Crl.Rev.P. 266/2006. Gauhati High Court

Case NumberCrl.Rev.P. 266/2006
Judgement DateAugust 14, 2018
CourtGauhati High Court

Crl. Rev. P. 266/ 2006

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE MI R ALFAZ ALI

( ORAL )

Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent.

  1. The revision petitioners, Joy Kumar Poddar and Bijoy Poddar were convicted under Section 323/ 341 I PC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup in G.R. Case No. 238/ 1998 and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each for both the offences with default stipulation. The revision petitioners filed appeal against the conviction and sentence. Learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Crl. Appl. No. 27/ 2004 upheld the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner and dismissed the appeal.

  2. The prosecution case, in brief as unfolded during trial was that the informant was tenant in the house of the revision petitioners. On the night of the occurrence, the revision petitioners Joy Kumar Poddar and Bijoy Poddar along with their Chowkidar and some unknown persons forcibly entered into the rented house of the informant, assaulted them and snatched away golden chain from the neck of the wife of the informant. When some neighbouring people came, the accused persons left the place. An FI R was lodged by PW-2, on the basis of which, police registered a case and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the revision petitioners.

  3. During trial, prosecution examined 6 witnesses including the doctor and the investigating officer and on appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Court convicted the revision petitioners under

    14.08.2017

    Section 341/ 323 I PC and awarded sentence as indicated above. The judgment of the Trial Court was challenged in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.

  4. Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, at the outset submits that the revision petitioner No. 1 Joy Kumar Poddar, who was personally known to him expired about 4 years back. I n that view of the matter, proceeding against said Joy Kumar Poddar stood abated.

  5. Out of the 6 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 being informant and the members of his family were the eye witnesses. Learned Trial Court convicted the accused persons basically relying on the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. PW-1, Promod Kumar Singh stated in his evidence that the accused Joy Kumar Poddar (since deceased) and his Chowkidar...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT