NIBARAN BORAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned judgment and order, dated 5/3/2002, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 63/2001, the learned Ses sions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, has dis missed the appeal of the present accused-petitioner and upheld thereby the judgment and order, dated 18/10/2001, passed, in G.R. Case No. 5781/1998, by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati, convicting the present accused-petitioner under Sections 392, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and pay a fine of Rs. 300.00 and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.

(2.) The case against the accused-peti tioner, as surfaced at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows : On 13/12/1998, Badri Bahadur Biswakarma (hereinafter referred to as 'the infor mant") along with his minor son, Suraj Bahadur Biswakarma, came from Shillong to Guwahati on their way to Siliguri and on that day, i.e. 13/12/1998, at about 5.45 p.m. while the informant was sitting inside the bus, which is run under the name and style of'Blue in bound Transport', two police personnel, one of whom was a Havildar, came to the bus and took the informant's identity card and started checking his bags and as the policemen found a "Khukri" in his bag, they brought him down from the bus with the three bags, which the informant had been carrying. After the bags were so brought down to the ground, the Havildar took away the said Khukri. On being asked by the police personnel, the informant opened his remaining bags. One of these bags had two bundles of currency notes, one bundle contained Rs. 12, 000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) and the other one Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand). The police personnel, then, asked the informant to accompany them to their police station, they took the informant to the backside of the ASTC bus stand and took away the bundle of Rs. 12,000/- and asked him to go back. Before sending him back, one of the police personnel asked the informant to take back his Khukri, but the informant did not, out of fear, take back the said Khukri. However, before the informant left, one of the police personnel intimidated the informant by saying that if he raised alarm, they would cut him into pieces. With the threats, so given, the two police personnel went away with the Khukri and also the said sum of Rs. 12,000/-. In the meanwhile, however, the bus left with the informant's 12 year old son, Suraj Bahadur Biswakarma, in the bus. The informant, then, went back to the bus-counter and reported to them about what the police had done to him. On the follow ing day, i.e. 14-12-1998, the informant lodged a written Ejahar. Based on the Ejahar and treating the same as FIR, a case was" registered against the unknown police personnel. On that day, i.e. on 14-12-1998, the informant also went to the Superintendent of Police and informed him about the oc currence. The Superintendent of Police brought the informant to Paltanbazar Po lice Station and asked the Officer-in-Charge thereof to make the police personnel, who were present there, to stand in a row. In compliance with the direction so given, about 40/50 police personnel were made to stand in a row, but the informant did not identify any of them as a person involved in the said occurrence. The informant was, then, taken to the office chamber of the Officer-in-Charge of Paltanbazar Police Station and there the informant, having found the two police personnel, who had taken away his money and Khukri, identified them accordingly. On further instructions given by the Superintendent of Police, the residential quarters of the said two police personnel were searched and from the residence of the present accused-petitioner, the Khukri was recovered and seized. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet under Section 392, IPC against the present accused-petitioner, namely, Nobran Bora, a Havildar, and Bipul Mahanta, a Home Guard personnel (since acquitted).

(3.) During the trial, both the accused persons aforementioned pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Section 392, IPC.