MUSABBIR ALI TAFADAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Musabbir Ali Tafadar
STATE OF ASSAM
Click here to view full judgement.
P.K. Goswami -
(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the conviction Under Sections 147, 323/149 and 436/149, Indian Penal Code. There are only three petitioners in this revision, two others have not come up before this Court. They were all sentenced to one year's R. I. Under Sections 147 and 323/149, IPC. under each head and to three years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 900/ -, in default to R. I. for another six months Under Sections 436/149, IPC.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that Abdul Khaleque Gaonbura (P.W. 2) and some others were in possession of the disputed land, and on 10 -2 -1962 at about 8 A.M. the accused persons along with many others, numbering about two hundred being aimed with daos and daggers etc. formed into an unlawful assembly with the common object of dispossessing Abdul Khaleque and other persons from the land, assaulted Abdul Khaleque, his mother and others and set fire to Khaleque's house and some other houses and dismantled other houses. Abdul Khaleque and eight others sustained injuries in the course of this raid. Ultimately twenty -four accused persons out of the thirty -eight charge -sheeted were committed to take their trial before the Sessions Court and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted only live of them as stated above. Prosecution examined ten witnesses including the doctor (P.W. 1) and a Police Officer (P.W. 10). P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 7 are the injured persons. They as well as P.Ws. 4, 6, 8 and 9 gave evidence regarding the occurrence implicating the accused persona. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge accepted the version as deposed to by these witnesses and held that the charges have been established. The appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence by the accused was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence this revision.
(3.) IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the charges are illegal and defective and have prejudiced the accused persons in defending themselves. Three charges were framed against the accused persons. The first one reads as under :
That yon, on or about the 10th day of February 1962 at Lankajan Darjeesheel were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, viz., in dispossessing Abdul Khaliq Gaonbura and others from their land and in causing hurt to them and destroying their property, committed the offence of rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.
The second charge is:
That you, on or about the same day of February 1962 at the same place were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of which, viz. in voluntarily causing hurt to Abdul Khaliq Gaonbura, Julikha Khatoon and some others, some of the members voluntarily caused hurt to them and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 323/149 of the Penal Code
Thirdly: "That you, on or about the same day of February, 1962 at the same place were members of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of which, viz., in causing mischief by fire some of the members set fire to the dwelling houses of Abdul Khaliq Gaonbura, Kari Ansar Ali, Baduruddin and Abdul Rahman and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 436/149 of the Penal Code.
It is contended by the learned Counsel that the charge Under Section 147 is bad because of mentioning three common objects therein. Secondly he contended that the two other additional charges contained common objects different from those mentioned in the first charge and as such the accused were handicapped in meeting the charges levelled against them. He therefore submitted that the entire trial is vitiated by framing of the charges in the manner done by the Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.