High Court · 2012

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25-08-2003 passe d by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Sessions Case No.126/2002 whereby the accused was acquitted of the charge u/s 307/506 of the Indian Penal Code and se t at liberty, the State is in appeal.

3. The genesis of this criminal case is a civil dispute between two brothers i.e., the accused and the informant, over a pathway. The informant Shr i Sahidur Rahman as the first party had filed a petition before the learned Exec utive Magistrate, Dhubri u/s 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C .) alleging that the second party i.e., the accused Shri Motiur Rahman had block ed the pathway by erecting a hut and by planting vegetable crops thereon. The sa me was registered as Case No.103/1999. The learned Additional District Magistrat e, Dhubri by her order dated 22-10-2001 directed removal of the structures and t o keep the road free for public use. According to the first information lodged by the informant Shri 4. Sahidur Rahman, on 09-11-2001 at about 1pm when he went alongwith one Executive Magistrate and the police to execute the above order, the accused suddenly appea red with a dagger in his hand with intent to kill him and his brother Shri Jakir Hussain. But he was apprehended by the police, who snatched the dagger and thus they were saved. In the process, the accused also rebuked them by using filthy language. The said first information was treated as FIR and on the basis of the same, Dhubri P.S. Case No.276/2001 u/s 294/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC ) was registered. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted the c harge sheet against the accused under the aforesaid provisions of law. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. On 29-01-2003, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against

5. the accused u/s 307 and 506 IPC, which reads as under :- (cid:28)First - That you on 09-11-2001 at about 1pm at Chagalchhara Pt- III under Dhubr i P.S. while the police party accompanied by the Executive Magistrate were on du ty to open a path as per order of the Court, you being armed with a dagger ran t owards Saidur Rahman and his brother to assault with intent to kill them and und er such circumstances that if by that act you had caused their death, you would have been guilty of murder and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 307 o f the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions at Dh ubri. Secondly - That, you on the same date, time and place you committed criminal int imidation by threatening Saidur Rahman and his brother with a dagger to cause in jury on their person and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 506 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions at Dhubri (cid:29).

6. e pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which h

7. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses whereas the def ence examined none. However, from the statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., it comes out that his case is one of total denial.

8. On scrutiny of the evidence and after hearing the parties, the l earned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and, t herefore, on benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused.

9. Section 307 IPC deals with the offence of attempt to murder. To constitute the offence of attempt to murder, an act must be done by the accused with the intention and knowledge that if he by that act causes death, he would b e guilty of murder. Therefore, firstly, there must be an act attributed to the a ccused. Secondly, such act must be committed with the intention and knowledge th at if that act causes death, he would be guilty of murder. In so far section 506 IPC is concerned, it deals with the punish 10. ment for the offence of criminal intimidation, which is defined in section 503 I PC. As per section 503 IPC, whoever threatens another with any injury to his per son, reputation or property or of another person in whom that person is interest ed with the intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do a ny act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding execution of such threat, commi ts criminal intimidation. The learned trial Court has noted that though the PW 1 to 5 are 11. related to each other (PW 2 being the informant) and are interested witnesses, e ven they did not state that the accused had chased the informant and the other b rother to assault them with the intent to cause their death.

12. PW 7 is the police officer Shri Kalyan Kumar Deb, who had gone t o execute the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate passed u/s 147 Cr.P.C. He has stated that the executing party had arrived at the site of the d isputed road at about 11:15 am and tried to make the accused understand the orde r of the learned Magistrate. But the accused did not try to understand and inste ad rebuked all the persons present. Thereafter, the labourers accompanying the e xecuting party started clearing the parthway when at about 1 pm, the accused cam e out of his house with a dagger. But the police snatched away the dagger from h is hands and apprehended him.

13. Shri Pranab Kumar Sarma, the Executive Magistrate, who was prese nt during the execution, is the PW 8. He has also stated that the accused tried to interrupt the execution of the order dated 22-10-2001 but the order was execu ted. According to him, in the meantime, the accused had come out with a dagger i n his hands when he asked the police officer present to arrest the accused and a ccordingly, he was arrested.

14. From a careful scrutiny of the testimony of those two vital offi cial witnesses, it is seen that neither of them have stated that the accused had made an attempt to assault the informant and his brother or that the accused ha d threatened them with dire consequences.

15. It may be useful to mention that the learned Sessions Judge had noted that the accused had stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the orde r dated 22-10-2001 was challenged by him in revision and the revisional Court ha d set aside the said order on the ground that the said order was passed without hearing the accused. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge had observed that it was quite natural for the accused to resist the execution.

16. Under the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence on record is ins ufficient to warrant conviction of the accused u/s 307 and 506 IPC is a plausibl e view. Following the well known principles governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, this Court is of the view that no case is made o ut for reversing or interfering with the judgment of acquittal.

18. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed, but without any cost. Registry to send down the record.

19. Before parting with the record, this Court places on record its appreciation of the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curie Mr. S.C. Key al.