in the court of sub-divisional judicial magistrate (m...

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017

Present:- Sri Lakhinandan Pegu Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) Majuli, Jorhat district

IN THE COURT OF SUB-DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (M),

MAJULI, JORHAT DISTRICT

Present:- Sri Lakhinandan Pegu, AJS,

Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Majuli

G.R. Case No. 183/2017

Under Section-379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

State of Assam

Versus

Sri Maina @ Pankaj Payeng

Sri Pradip @ Moina Saikia.……………..... Accused

ADVOCATE(S)

For the State :-Sri H.N. Borah, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

For the accused :-Sri Kameswar Payeng, The Learned Advocate

Evidence recorded on :-03/04/2018; 26/04/2018; 25/05/2018; 24/07/2018;

25/09/2018.

Argument Heard on :-23/10/2018.

Judgment delivered :-01/11/2018

JUDGMENT

1. This case arose out of Jengraimukh Police Station Case No. 51/17 under

section (Hereinafter referred to as U/S in short) 379 of Indian Penal Code,

1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC in short) based on the gist of facts set

in motion of this case as stated in the first information report (hereinafter

referred to as FIR in short) filed by one, Sri Bidyeswar Payeng against the

accused persons, Sri Maina @ Pankaj Payeng and Sri Pradip @ Moina

Saikia.

A. Brief Facts of the case

2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 15/10/2017, the informant, Sri

Bidyeswar Payeng lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge (hereinafter

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


referred to as O/C in short) of the Jengraimukh Police Station to the effect

that on 13/10/2017 at night at about 7:30PM his motorcycle, Model- Hero

Honda Super Splendor was stolen away from his house by the accused

persons, Sri Moina Payeng and Sri Bhaity Saikia. Hence, this is the case.

B. Investigation and trial

3. On receipt of the FIR, a case was registered vide Jengraimukh Police

Station case no. 51/2017 U/S 379 of IPC and initiated the investigation of

the case. After the completion of investigation, the police submitted the

charge-sheet against the accused persons, namely, Sri Maina @ Pankaj

Payeng and Sri Pradip @ Moina Saikia U/S 379/34 of IPC.

4. Cognizance of the offences was taken on the police report. In due course,

the accused persons, Sri Maina @ Pankaj Payeng and Sri Pradip @ Moina

Saikia appeared and on their appearance they were allowed to go on bail.

Copies of the relevant documents were furnished to the accused persons,

Sri Maina @ Pankaj Payeng and Sri Pradip @ Moina Saikia as required U/S

207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as

Cr.P.C. in short). Thereafter, upon hearing and considering the relevant

materials available on record, charges U/S 379/34 of IPC were framed

against the accused persons. Particulars of charges U/S 379/34 of IPC were

read over and explained to the accused persons to which they refused to

plead guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as 6 (six) witnesses in support of

the case. The accused persons have been examined U/S 313 of Cr.P.C. The

accused persons have admitted that they took away the motorcycle from

the house of the informant but they took away the same without having

any guilty intention. The accused persons have declined to adduce any

evidence to defend the case.

6. I have heard the arguments of both the sides, perused the case record and

considered the same.

C. Point for determination

(a) Whether the accused persons, namely, Sri Maina @ Pankaj

Payeng and Sri Pradip @ Moina Saikia, on 13/10/2017 at about 7:30

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


PM in furtherance of their common intention, intending to take dishonestly

the motorcycle bearing registration no. AS-03G-1711 belonging to the

informant, out of the possession of the informant without his consent

moved the said motorcycle and thereby committed an offence punishable

U/S 379/34 of IPC?

7. For the better reading of the judgment and before arriving at any definite

conclusion of the case, I have found it justified to go through the evidence

available on record.

D. Prosecution Evidence

8. PW-1, Sri Bidyeswar Payeng, in his examination-in-chief has deposed that

he is the informant of this case. He knows both the accused persons. On

13/10/2017, at night at about 7:30PM, thief stole away his motorcycle

which was parked below his “Chang ghor”. The motorcycle was a Super

Splendor bearing registration no. AS-03G-1711. He came to know about

the theft of his motor cycle at about 8 PM in the night. On the next

morning, he informed about the theft at the police station. Then, the police

of Jengraimukh Police Station informed him over phone that his stolen

motor cycle was traced out in some place and also two thieves were

apprehended. Then, he along with the police and two thieves went to

Mohori camp, Gogamukh and recovered the stolen motorcycle. The

accused who are standing in the dock showed them the stolen motorcycle.

He knows the accused persons prior to the taking place of the alleged

incident. Later on, he took zimma of the motorcycle as per the order of the

court. He has exhibited the ejahar as Exhibit-1 wherein Exhibit-1(1) is his

signature. He has exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit-2 wherein Exhibit-2(1)

is his signature.

9. In his cross-examination, PW1 has deposed that he wrote the ejahar as per

the dictation of the O/C of the police station after the recovery of the

motorcycle. Only the accused, Sri Moina Payeng went along with the police

to recover the said motorcycle. He cannot remember that both the accused

persons were detained in some other case. He does not know the name of

the person from whose house the stolen motor cycle was recovered. The

motor cycle was recovered from the house of a person belonging to Nepali

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


community of Mohori camp, Gogamukh. He has denied to the suggestion

that the accused persons did not commit theft.

10. PW-2, Sri Chandan Payeng, in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he

knows the informant. He knows both the accused persons. On 13/10/2017

at night at about 7PM to 8 PM, the Super Splendor motor cycle of the

informant, Sri Bidyeswar Payeng went missing from his house. On the next

day morning, the informant informed him about the theft as being the

Gaonburha of their village. Then, both he and the informant went to the

Jengraimukh Police Station and informed the O/C of the police station

about the theft. Thereafter, they lodged the ejahar. The police took his

mobile number as the informant does not have mobile phone. On the next

day, the O/C of the police station informed them over phone that the thief

was caught. Then they went to the police station and thereafter on the

basis of the information received from the thieves the motor cycle was

recovered from the house of a person belong to Nepali community at

Mohori camp, Gogamukh. The accused, Sri Moina Payeng showed them the

motor cycle in the house of that person. They returned back to Majuli after

the recovery of the motor cycle. They found the headlight of the motor

cycle in broken condition. The police seized the motor cycle and took his

signature in the seizure list. Later on, the motor cycle was given in zimma

to the informant. He has exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit-2 wherein

Exhibit-2(2) is his signature.

11. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has deposed that he is the local gaon

burha. Both the accused persons surrendered themselves at the police

station. He knows that both the accused persons do not have any criminal

antecedent. He has denied to the suggestion that someone else stole the

motor cycle and kept at Gogamukh and the accused persons were given

Rs.1000/- to keep the motor cycle at Gogamukh and they being

unemployed persons they went to keep the motor cycle at Gogamukh. The

accused persons are unemployed and they are daily wage earner. He went

to Gogamukh from Majuli on 14/10/2017 and the motor cycle was lost on

13/10/2017. He does not know the name of the person of the house from

where the motor cycle was recovered. He did not know if the accused

persons sold the motor cycle or not. The accused, Sri Moina Payeng is the

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


niece of the informant. The accused persons kept the motor cycle in the

house of the Nepali person saying that the fuel of the motor cycle was

exhausted. He has denied to the suggestion that he has deposed falsely

that the accused, Sri Moina Payeng stole the motor cycle of the informant.

He did not find the key of the stolen motor cycle. The motor cycle was lying

on the ground. After many attempts, they could start the motor cycle and

took the same to Majuli.

12. PW-3, Sri Padum Singh Rajput, in his examination-in-chief has deposed

that he knows the informant. He knows both the accused persons. He

cannot remember the exact date of occurrence of alleged incident. On the

day of alleged incident, he was coming from Sapori Gaon to Morongial.

Then, it was about 11 noon. He saw a gathering of people in front of the

house of the informant. Police were also present there. Having seen the

public gathering and the police, he went there to know about the matter.

Then he came to know from the persons gathered in front of the house of

the informant that the informant’s motor cycle was stolen and both the

accused persons stole it. After some days, police called him to the police

station and took his signature on the seizure list. He has exhibited the

seizure list as Exhibit-2 wherein Exhibit-2(3) is his signature. He does not

know what happened subsequently.

13. In his cross-examination, PW3 has deposed that the police did not read

out the contents of the paper on which he was asked to put his signature

by the police. He did not hear about any previous criminal history of both

the accused persons. The accused, Sri Moina Payeng is the niece of the

informant. He did not see the accused persons there when he stopped in

front of the house of the informant. He does not know about the model

name and company name of the motorcycle. He does not know from where

the motorcycle was recovered.

14. PW4, Sri Dipak Chetri, in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he

doesn’t know the informant as well as the accused persons. About one year

back, a woman, namely, Smti Purnima Mizer, wife of- Sri Dig Bahadur Mizer

of his village namely, Mohoricamp came to his house and informed him that

two unknown boys kept a motorcycle in their house two days back. It is

also informed that the two unknown boys asked them to keep the

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


motorcycle in their house as the fuel of the motorcycle was exhausted.

Accordingly, he told Smti Purnima Mizer that after sometime he will go to

her house to see the motorcycle. At that moment, he received a phone call

from the O/C of the Gogamukh Police Station. The O/C of the Gogamukh

Police Station asked him as to whether he had any knowledge about the

existence of any motorcycle in his village. Accordingly, he went to see the

motorcycle and saw motorcycle Hero Honda Super Splendor of black colour

in the house of Smti Purnima Mizer. Accordingly, he informed the O/C of the

Gogamukh police station that he saw a motorcycle Honda Super Splendor

of black colour in the house of Smti Purnima Mizer of village Mohoricamp.

The O/C of the Gogamukh police station requested him to stay in his house

and help them to recover the motorcycle from the house of Smti Purnima

Mizer informing him that the motorcycle belonged to a person who is a

permanent resident of Jengraimukh. Accordingly, he met the police

personnel of Gogamukh police station and Jengraimukh police station on

the way and he led them to the place where the motorcycle was kept. After

reaching the house of Smti Purnima Mizer, he pointed them towards the

place where the motorcycle was kept. The registered owner of the

motorcycle was also present at that moment and he identified that it was

his motorcycle. Thereafter, they arranged fuel for the motorcycle and

helped the actual owner of the motorcycle to start the motorcycle. In this

way the motorcycle was recovered and police took the motorcycle. The

police seized the motorcycle and police asked him to sign the seizure list.

Accordingly, he signed the seizure list. He has exhibited the seizure list as

Exhibit-3 wherein Exhibit-3(1) is his signature.

15. In his cross-examination, PW4 has deposed that he cannot remember on

which date he went to the house of Smti Purnima Mizer. He did not see the

accused persons at the house of Smti Purnima Mizer. He came to know that

the police took the accused persons along with them to the house of Smti

Purnima Mizer. He cannot remember the registration number of the

motorcycle. The motorcycle was in running condition.

16. PW5, Sri Dipak Rajbongshi, in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he

doesn’t know the informant as well as the accused persons. He cannot

remember the date of alleged incident. He saw a gathering of people in the

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


house of Smti Purnima Mizar of their village and as such, he went to the

house of Smti Purnima Mizar to see what actually happened. He also saw

police there. The police asked him to put his signature on a paper. As he is

an illiterate person, he put his thumb impression on the paper. He doesn’t

know why the police took his signature on the paper. He saw a motorcycle

black in colour in the house of Sri Smti Purnima Mizar. The police took the

motorcycle with them. He doesn’t know anything beyond this.

The defence has declined the cross-examination of PW-5.

17. PW6, Sri Nilamoni Nath, in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on

15/10/2017, he was working as In-charge of Nayabazar Police Patrol

Outpost. On that day, the O/C of the Jengraimukh Police Station entrusted

him to do the investigation of a case. The informant of this case is Sri

Bidyeswar Payeng. This case was registered vide Jengraimukh Police

Station Case no. 51/17 U/S 379 of IPC. After such entrustment, he

recorded the statement of the complainant at the police station as he was

available at the police station. He visited the place of occurrence and

prepared the rough sketch map of the place of occurrence. He seized the

related documents of the stolen motorcycle i.e. registration certificate and

driving licence. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of the seizure

witnesses and other available witnesses at the place of occurrence. Sources

were employed to apprehend the culprit. Thereafter, they came to know

the location of the stolen motorcycle at Mohoricamp, Gogamukh. After

taking prior permission from the Superintendent of Police, Majuli, they

moved to Gogamukh. With the assistance of Gogamukh Police, they

recovered the stolen motorcycle from the house of a person at

Mohoricamp, Gogamukh. Before the recovery of the stolen motorcycle they

communicated with the Gaonburha of Mohoricamp, Sri Deepak Chetri. With

the help of Sri Deepak Chetri they recovered the stolen motorcycle from

the house of a person at Mohoricamp. During the investigation, the

complainant stated before him that he suspected that both the accused

persons might have been involved with the theft. With the help of the

Gaonburha of Moyongia Gaon and on identification of the complainant,

they apprehended both the accused persons at Mohoricamp. They found

both the accused persons at Mohoricamp loitering here and there. He

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


seized the stolen motorcycle at the place of occurrence in presence of the

witnesses. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of the seizure witnesses.

On the same day, they returned back to Jengraimukh Police Station along

with the accused persons and the stolen motorcycle. He recorded the

statements of both the accused persons and having found sufficient prima

facie materials against both the accused persons, namely, Sri Maina Payeng

and Sri Pradip @ Moina Saikia, he arrested both the accused persons.

Thereafter, he forwarded both the accused persons to the court. The

registration certificate and driving licence were given in zimma to the

informant. Seizure items were seen by the court. Thereafter, having found

sufficient materials against both the accused persons, he submitted the

charge sheet against both the accused persons, Sri Maina Payeng and Sri

Pradip @ Moina Saikia U/S 379/34 of IPC. He has exhibited the seizure list

as Exhibit-2 wherein Exhibit-2(4) is his signature. He has exhibited the

seizure list as Exhibit-3 wherein Exhibit-3(3) is his signature. He has

exhibited the sketch map as Exhibit-4 wherein Exhibit-4(1) is his signature.

He has exhibited the charge-sheet as Exhibit-5 wherein Exhibit-5(1) is his

signature.

18. In his cross-examination, PW6 has deposed that on 15/10/2017, he

received the ejahar. There was delay of one day in lodging the ejahar. The

reason of delay in lodging the ejahar is not mentioned in the ejahar. First of

all, the motorcycle was recovered and thereafter, he apprehended both the

accused persons. Thereafter, he seized the motorcycle. The motorcycle was

recovered in an open space beside a road in front of the house of a person.

The fuel of the motorcycle was exhausted as such they could not start the

motorcycle. He has denied to the suggestion that both the accused persons

did not commit the offence as alleged. He has denied to the suggestion

that he submitted the charge-sheet against both the accused persons

without doing proper investigation of the case.

E. Argument

19. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that the ownership of

the recovered motorcycle has been proved to that of the informant. The

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


recovery of the stolen motorcycle has been proved beyond all reasonable

doubt. The version of the prosecution witnesses is completely believable.

The guilt of the accused is established. Thus, they may be convicted.

20. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has argued that both the

accused persons have been falsely implicated in the case. The testimonies

of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory to each other. Thus, the

accused persons may be acquitted.

F. Discussion, Decision and Reasons Thereof

21. In order to constitute theft punishable U/S 379 of IPC five factors are

essential namely:-

i) Dishonest intention to take property,

ii) The property must be movable,

iii) It should be taken out of the possession of another person,

iv) It should be taken without the consent of that person, and

v) There must be some moving of the property in order to

accomplish the taking of it.

22. On scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is found that no prosecution

witnesses did see the accused persons committing the offence of theft.

Form the evidence of prosecution, it is clear that the informant is the

registered owner of the stolen motor cycle. From the evidence of

prosecution, it is evident that the stolen motorcycle was recovered from the

house of a person at Mohori Camp. PW4 has deposed that one year back, a

woman, namely, Smti Purnima Mazir, wife of- Sri Dig Bahadur Mizer of his

village, namely, Mohori camp came to his house and informed him that two

unknown boys kept a motorcycle in their house two days back and the two

unknown boys asked them to keep the motorcycle in their house as the

fuel of the motorcycle was exhausted. PW4 has also deposed that he does

not know the informant as well as the accused persons. Therefore, from

the evidence of PW4 it reveals that PW4 has failed to identify the accused

persons. PW4 in his cross-examination has also deposed that he did not

see the accused persons at the house of Smti Purnima Mizer and he only

came to know that the police took the accused persons along with them to

the house of Smti Purnima Mizer. Hence, from the evidence of PW4 it is not

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


revealed that the stolen motorcycle was discovered at the instance of the

accused persons. PW5, has also deposed that he does not know the

accused persons. PW3 has only deposed that he heard that the stolen

motorcycle was stolen by both the accused persons. Though PW1 and PW2

have deposed that the stolen motorcycle was discovered at the instance of

the accused persons but PW6 who is the I/O of the case has deposed that

the motorcycle was not discovered at the instance of the accused persons.

PW6 has deposed that after the recovery of the stolen motorcycle, they

apprehended both the accused persons. Therefore, it appears that there is

contradiction of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 with PW6. PW6 has also

deposed that during the course of investigation the informant stated before

him that he suspected that both the accused persons might have been

involved with the theft and with the help of the Gaonburha of Moyongia

Gaon and on identification of the complainant, they apprehended both the

accused persons at Mohori Camp. PW6 has also deposed that they found

both the accused persons at Mohoricamp loitering here and there.

Therefore, from this part of the evidence of PW6, it is not sufficient to hold

that both the accused persons committed the alleged offence. On mere

suspicion, no one can be held guilty. It is also not sufficient to hold that the

accused persons are guilty only on the ground that the accused persons

are found at the recovery site loitering here and there. From the evidence

of the PWs, in its entirety, it reveals that the stolen motorcycle was not

recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused persons and it is

also not proved that the stolen motorcycle was discovered at the instance

of the accused persons. Furthermore, Smti Purnima Mizer in whose house

the stolen motorcycle was kept was the material witness in the instant case

at hand but neither the I/O has mentioned her as witness nor has the

prosecution succeeded to procure her attendance before the court for her

evidence as court witness. Moreover, PW4 has deposed that after reaching

the house of Smti Purnima Mizer he pointed the police personnel towards

the place where the motorcycle was kept as such this part of evidence of

PW6 also contradicts the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW2 has also deposed

that both the accused persons themselves surrendered before the police

but the PW6 has deposed that they apprehended both the accused persons

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


at Mohori Camp loitering here and there. Therefore, it depicts contradiction

between the evidence of PW2 and PW6.

23. Both the accused persons have admitted their guilt in their statements

recorded U/S 313 of Cr.P.C. Both the accused persons have deposed that

they took away the motorcycle of the informant without his consent but

they did not have the guilty intention to take away the same.

24. It is settled preposition of law that statements given by the accused or

answers given by the accused is not substantive piece of evidence and it is

not the sole base for convicting the accused. The statements of accused

can be used for proper appreciation of evidence to accept or reject.

25. In Mohan Singh vs.Prem Singh and another, AIR 2002 SC 3582, the Hon’ble

Apex court held:

”The statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a

substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led

by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for

the evidence of the prosecution. If the exculpatory part of his statement is

found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable the

inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to

the evidence of the prosecution. If the prosecution evidence does not

inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory

part of his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, cannot be made the sole

basis of his conviction.”

26. As no oath is administered to the accused and he is not subject to cross-

examination for the statements given by him, those statements cannot be

treated as evidence as contemplated in section 3 of Indian Evidence Act.

27. In Dehal Singh –vs- State of H.P., AIR 2010 SC 3594, Hon’ble Apex Court

observed:-

“Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is

taken into consideration to appreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of the

case of prosecution and it is not an evidence. Statement of an accused

under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is recorded without

administering oath and, therefore, said statement cannot be treated as

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The

appellants have not chosen to examine any other witness to support this

plea and in case none was available they were free to examine themselves

in terms of Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, inter alia,

provides that a person accused of an offence is a competent witness of the

defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges. There is

reason not to treat the statement under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure as evidence as the accused cannot be cross-examined

with reference to those statements. However, when an accused appears as

a witness in defence to disprove of the charge, his version can be tested by

his cross-examination.”

28. It is cardinal principle of administration of criminal justice that prosecution

has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and

therefore, the bounden duty of the prosecution is to prove each and every

constituent or ingredient of an offence. Furthermore, this is a case based

on circumstantial evidence, it is a well-established principle of law that in a

case where the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence the

circumstances projected should be proved beyond reasonable doubts and

such proved circumstances should form a complete chain so as to

unerringly point the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other

hypotheses which is consistent with the innocence of the accused. In the

instant case at hand, there is no connecting link between the commission

of crime and the fact discovered. No witness has deposed that the accused

persons were seen riding on the motorcycle. Furthermore, the motorcycle

was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused persons

nor the person from whose possession the motorcycle was recovered made

as a prosecution witness in the instant case at hand. Furthermore, the

prosecution has failed to prove that the motorcycle has been discovered at

the instance of the accused persons. Therefore, the prosecution has failed

to prove the relevancy between the fact discovered and the crime. It is also

settled principle of law that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs to

prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden is upon the

prosecution to prove its case by its own evidence. When the burden is

discharged by adducing cogent evidence by the prosecution then the

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


burden shifts upon the defence. The prosecution can’t take advantage of

the weakness in the statement or evidence of the defence.

29. In view of the above discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the

prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons

Sri Maina @ Pankaj Payeng and Sri Pradip @ Moina Saikia, U/S

379/34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefits of doubt goes

in favour of the accused persons.

Decision:- The point for determination is decided in negative and against

the prosecution.

G. Order

30. Accordingly, it is held that the accused persons, Sri Maina @

Pankaj Payeng and Sri Pradip @ Moina Saikia, are not guilty.

Consequently, they are acquitted of the charges punishable under section

379/34 of IPC and set them at liberty forthwith.

31. The judgment is delivered and pronounced in the open court.

32. The case is disposed of on contest.

33. The bail-bond stands extended for another period of six months

from today as per requirement of section 437A of Cr. P.C.

34. Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 1st day of

November, 2018.

Typed and corrected by me

Sri Lakhinandan Pegu

Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M),

Majuli, Jorhat

Sri Lakhinandan Pegu Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M),

Majuli, Jorhat

of 14 G.R Case No.183/2017


H. APPENDIX

1. Prosecution Witnesses:-

P.W. 1 :-Sri Bideswar Payeng

P.W. 2 :-Sri Chandan Payeng

P.W. 3 :-Sri Padum Singh Rajput

P.W. 4 :-Sri Dipak Chetri

P.W. 5 :-Sri Dipak Rajbongshi

P.W.6 :-Sri Nilamoni Nath, Sub-Inspector of Police

2. Defence Witnesses :-None

3. Court Witnesses :-None

4. Prosecution Exhibits :-

Exhibit-1 :- FIR

Exhibit-2 :-Seizure list

Exhibit-3 :- Seizure list

Exhibit-4 :-Sketch-map

Exhibit-5 :-Charge-sheet

5. Defence Exhibits :-Nil

6. Material Exhibits :-

Sri Lakhinandan Pegu Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) Majuli, Jorhat

in the court of sub-divisional judicial magistrate (m...

Documents