STATE OF ASSAM Vs. ANAYAT ULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Assam herein appeals against the acquittal of the 9 (nine) respondents of charges under sections 148/448/427/380 I.P.C.

(2.) On 6.5.77 at about 10 8.m Sushil Malakar, P.W. 1 lodged an ejahar at the Silchar P.S. alleging that at about 7.30 a.m. of that morning the accused persons with many others formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the land under his possession and demolished the shop house-cumgodown and took away the demolished building material as well as the articles stored in the godown. Police registered a case and started investigation but before they could submit the charge-sheet Sushil Malakar filed a complaint in Court on the same Occurrence and the two cases were amalgamated.

(3.) The learned trial court framed charges under sections 148/448/427/380 I.P.C. to which the respondents pleaded not guilty and said that the complainant was not in possession of the house which was destroyed by storm at night. At the trial prosecution examined 9 witnesses including the I/O while the defence examined one witness. In their statements under section 313 Cr. P.C. the respondents stated that the house belonged to respondent Anayat Ullah and it collapsed in storm the previous night and hence they removed the building materials which belonged to them. The learned trial court found that the complainant was residing in a house just behind the godown, which had allegedly been demolished and the demolished house was under occupation of the complainant and it was used as a godown. On the question of demolition the learned trial court found that the complainant examined 3 other witnesses besides himself and his wife. P.W. 2, Suresh Ranjan Deb who as another tenant of respondent Anayat Ullah said that Anayat Ullah stopped accepting rent from him and even refused to accept the M.C. The court discarded him as his relationship with Anayat Ullah was not cordial. P.W. Ahindra Mohan. Saha contradicted the complainant saying that while he was going to school with his daughter at 7.30 a.m. he found no one at the place of occurrence but while coming back at about 8.30 a.m. he saw the occurrence. Before the I/O this witness did not even state that he went to the place of occurrence. Hence the court found him unreliable. P.W. 6. Jatindra Chandra Paul was a witness in a complainants case and hence the court held that he was under obligation to the complainant. The court further observed that no close neighbour had been cited as 8 witness though the place of occurrence was surrounded by many residential houses and though it was stated that many people assembled to see the occurrence none came forward as a witness to help the complainant, and according to the learned trial court this made the complainants case rather doubtful. The lone defence witness Sona Gowala deposed that a disputed house was destroyed by storm and the demolished materials were removed by respondent Anayat Ullah and that he was examined by police. In cross-examination he stated that the house in which the complainant had ration shop still existed and the complainant lived behind the shop which was destroyed. He further said that both the houses had same plinth but the roofs were not of the same height and that the dwelling portion of Sushil also had electric connection. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined and he denied the suggestion that the respondents early in the morning destroyed the ration shop house of the complainant. On further cross-examination he said that only one shop house was destroyed by that Storm but the other houses suffered from damages but were not destroyed. The court observed that though this witness was examined by police he was not cited as a witness in the charge-sheet. On the basis of the a both evidence on record when the learned trial court held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond any doubt that the accused persons demolished the shop house of the complainant can the view be said to be unreasonable? As regards the charge of theft of some articles from the demolished house the Court found that while the Investigating Officer seizedsome articles from the demolished house no Such articles could be recovered from the accused persons. From this the learned trial Court concluded that the respondents did not take these bags of salt and hence charge under Section 380 also was not proved.