LABANYA DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the informant against the judgment and order dtd. 22/2/2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Sessions Case No. 14/2004 under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Corresponding to Sec. 103/3(5) of the BNS, 2023]. By the impugned judgment and order dtd. 22/2/2017, the respondents herein who were the accused persons have been acquitted.

(2.) The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 10/3/2002 at about 2.30 pm by the appellant who was examined as PW1. It was alleged that in the evening of 8/3/2002, when he was not present at home, three of the accused persons had forcibly taken his youngest brother, Pankaj Das (deceased) from their house along with some other youths and threatened him inside the Swahid Smriti Sangha (herein after Sangha). On the happening of such incident, the informant had taken the deceased to the house of his elder brother at Guwahati and left him there in the morning hours of 9/3/2002. However, the accused persons, named in the Ejahar, had again brought the deceased from Guwahati and assaulted on him at 11.00 pm and made him consume Daimcron and left him at the verandah of the Sangha. Thereafter, on hearing the scream of the deceased, the neighbouring people came and found him in a critical stage and they had also seen the accused entering the house of one Kandarpa Das. The deceased was rushed to the nearby Baruah Nursing Home, Nalbari and was admitted. However, due to his critical condition, he was referred to the hospital at Guwahati.

(3.) The Ejahar was accordingly registered as Ghagrapar PS Case No.18/2002 under Ss. 325/307/306/34 IPC [Corresponding to Ss. 117/109/108/3(5) of the BNS, 2023]. The investigations were accordingly made by the police whereupon, the charge sheet was laid. The charges were accordingly framed on 27/2/2004 under Sec. 302, read with Sec. 34 of the IPC against three accused persons [Corresponding to Sec. 103/3(5) of the BNS, 2023]. The charges were explained which were denied and accordingly the trial had begun. However, after certain witnesses were examined, the learned Trial Court, vide order dtd. 17/3/2006 had added 8 more nos. of accused. It may be mentioned that prior to the said order, 6 nos. of witnesses were examined and thereafter, a de novo trial was held after arraying 8 more nos. of accused persons as mentioned above.