were shut down and the electricity was also cut off. However, a perusal of the evidences of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.4 & PW.6, it is found that there are material contradictions in their statements regarding not allowing the managerial personnel allegedly confined in the hall to come out of the hall. Though the PW.1, PW.3 & PW.4 stated that they were not allowed to go out of the hall even for their natural calls, PW. 2 stated that he went out of the hall to the toilet. PW.3 also stated that though he did not make any effort to go outside the hall, Ms. Rini Kashyap, PW.4 went out of the hall to answer nature's call. PW.6 also stated that he had seen Rajesh Ayapilla, the Manager coming out of the hall for smoking. The aforesaid statements reveal that though there was an allegation that the managerial personnel were not allowed to come out of the hall, in fact, some of them had come out of the hall during their alleged confinement.

16. Another very important aspect which needs examination is that the presence of huge number of armed and unarmed security personnel in the premises and inspite of their presence; how could such a confinement happen for such a long time. It seems very unrealistic that inspite of their presence in the premises, no action had been taken by the security personnel engaged inside and outside the factory premises to stop such illegal confinement.

17. It is also found from the record and statements that the managerial personnel had their mobile phones with them during the alleged confinement. However, it is not known why none of them Page No.# 12/13

tried to contact police over the phone by using those mobile phones to intimate police about their wrongful confinement. In fact, PW 6 and PW 8 specifically stated that during the midnight, police personnel as well as C.R.P.F. personnel visited their factory premises and had discussion with the management personnel. If that so, it is not understood why the police and the C.R.P.F. personnel did not rescue the confined management staff and waited till the morning 6.00 O'clock to rescue them.

18. It is also found from the depositions of PW 1 and PW 4 that the Labour Commissioner and the Labour Officer also visited the factory premises and the managerial staff had discussion with them for 15-20 minutes. However, during cross-examination, PW 1 stated that they did not inform the Labour Officer about their wrongful confinement. This Court finds it difficult to understand why the Labour Officers were not intimated about their alleged wrongful confinement by the management staff.

19. In view of the aforesaid findings from the records, it is difficult to reasonably believe that in spite of their opportunity of meeting the Labour Officers as well as the Police personnel why the management staff did not bother to intimate the alleged offences of wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation by the petitioners to their own security personnel, the Labour Officers and the Police personnel who visited their factory premises.

20. In view of the apparent and doubtful materials available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution story is itself Page No.# 13/13

not beyond doubt and in fact, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR and subsequent investigations. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2013 convicting the petitioners under Section 342/506 IPC cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.

21. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia.

22. Let the TCRs be sent back immediately.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant