AJIT BORUAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by six appellants, including Ajit Boruah (in jail) and Rajib Boruah (on bail). The other four appellants are Ranjit Boruah (son of Ajit Boruah), Satyajit Boruah, Rajib Bora and Lelai HatiBoruah. Insofar as the last four appellants are concerned they have been found by us to be juveniles on the date of commission of the offence. By an order dated 23-2-2011 we had required their cases to be taken up by the Juvenile Justice Board. We had retained the case records for hearing the appeal of the remaining two appellants but after having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that all the appellants before us ought to be acquitted of the offence. For this reason, we are now of the view that there is no occasion for requiring the cases of the four juvenile appellants to be taken up by the Juvenile Justice Board.

(2.) ON 18-5-2001 a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged to the effect that Ajit Boruah, Rajib Bora, Lelai HatiBoruah, Rajib Boruah @ Moniram Boruah, Satyajit Boruah and Ranjit Boruah had intercepted Siben Hazarika while he was returning home from work at about 7.00 pm. Then, in front of the residence of Indreswar Bhuyan, they caused his death by assaulting him with sharp weapons. It was also alleged that after having committed the crime Lelai HatiBoruah threatened to kill the informant Bubul Hazarika, the elder brother of Siben Hazarika. ON the basis of the FIR, the police conducted investigations and filed a charge-sheet alleging the commission of an offence under Sections 147/148/ 149/302 of the IPC.

(3.) SIMILARLY, the evidence of PW-1 Prafulla Boruah does not advance the case of the prosecution. Rather it casts some doubt on whether he actually went to the place of occurence because according to this witness he was told by his brother (who was not examined) at about 7.15 pm that Siben Hazarika was lying dead. This witness went to the place of occurrence but did not meet any one over there and later he was told that the appellants had caused the murder of Siben Hazarika. This witness had signed the inquest report but other than that his evidence is of no specific value.