Prasad Bhor @ Sri Prasad Vs. State of Assam  Insc 14 (8 January 2007)
G.P.Mathur & A.K. Mathur W I T H Of Assam) & Criminal Appeal No. 27 Of 2007 @
Special Leave A.K. Mathur, J.
granted in S.L.P.(Crl) No.1169 of 2006.
appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.2005 passed by
learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court ( High Court of Assam, Nagaland,
Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Nizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) whereby learned
Single Judge has dismissed the appeals of the accused persons and confirmed the
conviction and sentence of the accused persons.
facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 8.6.1991, Smt. Rani Begum lodged
a first information report that her husband, Rehmat Ali went out of the house around
8.00 a.m. for fishing and around 11.00 a.m. she was informed by Mina Begum that
her husband had been killed by accused Manik Keot, Brajanath Kurmi and Jaharlal
Kurmi and the dead body was packed into a gunny bag and thrown into a river.
The police registered a case and during investigation the dead body was
recovered from the river and thereafter it was sent for post-mortem
examination. On completion of investigation, a case was registered against the
accused persons under Sections 147, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, I.P.C.). On completion of
trial, learned Sessions Judge recorded conviction under Sections 147, 149, 304
Part II and 201, I.P.C. against the accused persons and sentenced them to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each,
in default to suffer further imprisonment for two years. The trial court found
that it was not necessary to record any separate sentence under Sections
147/149/201, I.P.C. and sentenced the accused persons under Section 304, Part
II, I.P.C. only as it was observed that it was sufficient to meet the ends of
justice. Aggrieved against this order a joint appeal was filed before the High
Court. Learned Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the conviction and
sentence of the accused appellants.
be mentioned here that during the pendency of appeal, appellant Champalal Bhor
and Brajnath Kurmi expired, therefore, the appeal against these two appellants
present appeals we are concerned with the accused- appellants, Manik Keot, Sheo
Prasad Bhor and Jaharlal Bhor.
have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
Learned counsel for the appellants has taken us to the evidence of the witnesses
and tried to persuade us that all the witnesses who have been examined by the
prosecution were not worthy of credence as they have improved their statements
as given under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.
P.C.) and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as during the trial.
learned counsel for the appellants submitted that these witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 2,4,5,6,
and 7 are not reliable.
have gone through the statements made under Sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C. of these witnesses
and before the trial court, after going through the statements, we are of
opinion that the approach of the learned Single Judge of the High Court appears
to be justified. So far as P.W.2- Faizul Hussain is concerned, he has named
accused Manik Keot and Jaharlal Bhor. P.W.3 has also named accused Manik Keot
and Jaharlal Bhor in the Court though not before the Police and not before the
Magistrate. P.W.4 has named accused Sheo Prasad Bhor, Champalal Bhor and Jaharlal
Bhor. P.W. 6 has also alleged that Champalal Bhor, Manik Keot and Sheo Prasad Bhor
were lifting Rehmat Ali from the spot and were dragging him to the bank of the
river. He has also stated that accused Jaharlal also gave a baitha blow to the
deceased and accused Champalal Bhor gave a dagger blow and when he tried to
intervene, he was threatened by accused Sheo Prasad Bhor.
P.W.7 has also mentioned that accused Sheo Prasad Bhor was there and
participated in the assault. He also mentioned the name of Jaharlal Bhor before
the Magistrate and the court. His statement was sought to be controverted by
P.W.9 - Investigating Officer. Small contradiction and omission are natural
when body of persons attacked deceased. One has to only assure that there
should not be over implication. After review of statements by both the courts
below have correctly appreciated the testimony of witnesses.
have also perused the statements made by the witnesses, it is clear that some
took part in the assault while others actively assisted them. When charge under
section 149, I.P.C. is there, it is not necessary that each one should be
assigned independent part played in the beating. If it is found that one of
them was a member of the unlawful assembly and that unlawful assembly assaulted
the deceased which ultimately caused the death of the deceased, then all who
were members of the unlawful assembly can be held liable.
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the view taken by the trial
court convicting accused appellant under Section 304 (II) read with Section 149
cannot be said to be bad. The High Court has rightly observed that it was a
case under Section 302, I.P.C. but since there was no appeal preferred by the
State, therefore, High Court did not interfere with the conviction of the appellants.
Be that as it may, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge as well as
the trial court has correctly appreciated the testimony of the witnesses and
there is no ground to interfere in these appeals.
the appeals are dismissed.