AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1) This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 26.8.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon, in Criminal
Appeal No. 15(2)/2007, allowing the appeal and acquitting the accused persons from the charge under Section 500 IPC and setting aside the judgment
and order, dated 14.5.2007, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Bongaigaon, in CR Case No. 456/2003, convicting two of the
accused persons and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with a default clause for
commission of offence under Section 500 IPC.
2) The fact of the case is that, on 7.4.2002, the accused persons took away about 50 to 60 number of bamboos from the land of the complainant
(appellant) for which an FIR was lodged with Dhaligaon Police Station. The Dhaligaon Police Station did not take action in respect of the FIR. Then,
on 27.10.2002, the accused persons and others trespassed into the house of the complainant/appellant and assaulted him and his family members and
also damaged his properties. They also served a notice under the signatures of the accused persons, namely, Chittaranjan Singha and Sri Karendra
Singha, upon the complainant/appellant restraining him and his family members from using the public path, maintain relation with the villagers and from
participating in the social functions. Some of the accused persons have also entered into the house of the complainant/appellant on 10.10.2003 and
threatened the informant that he would be killed along with his family members.
3) On the written complaint, filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon, the learned court below had taken cognizance of offence
against the accused persons under Sections 147/148/323/427/379/506/34 IPC.
4) After exhausting all required legal formalities, a formal charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 147/447/379/500 IPC and the
trial commenced.
5) During the course of hearing, the complainant/appellant examined 3 (three) witnesses and the defence examined none.
6) After completion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted the accused persons, namely, Chittaranjan Singha and Karendra Singha for offence
under Sections 500/34 IPC to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with a default clause.
7) On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon, acquitted the appellants from the charge.
8) Now, this appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon.
9) On examination of the evidence on record and the judgments of both the courts below, it appears that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were acquitted by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge aforesaid due to absence of incriminating evidence against them. Other accused persons were already acquitted
by the learned trial court.
10) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. B.J. Dutta for the state
respondent, and Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the private respondents.
11) This court would like to mention herein that although the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were convicted by the learned court below and then acquitted by
the learned Sessions Judge on appeal, yet, the appellant has made all the accused persons before the learned trial court respondents in this appeal. But,
the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were not before the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge, and therefore, their names, as respondents in this appeal,
are not relevant at all. Therefore, we have confined to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for the purpose of decision of this appeal.
12) It appears from the evidence on record that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were convicted and sentenced for defaming the appellant/complainant.
The accusation is that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 issued notice containing a direction to the appellant/complainant not to use public path and also not to
participate in any social functions in the public field and also not to attend any marriage etc. So, this notice was not published in public and it was given
to the complainant/appellant only. There is also accusation that any imputation was made in the said letter. The very ingredients of an offence
punishable under Section 500 IPC is that it should satisfy the requirements of Section 499 IPC. Admittedly, there is no imputation published by the
respondent Nos. 2 & 3 but a letter was handed over to the appellant with certain directions, as indicated above. There is also no evidence led by the
appellant/complainant that even if there was any imputation made, the same had directly or indirectly harm his reputation, or that imputation, directly or
indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character etc. of the appellant.
13) In the absence of evidence to satisfy the necessary ingredients of an offence as defined in Section 499 IPC, this court is not inclined to hold that
the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 had committed the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.
14) Therefore, in the considered view of this court, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned court below, on be basis of the evidence on record,
requires no interference by this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
15) Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.