(1)
District­Tinsukia
I N THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
TINSUKIA.
Present­N.S.Deori
B.Sc. LL.B, AJS.
G.R. Case No.623/08
U/Ss.­379/427 of I.P.C.
State
­versus­
1. Sri Jatin Dutta, S/o Sri Robin Dutta,
r/o Badati,Jamuguri.
P.S. Bihpuria,
District­ Lakhimpur, Assam.
2. Sri Khilonjit Gohain,
S/o Sri Photik Gohain,
r/o Na­Motapung.
P.S. Makum,
District­ Tinsukia, Assam
................Accused Person.
Charge framed u/S.­ 379/427 of I.P.C. On : 27­05­09.
Prosecution Evidences recorded on : 10­08­09, 05­08­11, 09­05­
12, 10­12­12, 28­05­13.
Statement u/s­313 Cr.P.C. recorded on : 11­06­13,
Argument heard on : 11­06­13.
Judgment delivered on : 11­06­13,
Ld. Counsel for the Prosecution:
(2)
Sri B.B. Yadav,
Addl. P.P. Tinsukia
Ld. Counsel for the Accused persons:
Sri A. Alam,
Adv. Tinsukia Bar.
J U D G E M E N T
This is a case arose out of Makum P.S. Case No.43/08 upon an F.I.R. lodged by one Sri A.K. Dutta against accused persons. 2. The prosecution version, is essentially, as follows:
­ An FIR lodged by one Sri A.K.Dutta alleging that the garden chowkiders Rudra Baruah, Bijoy Asaram and Romesh Lakhiram informed him that on 16­05­2008 at around 3.30pm some miscreants has entered their southern side of section. No. XIV of their garden and stolen about 300 kgs. Green leafs. When their chowkiders chased the miscreants then they ran away and left some bags of green tea leafs. That’s apart the miscreant caused severe damage about 300 tea bushes of their garden. Hence, the prosecution case against the accused persons.
3. The police on receipt of the said FIR, swung into action by investigating the case. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s­161 Cr. P.C. after visiting the place of occurrence and prepared the case diary under section­172 Cr. P.C. Having materials against accused persons, the then Officer in­Charge of the concerned police station filed a charge­sheet against the accused persons under section­ 379/427 of I.P.C. to face the trial before the court.
4.
On receipt of summon, the accused persons entered appearance before the court and the relevant copies were furnished u/s­207 Cr.P.C. to them. The offences under section­ 379/427 of I.P.C. against the accused persons are framed, explained and read over to him upon which they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 5.
(I)
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:­
Whether the accused persons on 16­05­08 at 3.30 pm dishonestly (3)
taken away the Green Tea Leafs from the section­14 of Hapjan Tea Garden out of possession and without the consent of the garden authority, as alleged ?
(II)
Whether the accused persons on 16­05­108 at 3.30 pm caused mischief by damaging about 300 Tea Bushes in Hapjan Tea Estate, as alleged ?
DISCUSSION, REASONS AND DECISION THEREOF:­
6.
In the instant case, the prosecution side has examined as many as 6 (six) witnesses, namely, Sri Amlan Kusum Dutta (P.W.­1), Sri Bijoy Asaram (P.W.­2), Sri Romesh Lakhiram (P.W.­3), Sri Mujib Ahmed Hazarika (P.W.­4), Sri Chanika Chanu (P.W.­5) and Sri Keshab Changmai as P.W.­6; whereas, the accused person adduced none of the witnesses for their defence. The accused persons have also pleaded not guilty in their statement under section­313 Cr. P.C. and declined to adduce evidence for their defence.
7.
It’s worth mentioning that in order to bring home the offence under section­379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution shall prove the following ingredients are required to prove by the prosecution.­ (1) The subject­matter of theft is movable property. (2) It was in possession of a person. (3) The accused moved the said property from that person’s possession. (4) The accused did so without the consent of the person in whose possession the said property was; and intending to take it out of his possession.(5) He did so dishonestly. 8.
In the evidence of P.W.­ 1, Sri Amlan Kusum Dutta is to the effect that he is the informant in the present case. He deposed that on 16­5­08 he was the Asstt. Manager of Hapjan T.E. Under Apeejay Tea Ltd. On 17­
5­08 in the morning while he was at his work then Sri Rudra Boruah, Bijoy Asara and Romesh informed him that on the previous night some of the miscreants left the section No. 14 of their garden by plucking about 300 kg green leafs and also damaged the tea bushes. Then he went to police station and lodged Ejahar in this regard. He testified the FIR as Ext. 1 and Ext. 1(1) is his signature.
(4)
9.
Without any departure, P.W.­2, P.W.­3, P.W­4 and P.W.­5 narrated the same fact in their testimonies. They have categorically stated that the occurrence took place on the relevant night in section­14 of Hapjan Tea Estate. Some of the miscreants plucked off the Green Tea Leaves from the said garden. None of them could identify the accused persons perpitrated the offense. The Investigating Officer, P.W.­6 Sri Keshab Changmai deposed that he investigated the case after visiting the place of occurrence. He testified the sketch map as Ext.­2 and Ext.­2(1) is his signature. He also exhibited Ext.­3 and Ext.­4 are the seizurelist. Having materials against the accused persons, he filed the charge­sheet as Ext.­5 and Ext.­5(1) is his signature. There is nothing material discrepancies in the investigation.
10. On careful analysis of evidences on record, it has come to light that on 16­05­08 at around 3­30 pm some of the miscreant were stealing the Green Tea Leafs from section­14 of Hapjan Tea Garden. When the Chowkider was trying to prevent them from such act then the accused persons tried to assault him. The occurrence took place at night and so many other miscreants were there but only the present accused persons were apprehended from the Mini Truck. There is no ocular testimonies that the accused persons were perpetrating plucking off and the stealing the Green Tea Leafs from the garden of the informant. The only evidence came up that a vehicle i.e. Mini Truck bearing No. NL 04/A 9004 was seized with green tea leafs by the police along with the accused person. The said green tea leafs were brought from where and who was the owner owere been not substantiated beyond doubt. Mere presumption of holding the accused person as guilty is the antithesis of cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence. The prosecution must prove its case in due legal manner and beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case thatthe accused persons on 16­05­08 at 3.30 pm dishonestly taken away the Green Tea Leafs from the section­14 of Hapjan Tea Garden out of possession and without the consent of the garden authority, or the accused persons on 16­05­108 at (5)
3.30 pm caused mischief by damaging about 300 Tea Bushes in Hapjan Tea Estate. Thus, there is nagging doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case and thereby, the accused is given the benefit of doubt. 11. In the totality entire evidences on record and assessment thereof; this court has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused person. Therefore, this court hold the accused Sri Jatin Dutta and Sri Khilonjit Gohain are not guilty of offences under sections­379/427 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and they are acquitted and set at liberty forthwith. Bailbond against them stands canceled and the baillor is released from his liabilities of the bailbond.
Given my hand with the seal of this court on 11th. June' 2013.
(N. Senabaya Deori)
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tinsukia
(6)