TANIA DABU Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this proceeding, the judgment and order dated 20.9.95, passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, in Sessions Case No. 4/93, convicting the petitioner, Tania Dabu, is under challenge by way of this revision petition.

(2.) Though the present application is purportedly made under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, in fact the application is made under Section 28 of the Regulation, 1945 Section 50 of the Regulation, 1945 confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Count only in the matter of civil proceedings and in the area of criminal proceedings, a revision lies only under Section 28 of the Regulation, 1945; that apart, the High Court by itself may entertain an appeal by special leave under Section 26 of the Regulation, 1945. Though Section 26 provides for appeal only against sentences of imprisonment for three years and upward and also against sentences of death or transportation, a discretion is conferred on the High Court to entertain an appeal against sentences other than those as mentioned under Section 26 of the Regulation, 1945 by way of special leave. Since in this proceeding, the judgment and order including the finding of the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri, is challenged wherein the learned Deputy Commissioner exercised the powers of a Sessions Judge, for fitness of things, it would be open to High Court in such matters to hear such application as an appeal. The revisional power as set out in the rules are not hedged with any restriction and, therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in such revision shall not be constructed by any of the provisions laid down in the Civil Procedure Code as well as the Criminal Procedure Code. Rules are to be interpreted on the setting of the situation of the area. In exercise of the revisional powers, the (High Court may embark upon the appraisal of facts like that of an appellate Court and decide whether the order of the Court from which the appeal is brought was right on the materials which that Court had before it. The expression "revision" as set in the rules is not to the understood in the narrower sense [relied: Ka Idis Mari Karkongar-Vs-Ka Theirit Lyngdoh, ALR 1969 (KB.), Assam & Nagaland (Short Notes) Needless to say that in these areas, separation of Judiciary is yet to be made and trial of cases including Sessions, are by the Executive authority who are not endowed with the proper legal training and the ends of justice as well as the spirit of the Rules provide the power on the High Court to appreciate the facts as appellate authority.

(3.) The petitioner, Tania Dabu, was tried for an offence under Section 307 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act in the following circumstances. According to the prosecution, on 1.1.93, at around 8.45 PM (forty five minutes past eight PM), the accused fired upon Constable Nabam Tajang, in the Guard Room of the District Potlice Office, Daporijo. A formal F.I.R. was lodged with the Office-in-Charge, Daporijo Police; Station, by Constable Nabam Tajang on 2.1.9.3. The case was registered under Section 307 IPC by the police. On completion of the investigation, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 307 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Daporijo, in due course committed the case to the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri, and the learned Deputy Commissioner on receipt of the case on committal, framed charges under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Constable, Ananda Noroh, was the first witness examined by the prosecution, who deposed that lie also worked as Constable and was posted at S.P. 's office, Daporijo on Sentry duty. That his duty hours was from 10 PM to midnight (12 PM). That on the date of occurrence, Constable, Nabam Tajang, was on duty from 6 PM to 8 PM. After performing his Sentry duty, Nabam Tajang came to the Guard Room and lied down on the bed. That at about 8.3(0 PM, Constable, Tania Dabu, went to the Guard Room and a altercation took place between Tania Dabu and Nabam Tajang. Then the witness got down from the bed and tried to pacify both of them, but they did not listen to him and, therefore, the witness left the Guard Room and went inside the W.T. Room. After about five minutes, Nabam Tajang also went inside the WT Room and he was in good physical condition. That after Nabam Tajang entered the WT Room, there was a sound of firing and thereafter, Tania Dabu also entered into the WT Room. The witness was declared hostile, who was cross-examined by the prosecution.