- (1.)AS per the case of the prosecution, on 03.10.1984 around 1 P.M. around 15 persons who have armed with lathi, spear dao etc. came to the house of Liljan Bibi and Raham Ali and assaulted them, Raham tried to free him but he was assaulted and as a result of the injuries sustained, both Raham and Liljan BIbi died. Before Raham succumbed to injuries, his statement was also recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Laharigahat which became dying declaration after his death. The accused persons were charged for offence under Section 302 read Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court convicted these accused persons, including the appellant, for aforesaid offences and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ - each. In default further imprisonment for three months was imposed. The appeals were filed by these accused persons, 15 in number, which were heard together by the Guwahati High Court. Vide the impugned judgment dated 04/05/2005 these appeals have been dismissed. One of the convicted persons, namely, Siraj Ali has filed the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution that too after a delay of almost 8 years. However, the delay was condoned and the special leave was granted, having regard to the fact that the matter needs consideration.
(2.)AT the time of arguments, we are informed that other convicts did not challenge the order of the High Court.
Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was neither named in the FIR nor in the dying declaration of Raham Ali. He was roped in at a later stage. It is further pointed out that even when PW -1, PW -3 and PW -5 in the deposition before the trial court have mentioned his name, they do not attribute any role of the appellant in the entire episode.

(3.)WE have considered the aforesaid plea with reference to the record. It is not in dispute that the name of the appellant does not find mention in the FIR whereas the names of the some of the persons are specifically mentioned. Likewise, learned counsel for the appellant is also right in his submission that the name of the appellant is not there in the dying declaration of Raham Ali. On going through the depositions of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.5, we find that no doubt, they have stated the names of few persons who had come to the residence of Liljan Biwi and Raham Ali and these names includes the name of Siraj Ali. However, what is material is that thereafter they have specifically given the names of some of the accused persons stating the specific role of giving particular blows to two victims and others who sustained injuries, but name of the appellant is conspicuously missing in these details. From it, it is very clear that no specific role has been ascribed to the appellant. In the FIR lodged by the complainant, while not naming the appellant and stating that some other persons along with named persons had come to the place of occurrence, he did not say that he could recognise such other persons. The reading of the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses along with their cross examination raises some doubts in the mind about the involvement of the appellant who appellant might have been introduced later. Therefore, we are of the opinion that insofar as the appellant is concerned, his guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus giving the benefit of the appellant conviction against him is set aside.