TAJAMUL ALI LASKAR Vs. ABDUL RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a purported appeal from an order of acquittal passed by the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate,Hailakandi in G. R. Case No. 940 of 1974 acquitting 12 accused persons of the charges under Section 143 read with Section 379 of the I.P.C.

(2.) ABOUT 10 years ago a paddy theft was allegedly committed by 12 accused persons. Since 1974 these 12 persons were taken care of by the police men, and had the rigours and modifications of attending court on innumerable occasions. Perhaps the persons around the place have forgotten and wiped out from their memory the 'tiny incident'. However the first informant desires to disinter the case from the graveyard and to get a conviction of those 12 accused, upon setting aside the order of acquittal. It is true that the present appellant had filed a complaint in court but the learned Magistrate found that it was a fit case for police investigation and directed the police to investigate the matter. Accordingly, the police treated the complaint as the first information report and a Govt. Report case was registered, investigated and charge sheet submitted by the police.

(3.) THE allegations against the accused who are related to each other that they formed an unlawful assembly and reaped away the paddy grown by the complainant. The incident happened on 5 -12 -74 in broad day light, in presence of all and sundry. In short, it was not surreptitiously 'taking' but an open act. Even the accused openly stored the paddy in the house of Respondents 1 and 2. What was recovered? One and half maunds of paddy in the court -yard of accused Abdul Rahman and a bundle of paddy seedlings. Therefore, the subject -matter of the offence was only 1 -1/2 maunds of paddy. So, we say that it was a 'tempest in a tea pot' to bring such a tiny matter to this court. Be that as it may, the prosecution examined witnesses in support of their case and the learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence reached the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the land in dispute was in possession of the first informant. It follows, therefore, that the learned Magistrate concluded that the prosecution could not establish, that the paddy in question was grown by the complainant. The learned Magistrate also disbelieved the story of cutting and removal of the paddy. How is it that when ripe paddy was allegedly cut, how could the first informant claim that the seized seedlings were his property? The first information clearly depicts that there was no case of plucking of seedlings nor was it the case of the prosecution in court. Why did the first informant permit seizure of the seedlings, thereby destroying the paddy seedlings. Was it not ulterior? Let us pass over the matter and proceed to consider the findings of the learned Magistrate, the complainant himself gave out two versions of the story which could not be reconciled with each other. The month of the occurrence was altered from Agrahan to chaitra, a long gap of four months in between. Even the first informant and his witnesses gave different versions as to the precise land from which the paddy had been cut and taken away. Some of the witnesses categorically stated that the paddy was 'never removed by any of the accused.' Some of the witnesses clearly stated that they were not sure as to who had grown the paddy. There were various discrepancies, for which the learned Magistrate, who had recorded the evidence, could not pin faith and confidence in the prosecution witnesses and accordingly granted benefit of doubt to the accused, which they were surely entitled to. We have also perused the evidence and we agree with the learned Magistrate that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.