ABDUL MUSSABIR MAZUMDAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of and directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cacher, in Sessions Case No. 33/95 on 12.6.98, by which the accused appellants, viz. Abdul Mussabir Mazumdar, Habibur Rahman, Abdul Latif, Md.Kamrul Islam Mazumdar, Anar Ali Mazurodar, Rafique Uddin and Khokan Barbhuiya, were convicted under Sections 120B and 302/34 IPC, and sentenced each of them with imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 1000-each in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further one month for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC; for the offence under Section 120B IPC, each of the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmenl:for a period of six months.

(2.) Barkhola Police Station Case No. 125/90 was intitiated at the instance of Sahebdas Panika and Sanjit Chakraborty, who reported at the Barkhola Police Station on 28.6.90 that a severed dead body was found lying near the Halflong Road. Investigation was taken-up by the Sub-Inspector of Police and the Investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, recovered the served dead body, took photograph of the same and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination to the Silchar Medical College. On 6.7.90, PW 6, Abdul Haque, appeared at the Barkhola Police Station and identified the dead body to be that of his younger brother, Mainul Haque. After investigation, the Police submitted Final Report and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, by his order dated 6.12.90, accepted the Final Report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police and discharged the accused who were arrested, and also passed orders for destroying the seized cloths and to return the other seized articles from whom those were seized. On an revision application filed, the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, directed the investigating officer of the case to re-investigate the case and on conclusion of re-investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 120B, 302/102 IPC. On committal, the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 120 B and 302/34 EPC against the accused. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as nineteen, witnesses including the Investigating Officer, Constables and Medical Officer. Admittedly, the entire case hinge on circumstantial evidence. The learned trial Court, considering the evidence on record, acquitted Begum Bibi and convicted and sentenced the other seven accused persons as indicated above. Hence the appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the at length. Mr. C.R. Dey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/ appellants submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, all the accused were entitled to acquittal. The learned Senior counsel took us through the entire evidence on record to bring home the contention that the prosecution failed to established the circumstantial evidence from which a conclusion could be drawn about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence under which they have been convicted. Mr. Dey pointed out that the circumstances those were relied upon by the prosecution, are not compatible to the guilt of the accused persons and, therefore, the conviction is unsustainable in law.