High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 150/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I A ANSARI HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P K MUSAHARY JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Musahary, J) This appeal has been preferred u/s 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. challen ging the judgment and order dated 12.6.2008 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court)No.4, Kamrup at Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 222(K)/20 04 acquitting all the accused respondents of the charge u/s 120(B)/121/121(A)/12 2/124(A)/153(A)/34 IPC and setting them at liberty. The prosecution case, in brief, is that : 2. (i) During routine interrogation of the arrested accused persons of Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 67/99 u/s 120(B)/121/121(A)/122/,124,(A)/153(A)/34 IPC, i t came to light that Pakistan Intelligence Service i.e. Inter Services Intellig ence, hereinafter referred to as (cid:28)ISI (cid:29), contacted some persons residing in var ious parts of Assam for carrying out subversive activities in the State. These persons entered into a conspiracy alongwitn the ISI operatives to recruit and train up a large section of Muslim youths in the state for carrying out Holy War (Jehad) by resorting to terrorist activities. These persons along with the ISI operatives are conspiring to create large scale disturbances in the state to ove rawe the established Government. According to information available these person s are also planning to instigate the innocent and law abiding Muslim population of the state to develop hatred between Muslim and non Muslim population. With t his purpose in view, some of these persons have recruited and sent several Musli m youths for arms and explosive training in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afganistan and other countries. After completion of their training those persons had been acqu iring and smuggling arms, ammunitions and explosive, into India with the help of ISI for waging war, against the Govt. of India. The activities of those persons are likely to lead to serious communal disturbances as well as serious threat t o national security. The Inspector of Police, S.B., Assam Kahilipara, Sri Kandar pa Kr.Nath, therefore, lodged an F.I.R with the Officer-in-Charge, Special Opera tion Unit. (II) The Officer-in-Charge of Special Operation Unit, on receipt of the formal FIR from the said officer, registered a case on 06.08.99, being SOU P.S. Case No. 1/99 under Section 120(B)/121/121(A)/122/124(A)/153(A)/34 and star ted the investigation. The police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against 17 accused persons under Section 120(B)/121/121(A)/122/12 4(A)/153(A) IPC showing 10(ten) other accused persons as absconders. (iii) The Accused/Respondents, on receipt of process from the court, appeared before the Court of the learned CJM, Kamrup, Guwahati but as the offen ces were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned CJM , Kamru p, Guwahati, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Kamrup, Guwahati and the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, made over the case to the Court o f the Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge(FTC No.3) Kamrup, Guwahati for disposal. The learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC No.3), Kamrup, Guwahati framed charges against the accused petitioners and one Muslimuddin under Sections 120(B) /121/ 121(A) /122/ 124(A) /153(A) /34 IPC, which were read over and clearly explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After frami ng of charge, during the trial, accused Muslimuddin Ali absconded and hence the case against him was filed and the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge proceede d with the trial against the other 7(seven) accused persons. After examination of six witnesses the learned Addl.Sessions Judge(FTC No.3) Kamrup, Guwahati, ret urned the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati expressing his u nwillingness to proceed with the case and the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gu wahati, finally transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge(F TC No.4) Kamrup, Guwahati, for disposal. 3. The prosecution, in support of its case examined as many as 19 w itnesses and the defence examined none. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC N o.4) Kamrup Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as learned trial Court only) afte r closure of the evidence, examined the accused/respondents under Section 313 C r.P.C., and thereafter proceeded to hear the case on the point, as envisaged under Section 232 Cr.P.C. but as the learned trial Court did not consider it to be a case of no evidence, did not record an order of acquittal and, therefore, a sked the accused/respondents to enter upon their defence by adducing evidence b ut all the accused/respondents declined to examine any defence witness.
Legal Reasoning
The learned trial court on consideration of evidence on record and upon hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment and order acquitting all t he accused/respondents of the charges under Sections 120(B)/ 121/ 121(A)/ 122/12 4(A)/ 153(A)/34 IPC and directed to set them at liberty. 4. We have heard Mr D.Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General , Assa m assisted by Mr KA Mazumdar, Addl.P.P., Assam for the appellant State and also heard Mr.S.C.Biswas learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Mr.Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the State appellant, submits that the prosecution has successfully brought on record and proved the fact of seizure of huge US dollars and Bangaladeshi c urrency notes from the possession of the accused respondent Nos.1,2,6 and 7 by adducing cogent evidence. He also submits that by exhibiting the seizure list, ext.4, the prosecution also proved the fact that the accused respondent Nos 1 a nd 2 are foreign nationals and they have entered India illegally with an evil mi ssion and design in mind. 6. Mr.D.Saikia, at the first instance, broadly submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW 6, Debendra Deka , D SP of Panbazar police station, who clearly stated in his examination-in-chief t hat while he was the DSP of Panbazar police station during the year 1999, seize d huge US Dollar and Bangladeshi takka including Indian rupees with one identity card belonging to one Akram Ali , some documents written in both Urdu and Engli sh, and also an identity card issued by Pakistani Government, instruction manu al to handle wrist watch, one hand diary containing instructions on operation o f various improvised explosive devices, pocket diary with some phone numbers etc which conclusively proved that the accused respondents were planning to make bo mbs for carrying out subversive activities in the State for which they are liab le to be punished for committing offence of sedition u/s 124 IPC. Secondly, he submits that the learned trial Court failed to take into consideration the clinching pieces of oral and documentary evidence on rec ord, particularly Ext.4, seizure list, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the accused respondent No.2 was possessing an identity card issued by the Government of Pakistan and inspite of that the learned trial court simply relied on the ad dress furnished in the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. and illegally acquitte d the said accused respondent No.2 of the charge. Thirdly it is submitted that the finding of the learned trial c ourt to the effect that (cid:28)except the I.O. none of the prosecution witness have ev er stated that the accused persons are the members of any unlawful organisatio n and they are making any conspiracy against the Government (cid:29) is not correct inas much PW 15 clearly stated and corroborated the said fact in his deposition by st ating in the Court that all the accused respondents were related to Harkat-Ul-M uzahiddin group and as such the finding of the learned trial Court is perverse, erroneous and bad in law. Fourthly it is stated that prosecution has been able to prove that all the accused respondents were conspiring together on 7.8.1999 to commi t offence of waging war against the State and in furtherance of their common o bject, they came to an agreement, and further, in pursuance of that agreement carried foreign currency punishable u/s 121A IPC. Fifthly the prosecution, by adducing oral and documentary evide nce, has been able to prove that the accused respondents on 7.8.99 agreed to do or cause to be done illegal acts and for that they collected men and money w ith sole intention of waging war against the State and the country and as such the accused respondents have committed offence punishable u/s 120(B) and 153 A IPC. 7. The substance of whole submission of Mr.Saikia is that the prose cution succeeded in proving the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and so the l earned trial court should have passed an order of conviction and sentence agains t all the accused respondents. To establish his submission he has taken us throu gh the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 8. Per contra, Mr.S.C.Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the re spondents submits that the materials collected by the prosecution and the eviden ce adduced by it, do not prove the charge framed against the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution claimed recovery of incriminating material s, more particularly, the US Dollar and Bangaladeshi currencies but there is no independent eye witness to the fact of recovery and seizure thereof. Mr.Biswas strongly argues that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the r espondents beyond reasonable doubt and as such the learned trial Court rightly a cquitted all the respondents of the charge u/s 121/121A/122/224A/153A/34 IPC, w hich calls for no interference in appeal. The prosecution has examined five independent witnesses to estab 9. lish the charges. We have gone through the evidence of all the witnesses availab le on record: PW 1, Md Abdul Bari, deposed that on 4.10.99 he was working in a 10. n NGO named Markajul-Ma- Arif. The said NGO has its head office at Hojai and Bra nch office at Panbazar. He was working at Panbazar branch office on 4.10.99. On e Mr K.K.Nath, Inspector of Special Operation Unit(SOU in short) visited the Pa nbazar office of the said NGO alongwith his staff and wanted to have a look at computer machine suspecting that there are some objectionable things in the co mputer set. The police team seized the computer set alongwith job register book, bill books and one copy each of various leaflets in his presence. In cross-exa mination he stated that the accused respondents who were present in the dock wer e, in no way, connected with the said NGO. He further stated that the accused p erson had never been DTP operator in the said farm. 11. PW 2 is one Sri Amitava Thakuria. He stated that at 5-10 PM on 5 .8.99 he was going towards Garigaon Bidyanagar and having seen some policemen and gathering of people in the house of one (cid:28)kari Sahel (cid:29) Kafeyatulla by name, he went there and saw B.C.Das S.I. of Police , Panbazar P.S.(PW 15), DSP Mr D. Deka and ASI Mr.R.Saikia searching the house of one (cid:28)Karizonab (cid:29) in connection w ith some cases. Just after the search the police seized about 14 documents vide seizure list, Ext.2, which was prepared in his presence. He had a glance at the said seizure list and put his signature, Ext.2(2). In cross-examination he clea rly stated that there was no document regarding anti-national and extremist orga nisation. None of the documents seized could give any clue that might cause harm to country and the society. On being further cross- examined, he stated that h e did not know as to who, from where and when the documents were seized. During search he went inside the house. The police interrogated him. But the seized d ocuments were not shown to him. Md.Abdul Wahid, who was working in the said Panb azar DTP centre on 6.10.99 was examined as PW 3 . He testified that the police v isited the DTP centre(Niro), seized one bill book, some leaflets and one compu ter set vide seizure list Ext.1, on which he put his signature , Ext1(2). He co rroborated the evidence of PW 1. His evidence is that the seized articles belo nged to their office, Markajul-Ma-Arif, and the accused Zakil Hussain and Jahiru l Haque, Kafayat Ullah did not have any relation with the seized articles. Sei zed articles were not seen in the court at the time of making the deposition. PW 4, Md Mustak Ahmed, was also an employee of the said NGO at P 12. anbazar. He made deposition corroborating the evidence of PW 1 and 3.Md Rafique Ullah, PW 5 is a businessman and owns a shop at Jalukbari. He came to know that three policemen picked up his elder brother in a scooter. Later on he come to k now that his elder brother was produced in the court of CJM at Guwahati. The pol ice, thereafter, came to their house at about 7 PM on the same day and seized so me documents from their house vide Ext 2. He signed the said seizure list as a w itness and proved his signature, Ext 2(2). In cross examination he stated that t he documents seized do not relate to any anti national activities and, therefore , there is no case of anti-national activities against him. 13. PW 8, MD Hafiz Abdul Rashid, was working as proof reader in the said Markazul-Ma DTP centre at Panbazar, Guwahati on 6.10.99. He deposed before the Court corroborating the evidence of PW 1,3 and 4. According to him no extrem ist activities have been carried out from the said DTP centre and the accused r espondents are not connected with the said centre. He further stated that the ac cused respondents never visited the DTP centre/NGO. PW 9, Md.Ali Ajgar, was also an employee of the said DTP centre. He has corroborated the evidence of 1,3,4 and 8. He stated that one Muslim Ali Muzahid, often used to come to their DTP C entre /Press and he would be able to recognise him. The said Muslim Ali Muzah id was not present alongwith the accused respondents who were present in the C ourt at the time of making deposition. In cross-examination he denied that the M arkazul-Ma-Arif is an extremist organisation. He asserted that it is a religious centre. It was only an NGO and it does not indulge in any anti-national activit ies. His evidence is that he does not know accused Zakil Ali and Zahirul Haque as they never visited the NGO’s office. Now we come to the deposition of official witnesses Md.Abdul Az 14. iz Ali, a resident of village Garigaon, who deposed that when the I.O. Sri B.C. Das conducted search in the house of accused Kafayat Ullah on 5.8.99, he was pr esent. He also stated that the following articles were seized in his presence: (cid:28)1. 6 copy invoice challan of S.H.Kalkar & Co. Ltd. In the name of SBI Guwahat i University Branch with one memo from SBI. 2. Two(nos) letter to spare Aromar one order copy in the name of M/S Kastry bo ok depot . One challan of spare Aromars. 3. One letter (urdu language). 4. Some small papers containing some phone no. 5. one book (Mashik pattich) 6. One pass port application form 7. One telephone book (index no.) 8. one diary (chayan) 9. One book 10. One pocket photograph 11. one Tatham Trantra Book 12. One(Jamiyal illigible Hirdar Sewa) book 13. Two nos Bank opening A/d form in the name of Anowar Hussain 14. 5 nos. pass port application form. (cid:29) The aforesaid articles were seized vide seizure list Ext.2 on which he put his signature , Ext.2(3). In cross-examination he stated that seizure lis t, Ext.2, was prepared at the place of occurrence and at the time of making seiz ure, the aforesaid accused was away from home. He also stated that no paper, evi dencing association of the aforesaid accused with any extremist outfit, was foun d from his house. This witness knows the accused Kafayat Ullah as a teacher of a Madrassa and he had never seen the accused involved in anti-national activiti es nor has he heard about it . Now we come to the deposition of official witness PW 6, Sri Debe 15. ndra Deka, I.O. of Panbazar P.S.Case No. 321/99, which is related to Crl.Appl N o. 149/2008. He was the officer who arrested seven suspected foreign nationals, allegedly agents of ISI and working in Assam in collusion with local extremist e lements with intention to wage war against the Government of India for which the y have procured huge arms and ammunitions and US dollars and Bangaladeshi Takka by indulging in act of sabotage on the important public installations and estab lishments and creating communal tension in the society between the Muslim and n on Muslim communities in the State. The said witness seized US dollars and Ban galadeshi currencies at the Guwahati Railway Reservation counter, from the poss ession of some accused persons in the said Panbazar P.S. Case against whom charg es were framed u/s 120B/121/121A/153A/34 IPC . He also seized various articles including diary, hotel bills etc. from the said accused persons. In his eviden ce the said witnesses also disclosed that some accused persons involved in Panbazar P.S. Case were implicated in the SOU PS case No. 1/99. 16. PW 10, Pankaj Talukdar, was working as DSB constable on 10.11.99 at Barpeta road P.S. He was present when the I.O. Tarun Hazarika ,PW 13, of Barpeta Road P.S seized the articles. He put his signature, Ext.5(1), on the se izure list(Exr.5). He had described / mentioned the articles seized as under: 1. One original seizure list vide Barpeta Road P.S. M.R. No. 59/99 seized by S.I .Tarun Hazarika in connection with Barpeta Road P.S.Case No. 104 /99 , containin g (1) one revolver(Made in Japan is written on the body) (2) 9MM (pistol’s 5 rou nd live bullets (3) 762 SLR’s 4 round (live) bullets (4) AK 47’s 14 round live bullets 2. eta road P.S. One Photostate copy of the above seizure list, certified by the O/C Barp In cross-examination he stated that he did not have a look at the articl es properly. But he clearly stated that he was not present at the time of mak ing the seizure and so he did not see from whom, where and how those articles w ere seized.He also stated that he did not see from whom the I.O., Tarun Hazarika , seized the articles. 17. PW 11, Bijoy Das, was the second officer of Barpeta Road P.S. As per his evidence he was present when the I.O of this case seized the aforesaid articles from I.O. Tarun Hazarika. He corroborated the evidence of PW 10 . In cr oss-examination he, however, stated that he does not know from whom the I.O.,Tar un Hazarika seized the articles and the said seized articles were not seen in t he Court at the time of making the deposition. Gauri Shankar Ram, PW 12, stated that he was working as Second O 18. fficer at Panbazar police Station on 5.8.99. He was the Officer-in-Charge of the said P.S on that day. He was associated with the police team who arrested the a ccused persons and seized the articles including foreign currencies at Guwahati Railway Reservation counter in connection with Panbazar P.S. case No. 321/99. In cross-examination he deposed that he did not go to the house of the accused K afayatulla and he did not see the seized articles in the Court at the time of m aking the deposition. PW 13, Sri Tarun Hazarika, was working as S.I. of police at Bar 19. peta Road Police Station. He corroborated the evidence of PW 10, Pankaj Talukda r, in regard to seizure of articles from the house of accused Farrok @ Asan Ali .According to this witness, Sri Kandarpa Kumar Nath, I.O. of SOU P.S. case No.1 /99 came to Barpeta Road P.S and seized the articles which were earlier seize d by him in connection with Barpeta Road P.S.case No. 104/99. This witness con firmed that he seized the aforesaid articles in connection with Barpeta road P.S .case No. 104/99 from the accused Farrook @ Asan Ali and accused Moinul Hoque @ Mannan. In cross-examination this witness stated that in the seizure lists, Ex t.5 and 6, there is no mention about the relationship between the accused Faroo k and Moinul. There is also no mention as to whether the accused persons had any connection with the articles seized from Farook and Moinul. However, he clarifi ed that the accused persons involved in the present case are not involved in Bar peta Road P.S.Case No. 104/99. He also clarified that in Ext.5 and 6, he did not mention that the accused Farook and Moinul are ISI members. PW 14, Sri Nripendra Medhi, was working as P.I. of court at Goal 20. para on 28.5.99. On that day the original records of Dudhnoi P.S.case No. 67/99 were available in the PSI office at Goalpara. He stated that the I.O of SOU Case No. 1/99 issued a police requisition for seizure of the seizure list related to Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 67/99. With due permission of CJM, Goalpara the said I.O. of SOU Case No. 1/99 seized the seizure list related to Dudhnoi P.S.Case No. 6 7/99. The I.O. of the said SOU Case took photocopy thereof leaving the original seizure list in the custody of PW 14. He disclosed that the present accused Kaf eya Tulla , Jakir Hussain, Fasiullah, Quri Salim, Jahidul, Javed Waqar and othe rs, have been implicated in Dudhnoi P.S.Case No. 67/99. In cross-examination th is witness, however, stated that the CJM, did not issue any written permission for seizure of the above seizure list. There was an oral permission only. He al so stated that in Ext.7 there is no mention that Dudhnoi P.S.Case No. 67/99 and SOU Case No. 1/99 were inter related. PW 15, Bhuban Das, was an Attached officer to Panbazar P.S. on 5 21. .8.99. On that day PW.12, Gauri Sankar Ram, was officiating as Officer-in-charg e. The I.O. of the SOU P.S.Case No. 1/99, Sri K.K.Nath(PW 19) gave a requisition for interrogation of accused Kafeya Tulla. There was a G.D.entry in connection with the same and he went to Garigaon Bidyapur accompanied by DSP , Panbazar a nd other police personnel . They met accused Kafeya Tulla at his home and took him in custody. During house search they found objectionable documents from th e said accused and seized them in presence of witnesses, namely, Abdul Kalam Aja d (PW 2), Amitava Thakuria(PW 2), Rafiqulla (PW 5) and Md Abdul Aziz Ali(PW 7). According to this witness the aforesaid accused Kafeya Tulla and others are asso ciated with Harkat-Ul-Mujahiddin. In cross-examination he stated that he did not see the articles seized from the house of accused Kafeya Tulla, whom he did not know since before. He also stated that the words (cid:28)Harkat -Ul-Mujahiddin (cid:29) and (cid:28)Deshdrohi (cid:29) were not mentioned in Ext.2. He did not closely observe the seized items, rather he looked at them casually, as asked by the SOU P.S. He apprehende d the accused Kafeyat Tulla and handed him over to them. He does not know what h appened to him thereafter. 22. Dilip Choudhury,PW 16, was serving as S.I. of police in the S.B. , SOU. As per his evidence, Sri K.K.Nath(PW 19) asked him in writing to go to Dudhnoi and seize the articles which were seized earlier in connection with Dud hnoi P.S.Case no. 67/99 and accordingly, he went to Krishnai O.P. under Dhudhno i P.S. and met its in-charge. He was told that one seizure list alongwith origi nal records had already been sent to Goalpara P.S.I. Court and the rest of the seizure list were with him. He then went to Goalpara Court and made a prayer b efore the CJM, Goalpara to allow him to seize the seizure list from the P.S.I Court. The Court gave him permission to seize the required documents from the file of Dudhnoi P.S. Case no. 67/99. Thereafter he returned to Krishnai out p ost and seized two seizure lists from the file of Dudhnoi P.S.No. 67/99 in pre sence of witnesses Lohit Ch Rava and Inspector Tarun Ch. Dey. He testified that Ext.8 and 9 are the seizure lists mentioned above and Ext.8(1) is his signature while Ext.8(2) is the signature of PW 19, K.K.Nath. He also proved the other l ists, Ext.9 which bears his signature, Ext.9(1). In cross-examination he stated that he does not know from whom those articles were seized . As per his statemen t it is not mentioned in Ext.7 that Dudhnoi P.S. case No. 67/99 and SOU PS Case No. 1/99 are inter related and he does not know who were the accused persons i n the Dudhnoi P.S.case No. 67/99. He could not even mention the names of the acc used persons involved in the SOU P.S.case No. 1/99. He also admitted that he did not go through the seizure list related to Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 67/99. 23. Md.Hazarat Ali, PW 17, deposed that on 25.8.99, while he was wo rking as Asstt.P.S.I in Goalpara Court, Dilip Kr Choudhury, I.O. of the said S OU P.S.case No. 1/99 seized some photographs. He corroborated the evidence of P W 16. The aforesaid seizures were made vide Exts.7,8 and 9. In cross-examination he admitted that he did not know who and from whom the articles were seized in connection with Dudhnoi P.S.Case No. 67/99, and he does not know the exact nature of the seized articles or contents of the seizure lists. He also admitt ed that he does not know the connection between the Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 67/99 and SOU P.S.Case No. 1/99. 24. PW 18, Sri Chandra Kanta Nath, was working as constable under De ben Deka , DSP, Panbazar P.S. on 20.9.99. On the said day, K.K.Nath(PW 19), in his presence, seized some papers related to Panbazar P.S. GDE No. 234 dated 7.8 .99 from DSP, Deben Deka vide seizure list, Ext.4 and he signed the same. In cro ss examination he admitted that he did not go through the said seizure list to a scertain which item was seized. He stated that he does not know when and from wh om the said DSP, Deben Deka seized the items. He even does not know the conten ts thereof. He signed the said Ext.4 as because he was asked to do so. 25. The I.O. of the present Case, Sri Kandarpa Kumar Nath, was exam ined as PW 19 . He was working as Inspector in the Special Operation Unit at the relevant time i.e. 3.8.99. He stated that he went to Goalpara for interrog ation of some activists of Harkat-Ul-Mujahiddin. He found the accused Mulim Ali of Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 67/99 in the office of SB, Goalpara. After interrog ation he came to know that the accused Muslim Ali alongwith Alauddin @ Umar Abd ul Kasem @ Mustaque @ Usman Jakir Hussain @ Rafique, Jehirul Islam @ Hasan Mabia , Saiful Islam @ Abdul Mannan, Saukat Ali, Nurul Amin @ Sadik @ Moniruddin and K afayatulla hatched conspiracy to create disturbance in Assam and to wage war aga inst India. They also hatched conspiracy to induce Muslims against the Non-Musl ims residing in Assam . With that intention the above named persons sent severa l Muslim youths to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and other countries for ar ms training. After completion of training they would carry arms and ammunitio ns and explosive substances through ISI to wage war against India. Then he lod ged an FIR at SOU P.S. and accordingly SOU case No. 1/99 u/s 120-B/121/121-A/12 2/124-A153-A IPC was registered. He was given the charge of investigation of th e said case.Thereafter, as per direction of SP, SOU, he made requisition at Panb azar P.S. to apprehend Kafayatulla vide SOU G.D.E No. 36 dated 3.8.99. In that requisition he mentioned that interrogation of accused Kafayatulla was necessar y as he was related to Harkat-Ul-Muzahiddin and his house was to be searched. Thereafter, the I.G.P. through S.P. Nalbari, picked up Nurul Amin.He interrogate d both Kafeyatulla and Nurul. Nurul Amin admitted before him that he was conne cted with both Harkat-Ul-Muzahidin and Harkat Jehad Alkaida groups. Accused Kafa yatulla informed him that in the month of November/December in the year 1997, on e physically handicapped man along with another person came to his shop and enqu ired about Hafij Basir Ahmed. The age of that man was about 35 years and he dis closed that he hailed from Kashmir in the month of January, 1986 and went to Bangladesh alongwith Fakaruddin of Lakhimpur to participate in (cid:28)Estema (cid:29). The y stayed there for about 60 days. During that period he visited several places o f Bangladesh and also issued leaflet in the name of Jehad. Muslim Ali also atte nded the said (cid:28)Estema (cid:29). In the year 1997, one day at noon, Nurul Amin alongwith one boy aged about 21 years, named Nadim of Delhi came to his shop. Nurul ga ve him 500 U.S. Dollars and 500 Indian currencies wrapped with a piece of pape r for keeping it in safe custody. After some days, he came to know from news paper report that Nadim was arrested by police for carrying explosive substan ces. After some days, Faruk from Bangladesh enquired over telephone whether Nu rul Amin had received a parcel sent by Nadim through Faruk. He came to know f rom Muslim Ali and Nurul Amin that Kafayatulla was a member of Harkat-Ul-Muzah idin and Harkat-Ul Jehad. But Kayafatulla denied it. In the meantime he came to know that one Saiful Islam @Gulgul Khan, a member of PULF, was arrested in conne ction with Barpeta Road P.S. Case. The said accused Saiful Ismal was also shown arrested in this case. Accused Mainul Haque, Abdul Kasem, Muslim Ali and Jakir Hussain, who were arrested in Dudhnoi P.S Case No. 67/99, were also shown arr ested in this case. This witness further stated that from the confessional st atement of accused Allaudin he came to know that accused Moulana Muslim Ali, A bubakkar Siddique, Abul Mannan, Sah Alam, Najrul Islam, Makbul Hussain, Abdul Ka sem and Zakir Hussain were connected with Harkat-Ul-Muzahiddin. Accused Akbar Al i, who was arrested by Barpeta Road P.S. on 17.8.99 was also shown arrested in this case. During interrogation, Mainul Haque and Abdul Kasem admitted that t hey were members of Harkat-Ul-Muzahidin group. They also admitted that they hav e a link with ULFA and the accused Akbar Ali, Rabul Ali and Muslim Ali were a lso connected with PULF. In the mean time accused Qari Salim, Fasiullah, Javed Wakar and Moulana Hafiz of Panbazar P.S. Case No. 321/99 were also shown arrest ed in this Case. During investigation he seized 5 articles from DTP Centre, name d Markajul-Ma-Arif. There were about 28 accused persons and he arrested 16 of them. On completion of investigation he obtained the prosecution sanction and su bmitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. In his cross-examination h e admitted that he is the first informant and the I/O of this case. He himself filed the charge-sheet also. He submitted the F.I.R. on the basis of the state ments made by accused Muslim Ali in Dudhnoi P.S. case No. 67/99. Accused Musli m Ali was an accused of this case also. But his present status is not known to h im. Relating to this case he never made any contact with External Affairs Mi nistry and he did not go to Jammu and Kashmir. He submitted the charge-sheet aga inst the accused persons on the basis of statements of the co-accused. He admitt ed that nobody told him that the accused persons belong to ISI. But from their conduct he came to know that they are ISI agents. He admitted that police offic er Dilip Kr.Choudhury and Bhupen Das recorded the statement of the witnesses a s per his direction. He stated that he does not know about the present positio n of Panbazar P.S. Case No. 321/99, Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 67/99, Barpeta Road P. S. Case No. 107/99, Karimganj P.S. Case No. 144/99 and Dudhnoi P.S.Case No. 208/ 99. He admitted that he seized a computer set and CD from the said DTP Centre. But the owner of that DTP Centre was not arrested. He further stated that he m ade some calls to the phone numbers found in the diary of the accused persons, but now he could not say what materials were found from there. He seized some a rticles from DSP D. Deka vide Ext.-4. He confirmed that P.W.13,Tarun Hazarika, did not state before him that he had collected materials evidencing accused Zak ir Hussain, Jehirul Haque, Kafayatulla, Fasiullah, Javed Wakar, Qari Salim and Moulana Hafiz as members of ISI. He admitted that he did not record the stateme nt of accused Kafayatulla u/s 164 Cr.P.C. He further stated that accused Nurul Amin, Muslimuddin , Allauddin, Saiful Islam, Fasiulla and Qari Salim stated bef ore him that accused Kafayatulla instigated the Muslims against the Non-Musli ms and also hatched conspiracy to wage war against India. He admitted that tho se accused persons did not make any confession before the Court. He stated th at the name of accused Fasiullah, Qari Salim, Javed Wakar and Moulana Hafiz wer e not mentioned in the FIR. He, however, stated that in regard to allegation of inciting Muslims against Non-Muslims, there was no entry in the G.D. There was also no entry in the GD in regard to alleged training of Muslim youths in Afgh anistan, Pakistan etc. Except in the CD, there was no such entry in the G.D. Hi s evidence is that during interrogation the accused of Dudhnoi P.S. case mentio ned the names of accused Fasiullah and Mustaffa. But the statement of the said a ccused was not recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. He denied that accused Fasiullah en tered Assam for business purpose while accused Javed Wakar, Moulana Hafiz and Q ari Salim for religious purpose. 26. As per submission of the learned Addl.Advocate General, the ev idence of official witness has been corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of independent witnesses, namely, PWs 1 to 5 ,7,8 and 9. But the learne d trial Court failed to appreciate the said evidence on record and arrived at a wrong conclusion holding the accused respondents not guilty and acquitted them a ll. The I.O.,PW 19, according to Mr Saikia, collected materials by visiting the Dudhnoi and Barpeta Road police stations alongwith his staff. He seized the ar ticles and the seizure lists prepared earlier in the related cases namely, Dudhn oi P.S Case No. 67/99 registered u/s 120 B/ 121 /121A /122/124A/153A IPC and Bar peta Road P.S.Case No. 104/99 u/s 120B/121/121A/124A IPC read with Section 10/1 3 UPA Act. The said I.O. also seized the articles alongwith the seizure lists wh ich were seized by police in connection with Panbazar P.S.Case No. 321/99 u/s 12 1/121A/153A read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 10/13 UAP Act . It has been persuaded that in the Panbazar P.S.Case No. 321/99, out of seven a ccused persons, at least 2 were convicted u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act. In the s aid Panbazar P.S.Case US Dollars and Bangladeshi Takka were recovered from some of the present accused respondents along with incriminating documents. Those who were convicted u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act possessed no passport and valid doc uments for visiting India and Assam. During investigation of aforesaid Panbazar and Barpeta Road P.S. cases, sufficient materials were found evidencing that the accused respondents are foreigners / agents of the ISI and they have been sent to India to carry out acts of sabotage and disruption targeting at important pub lic installations and institutions and also to bring disharmony in the Indian so ciety by spreading hatred and communal feeling as a part of greater intentio n to wage war against the Government of India. It is submitted that the Governme nt of Pakistan, through the ISI, supplied huge arms and ammunitions and also provided fund to the ISI agents to execute the aforesaid plan and waging wa r against India and the present accused respondents are indulging in antinationa l activities to achieve the said end. According to learned Addl. Advocate Genera l, the evidence of I.O.(PW 19) which is corroborated by the evidence of independ ent witnesses, could not be impeached by the defence in any manner. In any case . It is argued that the prosecution adduced cogent and reliable evidence fully establishing the charges framed against the accused respondents, yet the learne d trial Court erroneously held that the charges against them could not be prov ed and accordingly passed the impugned order acquitting all the accused responde nts which is unsustainable in law. It is submitted that apart from the evidence of witnesses, the 27. re are enough substantial evidence proving the guilt of the respondents. In the Course of oral argument, Mr Saikia has referred to and relied upon the following authorities: (1) State of Tripura -vs- Sankar Paul(Dr.) & ors reported in (2009) 5 GLT 296 on parameters of High Court’s power in an appeal against acquittal an d principles laid down relating to Section 378 Cr.P.C. under which the High Cour t can review the entire evidence and arrive at its own conclusion interfering wi th findings of the trial court to ensure prevention of miscarriage of justice an d for the ends of justice: (2) (3) (4) (5) 7; (6)