Partly allowed

Mani Begum v. State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 May 2018Crl.A./49/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court found material evidence against the accused persons was overlooked. Quashing the lower court's acquittal orders on grounds of discrepancies and improvements, the matter was remanded for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of acquittal set aside and case remanded to the Trial Court for reconsideration from the stage of arguments.

Mani Begum Vs State of Assam and 9 Ors. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/18

¶2

GAHC010005512014

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.A. 49/2014

¶5

1:MANI BEGUM

¶6

W/O. LT. KALA MIA LASKAR VILL.ALGAPUR, PART-II PS. and DIST.SILCHAR,CACHAR.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:STATE OF ASSAM and 9 ORS.

¶9

2:SAMSUL HAQUE LASKAR S/O. LT. MASTAR ALI

¶10

3:ABDUL MALIK LASKAR S/O. ABDUL HAQUE

¶11

4:NAZAM @ NAZIM UDDIN LASKAR S/O. SUNA MIA

¶12

5:MIZAZUR RAHMAN MAZUMDAR S/O. LT. KOTU MIA

¶13

6:KONAI MIA LASKAR S/O. AZIR UDDIN LASKAR

¶14

7:ISLAM UDDIN

¶15

S/O. LT. SONAHAR ALI LASKAR

¶16

8:LUTFUR RAHMAN S/O. PACHU JAMAN LASKAR

¶17

9:LOTIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR S/O ABDUL HAQUE

10:REHIM UDDIN

Page No.# 2/18

S/O HARUDHAN MIA

11:ATAUR RAHMAN MAZUMDAR

¶22

S/O. SIKANDAR ALI MAZUMDAR ALL THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 11 ARE RESIDENCES OF ALGAPUR PART-II NOARAG PS. SILCHAR DIST.-CAHCAR.PIN

¶23

BEFORE

¶24

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶25

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶26

For the Appellant : Mr. A Choudhuury, Advocate.

¶27

For the Respondents : Mr. AM Bora, Sr. Advocate

¶28

Date of Hearing : 15.03.2018

¶29

Date of Judgment : 07.05.2018

¶30

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

¶31

(N.Sailo, J)

¶32

Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B.

¶33

Bhuyan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam who appears for the respondent

¶34

No.1 and Mr. A.M. Bora, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. C. Choudhury, for the

¶35

respondent Nos. 2 to 10.

¶36

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Musstt. Mani Begum, wife of the

¶37

Page No.# 3/18

¶38

deceased Kala Miya against the Judgment dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Sessions Case No.32 of 2007 acquitting all the accused persons from the charges framed U/Ss 341/323/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

¶39

The case of the prosecution in brief is that an FIR was lodged by Azizur Rahman Laskar on 16.05.2002 before the Officer in-charge, Silchar Police Station stating that he alongwith two of his co-villagers were returning home from Baskandi at about 5 pm on 16.05.2002 and upon reaching the middle of old Raj Para in Algapur village, the accused persons named in the FIR attacked them with dao, spear, dagger, lathis and stones. His two companions Kala Miya Laskar and Maskandav Ali Mazumdar were caught by the attackers but he somehow managed to save himself. After beating Maskandar, the attackers released him and they began assaulting Kala Mia. At that moment, the attackers viz; Akabur Rahman, Samsul Haque and Abdul Malique shouted that they should finish him off whereupon, Nazam Uddin thrust a spear into Kala Mia’s neck and Rehim Uddin gave a cut blow. As a result, Kala Mia succumbed to his injuries. In view of the report, Silchar PS case No. 674 of 2002 U/Ss 147/148/149/341/323/302 IPC was registered and investigated into.

¶40

Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against 10 accused persons out of the 32 persons named in the FIR before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 05.05.2007 committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Cachar, Silchar whereafter, charge was framed against the accused persons U/Ss 341/323/302/34 IPC on 16.06.2007. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty

¶41

Page No.# 4/18

¶42

and claimed for trial and therefore, trial was set in motion. During trial, altogether 16 prosecution witnesses and 2 (two) Court witnesses were examined. After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) and thereafter, the Judgment dated 11.12.2013 was passed by the learned Trial Court acquitting all the accused persons from the charge framed U/Ss 341/323/302/34 of the IPC.

¶43

Appearing for the appellant, Mr. A Choudhury, submits that from the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses, the commission of the offences U/Ss 341/323/302/34 of the IPC by the accused persons was clearly established. According to him, the evidence of PW Nos.2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 in particular are material to prove the case against the accused persons. He submits that while the evidence of PW Nos.2, 5 and 8 proved the case against the accused Ataur Rahman (Respondent No.10), the evidence of PW Nos.5, 6, 10, 11 and 14 proved the case against all the other accused persons i.e., respondent Nos. 2 to 9. He further submits that although there may be minor contradictions but nevertheless, the same does not weaken the case of the prosecution and importantly, it cannot be the basis for acquitting all the accused persons. Mr. A. Choudhury further submits that the learned Trial Court committed error in discrediting the evidence led by the prosecution by taking a view that improvements were made by the prosecution witnesses in their version during trial. He submits that in fact, the assault upon the deceased was premeditated by the accused persons and therefore, it is a clear case of murder. The learned Trial Court therefore, committed manifest error in law and on facts by acquitting all the accused persons and in that view of the matter, the impugned Judgment of acquittal is unsustainable and it should be set aside and quashed.

¶44

Page No.# 5/18

¶45

Mr. AM Bora the learned senior counsel, appearing for the accused respondents on the other hand submits that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt of the accused persons with proof beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses suffered from material contradictions and discrepancies. In fact, the credibility of their statements on oath was clearly demolished when they were cross examined. The learned trial Court therefore did not commit any error or mistake in rendering its judgment of acquittal.

¶46

We have heard and duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and we have also perused the materials available on record, including the records of the learned Trial Court. The Investigating Officer of the case submitted a chargesheet against 10 (ten) accused persons out of the 32 persons named in the FIR. Charge was then framed against the 10 (ten) accused persons U/Ss 341/323/302/34 of the IPC. Since all the accused persons claimed for trial after pleading not guilty, the trial was set in motion. The prosecution examined 16 (sixteen) witnesses while exhibiting 9 (nine) documents. In order to appreciate the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court, it would be necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution.

¶47

PW-1 Azizur Rahman Laskar who is the informant in his examination-in-chief deposed that on the day of the incident, he alongwith Maskandar Ali and Kala Mia were returning home from Banaskandi Bazar on foot. When they neared Manteaswer Ali High School, people

¶48

Page No.# 6/18

¶49

came out from both sides of the road and started beating them. Out of fear, he fled away from the scene and on reaching home, he informed the family members of Kala Mia about the attack whereafter, he alongwith the family members of Kala Mia and other villagers went to the scene and found Kala Mia lying on the roadside. The police arrived on the scene after about an hour of the incident and he lodged the FIR. He saw injuries on the person of the deceased but he could not say how he sustained the injuries.

¶50

PW-1 was declared hostile and therefore, cross-examined by the prosecution as well as the defence. When the prosecution cross-examined him, he denied having given a detailed statement about the incident to the police. He denied having informed the police that he saw Moin Uddin (Master), Attabur Rahman Mazumdar, Abdul Malik, Samsul Hoque and Rohim Uddin come out from the house of Moin Uddin and preventing them from proceeding. He also denied having stated before the police that Misazur Rahman @ Mizai, Islam Uddin, Najom Uddin, Kabul Hussain, Latibur Rahman came out and that Rohim Uddin, Najom and Lotibur had lathi, bollom/sulfi (spear) and dagger respectively in their hands. He further denied having stated that while they were trying to proceed home, the named persons chased Maskandar Ali who fell to the ground after Rohim Uddin gave him a lathi blow while he and Kala Miya ran away. He also did not state before the police that Najom had given a spear blow on the neck of Kala Mia and when he fell down, Islam gave a dagger blow on the left side of his back and that someone gave him a lathi blow on his back while he was running away.

¶51

Thereafter, when cross-examined by the defence, PW-1 deposed that his statement

¶52

Page No.# 7/18

¶53

before the Court and before the police were similar. He could not say who assaulted Kala Mia and that the house of Kala Mia was at a distance of one kilometer from the place of occurrence. After informing the relatives of Kala Mia, he arrived on the spot with them after about half an hour. The relatives of Kala Mia asked him the names of the assailants but he told them that he had not seen the assault on Kala Mia. He also stated that he was from Algapur village which was divided in two parts viz; Puran Raj and Naya Raj. There was a big ‘Anua’ (abandoned river) at Algapur village and there was a dispute between the residents of Puran Raj and Naya Raj on fishing in the ‘Anua’. On the day of the incident, while they were proceeding home, they saw a fight between the residents of the two parts comprising of about 300/400 people from both the groups. Therefore, he, Maskandar Ali and Kala Mia while running away were caught in the fight and later, they saw Kala Mia lying with injuries. On being re-examined and cross examined subsequently, PW-1 stated that in the fight between the two groups, he was neither able to make out the actual assailants nor who caused hurt to whom.

¶54

PW-2 Habibur Rahman Mazumdar in his examination-in-chief deposed that on the day of the incident, he was doing some fencing work near M.E. Madrasa. Upon seeing a large number of people running, he wanted to proceed towards the commotion but Atabor Rahman prevented him from doing so. From a distance, he saw there was fighting going on between two groups of people. PW-2 too was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he denied having stated before the police about the detail of the incident including the names of those involved, the kind of weapons they were wielding and the role they played resulting in the death of Kala Mia. On being re-examined, he stated that he was at a distant of half a mile

¶55

Page No.# 8/18

¶56

from the place of occurrence.

¶57

PW-3 Monir Uddin Laskar deposed that on the day of the incident he was in the mill of Boktar which was about one furlong from the place of occurrence. All of a sudden, he saw a large number of people running towards the place of occurrence and he came out from the mill and proceeded a little distance towards the place of occurrence. However, since stones were being pelted, he could not proceed further and therefore, he returned home. Subsequently, he came to know that as a result of the fight between the two groups, Kala Mia succumbed to his injuries.

¶58

PW-3 also was declared hostile. In his cross-examination he denied having made statements giving the details of what he saw before the police. In his re-examination, he stated that he could not make out who the actual assailants were and who was hurting whom.

¶59

PW-4 Sakil Ahmed deposed that on the date of the incident while he was returning home he saw the police at the place of occurrence and the dead body of Kala Mia lying on the ground with the some injuries as well. He also put his signature on the inquest report as a witness. PW-4 who was declared hostile as well in his cross-examination, he denied having made statements giving the details of what he saw before the police.

¶60

PW-5 Musstt. Moni Begum who is the wife of the deceased Kala Mia deposed that Ajizur Rahman came to their house on the day of the incident and told her that the accused Moin

¶61

Page No.# 9/18

¶62

Master, Motin, Mijajur, Abdul Mallik, Samsul Hoque, Rohim Uddin, Latibur, Najjam, Konai, Lutu and Attabor killed her husband on the roadside near the school. When she rushed to the spot, she found her husband lying dead with multiple injuries on his person. She noticed injuries on his legs, neck, and back. She found her son Alim Uddin, Ajijur Rahman, Maskandar Ali, Gayas Uddin, Monir Uddin, Sakat Ali and Sahab Uddin on the spot and they narrated the incident to her whereafter, she became senseless. On being cross-examined and re-examined, she reiterated what she deposed in her examination-in-chief.

¶63

PW-6 Alim Uddin Laskar who is the son of the deceased Kala Mia deposed that on the day of the incident while he was grazing his buffaloes, on hearing shouts and commotion, he rushed towards the place where it came from and saw the accused Abdul Malik Master giving a spear blow on the left leg of his father Kala Mia. Accused Najam Uddin with a sulfi gave a blow on the neck of his father. Moinuddin and Samsul Hoque ordered the others to kill his father. Accused Motibor also came with a kiris and Rahim Uddin with the kiris caused cut injuries on the neck of his father. Mijajur at the same time gave a lathi blow to his father. Seeing this, he became senseless. He also saw Maskandar Ali who accompanied his father, Gayas Uddin and Najmul Hoque on the spot. As for Ajijur Rahman, he fled away from the spot to inform his relatives at home. In his cross-examination, he deposed that they were other people present at the place of the incident apart from the accused persons. On being re-examined, he deposed that he was at a distant about 200 yards from the place of occurrence during the incident and he did not become senseless on seeing the incident.

¶64

Page No.# 10/18

¶65

PW-7 Ainul Hoque Mazumdar deposed that the deceased Kala Mia was his nephew and he had seen the dead body of Kala Mia lying on the roadside with multiple injuries in his person. He deposed that in his presence, Ajijur Rahman, Monir Uddin and many others narrated the incident to the police. On being re-examined, he deposed that he did not find any other person on the place of occurrence.

¶66

PW-8 Jamil Ahmed Mazumdar was at his rice mill which was situated one and a half furlong (about 300 meters) from the place of where the incident took place. He heard shouts and commotion and saw people running towards the place of occurrence. When he reached the spot, he found the dead body of Kala Mia lying on the roadside. He also deposed that he saw Ataur Rahman giving repeated blows on the body of Kala Mia with a sulfi and he was prevented from going near the body of Kala Mia by Ataur Rahman. While returning, he saw Habibur Rahman proceeding towards the spot and later on, he heard that Kala Mia died due to the said occurrence. In his cross-examination he deposed that he saw Ataur giving blows with a sulfi on the neck and other parts of the body of Kala Mia. On being re-examined, he reiterated what he said in his examination-in-chief.

¶67

PW-9 Dr. Gunajit Das deposed that he carried out the post-mortem examination upon the dead body of Kala Miya. On examining the dead body, he found multiple incised injuries on the head and neck of the deceased which were fatal in nature. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock from the injuries sustained and were ante mortem and homicidal in nature.

¶68

Page No.# 11/18

¶69

PW-10 Maskandar Ali Mazumdar deposed that on the day of the incident, he alongwith Kala Mia and Ajijur Rahman were returning from Banaskandi Market on foot. When they reach the house of Konai Mia, the accused persons armed with dao, dagger, spear etc. appeared before them and asked them where they were going and to which, they replied that they were going home. Suddenly, accused Samsul Hoque caught hold of Kala Mia and Najom gave a spear blow on the neck of Kala Mia. Abdul Malik also gave a spear blow on the back of Kala Mia. Kala Mia fell on the ground and Samsul Hoque ordered the others present to cut the neck of Kala Mia. Rahim Uddin then cut the neck of Kala Mia by dagger. At that time accused Lutfur gave him PW-10 a lathi blow on his head whereafter, he ran away from the spot. Ajijur Rahman also ran away and informed the family members of Kala Mia. People gathered on the spot and some of them took him to his house in an injured condition. Subsequently, he heard that the police arrived on the spot and found Kala Mia dead. In his cross-examination and reexamination, he reiterated what he said in his examination-in-chief.

¶70

PW-11 Sahab Uddin deposed that on the day of the incident, he was in the shop of Lalai which was not far from the place of occurrence. When he heard shouts and commotion, he rushed to the spot and found the accused persons restraining Kala Mia and assaulting him with weapons like dao, spear, dagger etc. Kala Mia, Maskandar and Ajijur Rahman were returning from Banskandi market. Although he protested, the accused person did not pay any heed and assaulted Kala Mia with their weapons. Thereafter, one of his neighbor Najrul Hoque informed the police over telephone and when they arrived, the police found Kala Mia dead on the spot. On being cross-examined, he deposed that Kala Mia was his cousin and he

¶71

Page No.# 12/18

¶72

reiterated what he said in his examination-in-chief.

¶73

PW-12 Najrul Islam Barbhuyan deposed that on the day of occurrence, upon hearing shouts and commotions, he rushed to the spot and while he was proceeding, he saw people running and someone told him that Kala Mia was being detained. He saw some people were armed with spear, lathis etc. He saw Kala Mia lying on the ground with injuries on his person. He saw a dao in the hand of one person. He went near Kala Mia and noticed cut injuries on his neck and asked Kala Miya about the occurrence. However, Kala Mia did not answer him and after three or four minutes, he died. He then informed the police over phone but before the police arrived, he left the place. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he could not say who actually assaulted Kala Mia.

¶74

PW-13 Najmul Hoque Mazumdar stated that on the day of the incident he was sitting in a shop in front of his house. Hearing the shouts and commotion, he rushed to the place of occurrence and found Kala Mia lying on the ground with injuries. He saw the accused Rohim Uddin with a dao in his hand and giving a dao blow on Kala Mia. PW-13 too was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he denied that he gave the details of the incident in his statement before the police.

¶75

PW-14 Gayas Uddin Borbhuyan deposed that on the day of the incident he was returning back from Banskandi Market on foot. Kala Mia alongwith Maskandar Ali where also returning home from the market ahead of him. He then saw some people assaulting Kala Mia

¶76

Page No.# 13/18

¶77

and Maskandar Ali was lying on the ground. He saw the accused persons assaulting Kala Miya and they were armed with spear, dao, lathis etc. As he went near Kala Mia, he saw him bleeding profusely from the injuries in his person and Kala Mia died before him. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he could not see as to who assaulted on which part of the body of Kala Mia and who was holding what weapon. In his re-examination he deposed that he did not see the accused Atabur Rahman at the place of occurrence.

¶78

PW-15 Amalendu Das who was the Investigating Officer (IO) deposed that on 16.05.2002, he was attachment at Silchar Police Station. On that day, the Officer-in-Charge (OC) received telephonic information from one Najrul Islam Barbhuyan that Kala Mia has been killed by Islam Uddin, Najam and others. The OC after making GD entry endorsed the case to him for investigation. He then went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Kala Mia on the paddy field of one Salay Ahmed Laskar. He made inquest over the dead body he presence of witnesses and forwarded the dead body of the deceased to Silchar Medical College Hospital for post-mortem examination. He recorded the statements of all available witnesses at the place of occurrence on 16.05.2002 and drew a sketch map. Ajmal Hussain, Sakat Ali, Maskandar Ali and Foiaj Ahmed who sustained injuries were also forwarded to Silchar Medical College Hospital. He also seized blood stained green color shirt, one striped lungi, one white underwear which was the wearing apparel of the deceased on being produced by the escort duty constable. PW-15 further deposed that he examined PW-1 who stated that while they were proceeding towards their home, he saw four persons namely Moin Uddin (Master), Atabur Rahman Mazumdar, Abdul Malik and Samsul Hoque in front of the house of Moin Uddin. At that time, Rohim Uddin came out of the house and prevented

¶79

Page No.# 14/18

¶80

them from proceeding. Then Mijajur Rahman @ Mijai, Islam Uddin, Najam Uddin, Kabul Hussain, Latibor Rahman came out. Rohim Uddin had a lathi in his hand. Najam was having a spear and Latibor with a dagger. They chased Maskandar Ali and Rohim Uddin gave a lathi blow and Maskandar Ali fell down. He and Kala Mia ran away and at that time, Najam gave a spear blow on the neck of Kala Mia. Kala Mia fell down on the ground and Islam Uddin gave a dagger blow on the left side on his back and ran away. Someone gave him a lathi blow on his back. He also examined PW-2 who saw spear in the hand of Atabor Master. He also saw the other accused person with lathi, spear, dao and dragger in their hands. Atabor Master and Rohim Uddin gave a spear blow and a dragger blow upon Kala Mia and as a result, Kala Mia died on the spot. He also examined PW-3 whose said that he saw Maskandar Ali lying on the ground and Kala Mia assaulted by the accused person. Abdul Kalam inflicted a blow on the neck of Kala Mia, Lutfur gave a lathi blow and Najam Uddin also gave a spear blow on the neck of Kala Mia. Moin Master, Samsul Hoque and Atabor Master shouted asking the others to make the assault. He also examined PW-4 and PW-13 who also witnessed the accused persons assaulting the deceased Kala Mia. PW-15 in his cross-examination however stated that when recorded the statements of PW-5 Musstt. Moni Begum, wife of the deceased Kala Miya on 18.05.2002, she said that Ajijur did not report to her at her resident that her husband had been killed by the accused person. He also stated that PW-5 did not say that on getting the information from Ajijur, she went to the place of occurrance and found her son and others on the spot. PW-5 told him that she did not know who had assaulted her husband. PW-15 also stated that PW-10 did not inform him that the accused persons had attacked them with dao, dragger, bollom. PW-10 also did not inform him that the accused Samsul caught hold of Kala Mia and Najam gave a bollom blow on the leg of Kala Miya. In

¶81

Page No.# 15/18

¶82

short, he stated that PW-10 did not inform him the details that he deposed before the Court. Likewise PW-11 and PW-13 also did not inform him the details of what he had deposed before the Court. In his cross-examination by the counsel for the accused Ataur Rahman Mazumdar, he reiterated the statements he made in the earlier cross-examination.

¶83

PW-16 Dr. S.S. Bhattacharjee deposed that on 16.03.2002 he was attached to Silchar Medical College and Hospital in the department of Surgery and on police requisition, he examined Md. Sakat Ali Choudhury, Md. Ajmal Hussain, Maskandar Ali, Fayaj Ahmed Mazumdar and found injuries on their person were fresh and simple in nature. In his opinion, the injuries could be caused by fall on a hard substance.

¶84

Foyez Ahmed Mazumdar as court witness No.1 deposed his house is less than a kilometer away from the place of occurance. On the day of the incident, he was coming back from the local mosque when he heard that Kala Mia was being beaten up on the road at Puranraj. He then proceeded to the spot and saw a large gathering of people. Then a stone hit him on his head and he became unconscious. In his cross examination, he denied that he saw weapon in the hands of the accused person. Subot Dutta who was examined as court witness No.2 deposed that as a constable on duty in Silcahar Police Station at the relevant time he saw entries made in the General Diary and identified the signature of the Officer incharge of the Police Station.

¶85

The accused persons were all examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C to give them

¶86

Page No.# 16/18

¶87

an opportunity to explain the evidences led by the prosecution against them but however, they simply denied the questions put to them.

¶88

From an analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution, it can be seen that though PW-5, PW-10, PW-11 and PW-13 in particular, deposed in their examination-in-chief that it was the accused persons who attacked Kala Mia with weapons resulting in his death but however, on being cross examined, they denied having made such disclosure before the police recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. It was perhaps for this reason that the learned Trial Court took the view that improvements have been made by the prosecution witnesses during the trial and therefore, the evidence fell short of proof beyond reasonable doubt to implicate and convict any of the accused persons.

¶89

It may however be noticed that the evidence led by the prosecution through PW-6 and PW-10 are otherwise consistent and they corroborate each other. PW-6 and PW-10 in their examination-in-chief deposed that they saw Abdul Malik Master (respondent No. 3) giving Kala Mia (the deceased) a blow with a balom. Likewise, they also deposed that Rahim Uddin (respondent No. 9) cut the neck of Kala Mia with a dao/dagger. Their statements again have been further corroborated by the evidence of PW-13. PW-6 also deposed that he saw the Mizazur (respondent No. 5) give a lathi blow to Kala Mia while PW-8 in his examination-inchief deposed that he saw Ataur Rahman (respondent No.11) give repeated blows on the body of Kala Mia with a sulfi. PW-10 also in his examination-in-chief stated that Rahim Uddin (respondent No.9) cut the neck of Kala Mia by a dagger and that he saw Samsul Haque

¶90

Page No.# 17/18

¶91

(respondent No.2) order him and others present to cut the neck of Kala Mia. PW-10 also stated that Lutfur (respondent No.8) gave a lathi blow upon the deceased Kala Mia. PW-15 who was the case I.O deposed that PW-1 informed him about the details of the incident which led to the death of the deceased Kala Mia. It may further be seen that during the investigation, PW-1 named the respondent No. 2, 3, 9 and 11 and similarly, PW-2 and PW-3 had also named the accused persons/respondent Nos.2 to 11.

¶92

The deposition of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses was neither shaken, falsified nor demolished when they were cross-examined. Therefore, the finding of improvements by the learned Trial Court by itself may not render the case of the prosecution to be untrustworthy or unreliable more so, when their statements are corroborated.

¶93

Thus, it can be seen that there are material evidence against the accused persons which otherwise were not appreciated by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court therefore, could not have acquitted the accused persons by taking an overall view that there were discrepancies and improvements in the evidence of the prosecution. Therefore, upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the records, we deem it fit and proper that the case should be reconsidered by the learned Trial Court in the light of the above discussion.

¶94

In the result, the impugned Judgment dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Sessions Case No.32 of 2007 is set aside and

¶95

Page No.# 18/18

¶96

the case remanded back to the learned Trial Court for reconsideration from the stage of arguments. Let such exercise be carried out by the learned Trial Court as expeditiously as possible by notifying the parties concerned.

¶97

The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. Registry to send back the lower court records immediately.

¶98

JUDGE JUDGE

¶99

Comparing Assistant

Mani Begum v. State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Begum v. State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Abubakkar Siddique Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Saitanya Das Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Sandhya Bala Sarkar @ Sandhya Sarkar Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Nirodh Das Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Gautam Aich Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Halima Khatoon Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.