Crl.A(J) 165/2004 - Gauhati High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1390) that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be thrown overboard and in appropriate cases, the relatives are the best witnesses, who are less likely to shield real culprits and implicate innocent persons. While setting aside a judgment of acquittal on the basis of ocular testimony of the wife of the deceased their Lordships have distinguished the evidentiary value of ‘related’ and ‘interested’ witness in the following words. “A witness may be called ‘interested” only when he or she derives some benefits from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of the case cannot be said to be ‘interested’. In the instant case the PW 1 had no interest in protecting the real culprits and falsely implicating the respondents” 31. In the instant case, we do not find over exaggeration of the facts or material and significant infirmities in the testimonies of prime witnesses. It is also not a case wherein it can be held that the prosecution evidence throws two views and the respondents can be given benefit of doubt. 32. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we have come to the conclusion that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are not based on evidence and materials on record. On the other hand, the prosecution evidence clearly proves that all the five accused persons/respondents were directly involved in the offence of murder by forming an unlawful assembly. Criminal Appeal No.<strong>165</strong>(J)/04 Page 18 of 18
33. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside. All the five respondents namely, Golbar Hussain, Abu Sama, Abdul Baten, Jahir Ali and Rahim Ali are hereby convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 149 IPC. The respondents are directed to surrender in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri forthwith, failing which the learned Sessions Judge shall take steps to apprehend them to undergo conviction for the offence of murder. The respondents are sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each for their conviction under Section 302 r/w Section 149 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the convicts shall undergo further RI for six months each. 34. The seized weapons are directed to be destroyed as per the Rules. 35. Send down the records along with a copy of the judgment. 36. In view of the provisions prescribed by Section 357-A Cr.P.C., the victim or his/her dependants are entitled to get compensation for rehabilitation in appropriate cases. In the light of the directions, given in the case of Jalilur Rahman –vs- State of Assam, reported in 2012(1) GLT 238, with regard the victim compensation, as provided by Section 357-A Cr.P.C., we make the following directions: Criminal Appeal No.<strong>165</strong>(J)/04 Page 19 of 19
Page 1 and 2: IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH
Page 3 and 4: accused persons took the plea of to
Page 5 and 6: shall be presumed to be innocent un
Page 7 and 8: 9. Now coming to the merit of the c
Page 9 and 10: against the accused persons by depo
Page 11 and 12: 17. PW 6 is the uncle of the deceas
Page 13 and 14: days ago from 160 Bighas of land of
Page 15 and 16: these witnesses had specifically na
Page 17: “accused persons”). Admittedly,

Crl.A(J) 165/2004 - Gauhati High Court

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?