Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Gauhati Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Kakheto Sema has held that the convictions and sentences of two appellants arising out of a common sessions case were unsustainable in law. The Court directed that both appellants be released forthwith unless required in any other case and discharged the bail bond of one appellant who had remained on bail. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals of the remaining two appellants, affirming their convictions and sentences. All four appeals were disposed of by a common judgment.

The case stemmed from an Ejahar lodged on 18 March 2004 by Anil Ch. Dev (PW2), reporting the abduction of his elder brother, Pratul Chandra Dev, along with his driver and clerk, allegedly by Riang militants. The incident occurred on 17 March 2004 near Bhairavi. The vehicle was found abandoned. The matter was initially investigated by local police under Katlicherra PS Case No. 19/2004. Dissatisfied with the investigation's progress, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Assam Enviro-Legal Protection Society, leading to the Gauhati High Court directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over on 12 April 2005. The CBI registered the case as RC.3/S/05-Kol.

Also Read: Right To Do Business Includes Right To Shut Down | Supreme Court Upholds Article 19(1)(g) Protection

The initial charge sheet filed on 24 November 2005 did not name appellant Md. Jamaluddin Mazumdar @ Budul Mian. His name appeared only in a supplementary charge sheet. The charges framed included Sections 120B, 364A, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused pleaded not guilty, and trial commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Thirty-seven prosecution witnesses were examined.

Key witnesses included PW1 Jalal Uddin Mazumdar, PW2 Anil Dev, PW3 Sudip Dev, and PW4 Santosh Lohar @ Munia Lohar. PW1 testified that on the day of the incident, they were intercepted by gunmen and taken into a jungle where ransom was demanded. The deceased was later separated and not found thereafter. PW1 identified appellants Sahadev Chakma @ Hurhaba and Krishna Madhav Chakma as recipients of the ransom payment.

PW2 recounted the sequence of events after the abduction, including receiving ransom demands and arranging payments. He filed the FIR and identified belongings of the deceased. PW3 testified regarding the ransom payment and his role in the communication. PW4 corroborated PW1’s testimony and identified the accused involved in the abduction and ransom collection.

PW5, Md. Ataur Rahman Laskar, testified to being abducted and taken to the jungle. He identified several accused but expressed doubt about one. He had no prior acquaintance with the accused before the identification.

Other prosecution witnesses included law enforcement officials, forensic experts, and CBI investigators who documented confessional statements, recoveries of material objects including bones, clothing, gold ornaments, and pacemaker. Witnesses PW14, PW15, and PW29, who were relevant to appellant Md. Jamaluddin Mazumdar @ Budul Mian, were declared hostile. Confessional statements were retracted during Section 313 CrPC examinations.

The case resulted in convictions under Sections 120(B), 364A, 302/34, 395/397, 201/34, and 365/34 IPC, and corresponding sentences including life imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment for various terms, and fines. Appeals were filed under Section 374 CrPC.

The Court observed that all four appeals arose from a common judgment and were disposed of through a common order. Regarding appellant Md. Jamaluddin Mazumdar @ Budul Mian, the Court recorded: "In the initial charge sheet dated 24.11.2005, the appellant was not even named." It further noted: "PW14, PW15 and PW29... were declared to be hostile. Though a hostile witness does not become an unreliable witness per se, there would be a requirement of some extra caution to take into consideration any part of such evidence."

Examining the depositions, the Court stated: "The evidence cannot be said to be conclusive in nature so as to implicate the appellant, Jamaluddin Mazumdar." It added: "Stoppage of the business of the deceased with the appellant cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion of his involvement in causing the death." Regarding PW14, the Court noted: "All the suggestions which were put to him by the prosecution after he was declared hostile were negated."

The Court addressed the confessional statements of co-accused, observing: "Both the confessional statements were retracted... and in fact, A8-Ranjit Chakma had deposed that he was severely beaten by the CBI personnel." The Bench stated: "An accomplice statement cannot be taken as a relevant piece of evidence unless corroborated by other material witnesses." Citing precedent, it observed: "Though an accomplice is a competent witness, prudence requires that his evidence should not be acted upon unless it is materially corroborated."

Concerning Khagendra Chakma @ Khagen, the Court observed: "In the deposition of the aforesaid 3 witnesses, no implication, worth its name, against the appellant-Khagendra Chakma @ Khagen is made out." On the recovery of firearms, the Court recorded: "PW22... had opined that none of the material exhibits qualified as firearms under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. Therefore, such recovery would not come to any aid of the prosecution."

As for Sahadev Chakma @ Hurhaba, the Court noted: "This appellant has been clearly implicated by PW1 and PW4... and they had also identified the present appellant." It also recorded: "Both PW1 and PW4 have also implicated and identified this appellant in the aspect of collecting money... along with accused Krishna Madhab Chakma." Additionally: "PW3... had also identified this appellant. The said evidence... do not appear to be impeached."

Regarding Rupdhan Chakma, the Court observed: "PW1 and PW4... had also identified the present appellant." It also recorded: "Even PW5... had implicated and identified the present appellant along with three others in the dock." The Court concluded: "The evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW5... do not appear to be impeached."

Also Read: Public Roads Not Meant For Commercial Encroachments | J&K High Court Orders Fortnightly Anti-Encroachment Drives And Cracks Down On Illegal Rehris And Roadside Food Joints

In view of the discussions presented, the Court stated, "we are of the opinion that the conviction and sentence so far as the appellants, Md. Jamaluddin Mazumdar @ Budul Mian in Crl.A./245/2016 and Khagendra Chakma @ Khagen in Crl.A./95/2017 are unsustainable in law and are accordingly set aside by giving them the benefit of doubt."

The Court further directed that "the appellants in Crl.A./245/2016 (Md. Jamaluddin Mazumdar @ Budul Mian) and in Crl.A./95/2017 (Shri Khagendra Chakma @ Khagen) are set at liberty and are directed to be released forthwith unless, they are wanted in any other case."

It was also ordered that "The bail bond of the appellant, Md. Jamaluddin Mazumdar @ Budul Mian stands discharged."

However, the Court stated, "Crl. A./266/2016 (Sahadeb Chakma @ Hurrhaba) and Crl.A. (J)/50/2017 (Rupdhan Chakma) are dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Shri P. Katakey, Advocate; Shri P. Dutta, Advocate; Shri D. Nandi, Advocate; Shri S. Borgohain, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri M. Haloi, Special Public Prosecutor, CBI

Case Title: Md. Jamaluddin Majumdar @ Budul Mian vs. The C.B.I. and Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:8284-
Case Number: Crl.A./245/2016 & connected appeals
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Justice Kakheto Sema