Sri Aboni Dutta vs The State of Assam

1.This is a criminal revision petition, filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC, challenging legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and

order, dated 24.12.2007, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, in GR Case No. 1127/2005, convicting the accused-

petitioner under Section 384 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and the pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a

default clause as well as the judgment and order, dated 3.10.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2018,

dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of the learned trial court.

The fact of the case is that, on 16.12.2005, a banned outfit, called United Liberation Force of Assam, demanded Rs. 60,000/- from one Smt. Dipti

Borah, to be paid by 27.12.2005 at Unnayan Super Market, Jorhat. The amount was to be paid to one Ujjal Gohain. Accordingly, said Dipti Borah,

informed the matter to the police. The police planned to nab the accused-petitioner, and accordingly, at the instance of the police, aforesaid Dipti

Borah, went to the specified place to hand over the money. But, the police caught the accused red-handed and he is found to be one Abani Dutta,

impersonating himself as Ujjal Gohain.

On receipt of the FIR, on the above facts, Jorhat Police Station registered a case, investigated into it, collected evidence, and finally, submitted

charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner under Sections 387/34 IPC.

After exhausting all required legal formalities, a formal charge against the accused-petitioner was framed under Sections 387/34 of the IPC to

which he pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial commenced.

The prosecution examined 4 (four) witnesses in support of its case and defence none. The defence plea is of denial. It his statement recorded under

Section 313 of the Cr.PC also, the accused-petitioner is found to have denied the accusation.

I have examined the evidence of the witnesses as well as the judgment of the learned trial court and the appellate court as available in the records

of the learned courts below.

I have also heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

state respondent.

In the instant case, PW1 is the informant Dipti Borah. The accused-petitioner, by impersonating himself as Ujjal Gohain, demanded an amount of

Rs. 60,000/- in the letter head of the United Liberation Force of Assam, a banned outfit. She informed the matter to the police and the police planned

to nab the accused, and accordingly, in the specified place where the money was supposed to be handed over to the accused-petitioner, the informant

was sent there to hand over the money. Accordingly, the plan was successfully executed and the accused-petitioner was nabbed while PW1 handed

over the money, although the same was, in fact, some other materials, instead of money, which she did in the instance of the police. The informant

PW1 also identified the accused-petitioner.

PW2 is a photographer, who made the videos in respect of extortion of money of the accused-petitioner. PW3 is a police constable who is the

witness to the seizure, vide Material Ext.1. Vide the seizure list, a bundle of papers were seized from the possession of the accused-petitioner. PW4 is

the investigating police officer who has stated in his evidence the facts leading to nabbing of the accused-petitioner.

On the basis of the above evidence, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that no money was handed over to the accused-

petitioner, rather some papers were handed over in-lieu of money which was not a property, within the meaning, as defined under Section 383 Cr.PC.

So, the evidence on record, aforesaid, makes it clearly appear that the accused-petitioner was nabbed by the police while he was waiting to see

that his demand is met by the informant. The evidence undisputed is that the accused-petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting the seized

articles to be money demanded by him.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent, Mr. N.K. Kalita, has submitted that the evidence for the prosecution has

established the offence against the accused-petitioner, beyond all reasonable doubt, the evidence of the witnesses being consistent on all relevant

aspects.

In view of the above, this court is of the view that, the prosecution has been able to established the case against the accused-petitioner for

commission of offence under Section 384 of the IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, the order recording conviction of the accused-

petitioner by the learned trial court as well as the order, upholding the same by the learned appellate court, is found to have been based on materials on

record requiring no interference.

So far the sentence of the accused-petitioner is concerned, this court is of the view that since the accused-petitioner has already spent a period in

detention w.e.f. 28.12.2005 to 14.2.2006, if the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, will meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the substantive sentence imposed upon the accused revision petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of

fine is set aside.

The revision petition is, accordingly, partly allowed.

Send down the LCR alongwith a copy of this judgment.