STATE OF ASSAM versus SRI SUNIL MURARI

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 1ST CLASS

DIBRUGARH, ASSAM

GR CASE NO-2037/11

u/s 379 IPC

THE STATE OF ASSAM ------Sri Chutu Murari (Informant).

-Vs-

SRI SUNIL MURARI ------Accused person.

PRESENT: NUR MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH AHMED

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS

DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.

APPEARANCE:

(1) Mr H.K. Gogoi ------Ld Addl. P.P for the State.

(2) Mrs N.D Hazarika ------Ld State Defence Counsel for the accused.

EVIDENCE RECORDED ON ------05/04/12, 15/05/12 & 29/05/12.

ARGUMENTS HEARD ON ------30/05/12.

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON ------31/05/12.

J U D G M E N T

1. The genesis of the case is traceable to an ejahar lodged on 30/09/11 by Sri Chutu Murari with the Duliajan P.S to the effect that on11/09/11 his cow was stolen from his house but on 15/09/11 he found his cow roped in a field at Puwali Pather Gaon and then on that night itself, the cow was again stolen away by some one. On 29/09/11 he found his cow in the house of Sri Babul Mura of No-1 Kacharipather Gaon and on being asked Sri Babul Mura told him that the cow was kept in his house by Sri Sunil Murari claiming the same to be his own. Hence the case.

2. On receipt of the ejahar, Duliajan P.S Case No-205/11 u/s 379 IPC was registered. The investigation into the case was commenced and after the completion of the usual investigation, charge sheet u/s 379 IPC was submitted against the accused Sri Sunil Murari, to stand the trial.

3. Trial of the case was commenced. After the production of the accused from J.C, relevant copies were furnished to him. Both the sides were heard on the point of charge and the Court found grounds to presume that the above-named accused committed an offence u/s 379 IPC. As such charge in writing u/s 379 IPC was framed against the accused. On being read over and explained the contents of charge u/s 379 IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to face the trial.

4. To bring home its charges, the prosecution side examined nine (9) PWs. The accused was also examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C, in which he pleaded his innocence. The defence side declined to adduce any evidence in its defence. Arguments of both the sides were also heard.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

5. After the perusal of the case record, I have found the following points to be determined-

I) Whether the accused Sri Sunil Murari removed a cow belonging to Sri Chutu Murari on 15-09-11?

II) Whether the accused removed the same without the consent of its owner?

III) Whether the accused removed the same with dishonest intention?

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

6. To determine the above mentioned points and to reach a judicial decision on the same, the Court has at its disposal the depositions of nine (9) PWs. Prosecution exhibited the Ejahar as Exhibit-1, Seizure List as Exhibit-2 and Charge-sheet as Ext-3. To determine the above mentioned points, let me now adumbrate the germane evidence on record.

POINT NO-I, II & III:

7. PW-1 Sri Sankar Murari stated that he heard that the accused committed theft of cow belonging to the informant. PW-2 Sri Chutu Murari, who is the Informant, stated in his deposition that after his cow went missing, he found his cow in a house in neighbouring village and the people of that house told him that the accused had kept that cow in their house. Then he lodged an ejahar. Prosecution exhibited the ejahar lodged by PW-1 as Ext-1 and his signature as Ext-1(1). During his cross-examination PW-2 admitted that he didn’t know as to whether the accused committed theft of his cow. PW-5 Sri Bablu Mura, in whose house the cow was allegedly kept by the accused, stated in his deposition that the accused kept the cow in front of his house but during his cross-examination, PW-5 admitted that he didn’t see as to whether the accused Sunil Murari tied the cow in front of his house. Other PWs also didn’t support the prosecution case so as to prove the guilt of the accused.

8. If the depositions of PWs are scanned closely, it can be seen that the stand of informant (PW-2) is not corroborated by other PWs. Even the PW-2 himself admitted that he didn’t know as to whether the accused committed theft of his cow. It is the accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in case of any doubt, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. On the basis of the appreciation of evidences, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Sri Sunil Murari removed the cow belonging to Sri Chutu Murari. As the prosecution has failed to prove the point no-1, it would be futile to proceed with the determination of point no-2 and 3.

9. So, from the above adumbration and appreciation of evidences, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Sri Sunil Murari committed the offence as was alleged against him. So, the accused person be set at liberty forthwith from Judicial Custody.

10. Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 31st day of May, 2012.

(NUR MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH AHMED)

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS

DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.

Page 1 of 3 in GR- 2037/11