WAZAMAO Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal appeal by 50 appellants who have been convicted under Section 120B (D, 323. 365 and 395 of the I.P.C. The substantive sentence is imprisonment till the rising of the Court and also fine. The total fine comes to Rs. 18,000/ -. The conviction is based on admission of guilt to the charges.

(2.) THE first contention of the learned Counsel for appellants is that the appellants were convicted but without furnishing them with the copies of the 'Police Reports and other documents' required to be furnished under Section 207 Cr. P.C. The second contention is that the appellants Nos. 1 to 4 and 59 were never present on 27 -4 -1978, when the alleged pleas of guilt were recorded by the learned magistrate. The third contention of the appellants is that the accused are Lotha Nagas who had no working knowledge of Nagamese so they could not follow what were the charges explained and what statements were recorded by the learned Magistrate. They were taken aback to hear about their conviction and immediately presented an application to obtain the order of conviction to prefer appeals as they never pleaded guilty to the charge. The learned Counsel submits that the appellants never admitted guilt.

(3.) THERE is another interesting facet. We find that the learned magistrate himself categorically admitted in the order that the incident is a sequel to a land dispute between the appellants and the other side. The learned Magistrate observed: As established from the hearing of each of the accused persons that the offences with which they stand charged were committed because of land dispute between Yikhum and Humtse village. It shows, therefore, that the appellants claimed that they took the crop claiming them to be their property. In any view of the matter the learned Magistrate gathered this from the statement of the accused but we do not find any such statement. So it was a vital omission which shows that : (1) the recording of the statement was improper, (2) the recording was neither full nor fair nor adequate, and (3) the statements which were in favour of the appellants were not recorded by the learned magistrate. All these go to show that what were recorded as plea of guilt were not the complete statements of the appellants.