Decided on February 27,2018

Sri Dandi Ram Deka Appellant
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents


HITESH KUMAR SARMA,J. - (1.) This appeal, under section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred against the judgment and order, dated 18-09-2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (FTC), Kamrup, in Sessions Case No. 204 (K) of 1995, convicting the accused-appellant, under Sections 420 of the IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 35,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year 6 months. It was further directed that in the event of realization of fine, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to the legal representative of Chandra Kanta Koiborta, as compensation.
(2.) I have heard Mr. R Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant. I have also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State respondent.
(3.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.06.1991, informant Sri Mani Ram Kaibortya lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Mukalmua Police Station alleging the following facts. For last about 5/6 months from the date of the filing of the FlR, Sri Dandi Deka often used to visit houses of Sri Pradip Das and Sri Niranjan Deka of the village and he used to tell that there was a man in Guwahati who was capable of arranging job of clerk if money was paid. By doling out the promise to arrange jobs, money was taken from Pradip, Niranjan and Chandrakanta. On 05.05.1991, the accused-appellant, Dandi Deka took Chandrakanta to Guwahati for handing him over the appointment letter. But till 10.06.1991, when Chandrakanta did not return, the informant along with some other persons went to Guwahati and found Dandi Deka in the court compound. When Dandi Deka was asked about the whereabouts of Chandrakanta, he could not give any satisfactory reply. Suspicion arose in the minds of the informant and his accompanying persons and they brought Dandi Deka to their village in order to find out the whereabouts of Chandrakanta. The informant even suspected that Dandi Deka misappropriated the money taken from Chandrakanta and had killed him. Accused Dandi Deka was, thereafter, handed over to police. On filing of the FlR, Mukulmua Police Station Case No. 90/1991, under Section 364/420/34 IPC was registered against the accused. After completing investigation, Investigating Police Officer submitted charge sheet against three accused including the FIR named accused Dandi Deka and after commitment of the case to the court of sessions, learned sessions Judge, Nalbari charged all the accused under Section 364/420, read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and the trial commenced. When the case was fixed for recording of the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC, 1973 it was transferred to Kamrup Sessions Division for deciding together with the Sessions Case No.143/95, vide order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 638/1994. It deserves a mention here that the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari, after exhausting all the required legal formalities, framed charge against all the three accused persons, including the accused-appellant, under Section 364/420/34 of the IPC and also completed recording of evidence of the prosecution. As stated above, on receipt of the case on transfer from the Sessions Judge, Nalbari, the Sessions Case was renumbered in the Kamrup Sessions Division.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.