Gauhati High Court
Md. Mustafa Hussain vs The State Of Assam on 22 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010132312013
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./451/2013
MD. MUSTAFA HUSSAIN
S/O LT. ABDUL HUSSAIN R/O NO.1 TINSUKIA THERMAL GATE
UNDER TINSUKIA P.S. IN THE DIST. OF TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR.D TALUKDAR
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
Page No.# 2/7
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 22.09.2025
Heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, appearing for the State Respondents.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceedings
has presented a challenge to the Judgment and Order dated
25.09.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia,
dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the
Judgment dated 20.05.2013, by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, in G.R. Case No.291/2011, thereby
upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned
Trial Court.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 08.03.2011, one
Gohin Chandra Moran, Head Master of Hatigarh M.E. School, had
lodged an FIR, alleging, inter alia, that on 07.03.2011, at about
9.15 a.m, when he had come to the school he found the door
lock of the room in a broken condition and found 2(two) bags of
rice for Mid Day Meal purpose along with some pieces of iron
pipes and some books missing therefrom.
The police in receipt of the said FIR registered Makum P.S.
Case No.30/2011 under Section 457/380 IPC. On conclusion of
the investigation in the matter, police laid charge-sheet against
Page No.# 3/7
the petitioner, herein, and one Brajen Barua, under Sections
457/380/411 IPC.
4. The learned Trial Court on the appearance of the accused
persons before it, framed a charge against them under Sections
457/380/411/34 IPC. The accused persons having pleaded not
guilty to the charge claimed to be tried. Accordingly, a Trial
ensued.
During the Trial, the prosecution examined 8(eight) witnesses
in support of their case. Thereafter, the accused persons were
examined under Section 313 CrPC. No defense witness came to
be adduced by the petitioner, herein.
On conclusion of the Trial, appreciating the evidences coming
on record, the learned Trial Court was pleased vide Judgment and
Order dated 20.05.2013, to convict the petitioner, herein, under
Section 411 IPC. On his such conviction, the petitioner, herein,
was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six)
months along with a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) in
default to pay the fine amount, to undergo further Rigorous
Imprisonment for 1(one) month.
The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction by the
Trial Court, assailed the same by way of instituting an appeal
being Crl.A.No.23(2)/2013, before the Court of the learned
Sessions Judge, Tinsukia. The Appellate Court upon appreciating
the materials coming on record was pleased by the Judgment
dated 25.09.2013, to dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the
conviction of the appellant under Section 411 IPC by the learned
Page No.# 4/7
Trial Court.
Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present
proceeding.
5. This Court has perused the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses as well as the statement made by the petitioner during
his examination under Section 311 CrPC during the Trial.
The evidence coming on record reveals that the petitioner,
herein, was caught red handed when he was carrying the broken
pieces of rod which were identified to have been removed from
the school of the informant. During his interrogation, it is brought
on record that the petitioner, herein, had admitted to the fact that
he had brought this articles from the co-accused Brojen Barua.
Basing on the disclosure made by the petitioner, herein, the police
had reached the residence of the co-accused Brojen Barua and
therefrom recovery of the rice bags came to be made. The
evidence coming on record reveal that it was Brajen Barua, who
was alleged to have been directly involved in the theft committed
during the intervening night of 06-03-2011 and 07-03-2011, in
the premises of the Hatigarh M.E. School,
While it is an admitted position that the stolen iron pipes were
recovered from the possession of the petitioner, herein, it is also
brought on record that those materials were allegedly stolen by
the co-accused Brojen Barua.
6. The learned Trial Court basing on the evidences coming on
record which was to the recovery of the stolen materials of the
Page No.# 5/7
school from the petitioner, herein, had proceeded to convict the
petitioner, herein, under Section 411 IPC. Section 411 IPC relates
to dishonestly receiving stolen property. The provision of Section
411 IPC being relevant, is extracted, hereinbelow ;
"411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.- Whoever
dishonestly receives or-retains any stolen property,
knowing or having reason to believe the same to be
stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both."
7. A perusal of the provision of Section 411 IPC would go to
reveal that it mandates that whoever dishonestly receives or
retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe
the same to be stolen property shall be punished with
imprisonment of with description for a term which may extend to
3(three) years or with fine or with both."
The ingredients required to be brought on record for bringing
home a charge under Section 411 IPC against an accused is that
the property received or retained should have been so received or
retained knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be
stolen property.
8. On a perusal of the material coming on record, this Court
finds that no such evidence came to be adduced which would
have reflected that the iron pipes recovered from the petitioner,
which he had admitted to have been brought from co-accused
Brojen Barua was so received and retained by the petitioner,
Page No.# 6/7
herein, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen
property. None of the witnesses have deposed that the petitioner,
herein, had brought and retained the iron pipes after knowing the
same to have been stolen by the co-accused Brajen Barua from
the school of the informant.
9. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the
ingredient of Section 411 IPC in so far as it concerns in relation to
the petitioner, herein, has not been satisfied and accordingly, the
charge under Section 411 IPC as leveled against the petitioner
cannot be held to have been established beyond reasonable
doubt.
The learned Trial Court having not considered the said aspect of
the matters while convicting the petitioner, herein, had committed
an error and accordingly, the Judgment and Order dated
20.05.2013 in so far as it concerns the petitioner, herein, stands
vitiated.
Accordingly, the said Judgment and Order dated 20-05-2013,
in so far as it concerns, the petitioner, herein, stands set aside.
The petitioner is acquitted of the offence charged against him
under Section 411 IPC.
10. The petitioner having enlarged on bail by this Court vide
order dated 18.11.2013, in Crl.Misc.Case No.917/2013, the bail
bond executed by the petitioner stands discharged.
11. With the above observation and directions, the Criminal
Revision Petition stands allowed.
Page No.# 7/7
12. Registry to send down the records of the case to the learned
Trial Court.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
