STATE OF ASSAM Vs. ABDUL KALAM AND ORS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
STATE OF ASSAM
Abdul Kalam And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
Ajit Singh, C.J. -
(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimganj in Sessions Case No.32/2008, whereby he has acquitted respondent Nos.1 to 6 of the charges under Sections 148, 341 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) According to the prosecution case, Respondent No.1 is father of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, whereas Respondent No.2 is their close associate. Few days prior to the date of incident, Respondent No.1 had a quarrel with Suruk Ali over an issue relating to football match. Respondent No.1 even lodged First Information Report about the incident against Suruk Ali at Nilambazar Police Out-post. But, due to intervention of some villagers, Respondent No.1 withdrew the report with an understanding that the dispute would be settled in village bichar. Pursuant to this understanding, Respondent No.1 and Suruk Ali also deposited Rs.5000/- as security with the middle man as per condition of village bichar. But, soon thereafter, Respondent No.1 withdrew the amount. Village bichar, therefore, could not be held. Thereupon, Respondent No.1 threatened to kill Suruk Ali and likewise, Suruk Ali threatened to kill Respondent No.1.
(3.) After few days i.e. on 18.3.2006, sometime during afternoon, Suruk Ali went to Nilambazar to attend the weekly market but he did not return home. His son - Md. Setab Uddin (PW-1), therefore, along with other relations and villagers made a search for him, but in vain. Md. Setab Uddin then also informed the police that Suruk Ali was missing. However, on the morning of 19.3.2006, dead body of Suruk Ali with injuries was found lying in a paddy field by Lalon Mian (PW-6). Faizun Bibi (PW-4), wife of Suruk Ali, lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit-9) on the third day since recovery of the dead body. In the absence of any eye witness, the police arrested the respondents on suspicion and filed a charge sheet against them relying upon the following circumstances :-
i) On the night of 18.3.2006, all the respondents were found holding a meeting in the market of Nilambazar;
ii) On 18.3.2006, Suruk Ali did not return home from the market;
iii) On the night of 18.3.2006, the respondents were found in a paddy field near the place of occurrence with weapons in their hands;
iv) Thereafter, all the respondents were found returning village through a path and their clothes were stained with blood;
v) On the night of 18.3.2006, the respondents were later found bathing in their pond and leaving their houses after locking the door;
vi) On the morning of 19.3.2006, dead body of Suruk Ali was found lying in a paddy field.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.