LexGANESH GOGOI versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[20091 9 s.c.~. 1209 GANESH GOGOi A v. STATE OF ASSAM (Criminal Appeal No. 1018 of 2007) JULY 7, 2009 B [DALVEER BHANDARI AND ASOK KUMAR ~ GANGULY, JJ.] - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: ss.3(2)(i), 3(1), 3(5)- Charges framed under s.3(5) and s.302 c /PC - Examination under s.313 CrPC - Conviction under ( s.3(2)(i) -:-- On appeal, Held: No evidence to connect the _.... appellant with the alleged incident of killing of the victim - Requisite intention of temJrist activity missing - Appellant was convicted under s.3(2)(i) but ingredients of said Section not D put to him under s.313 Cr.P.C. - There was thus not a fair examination under s.313 - Moreover, charge was framed under s.3(5) which was not brought on the statute on the date of occuffence - The Designated Court failed in its duty in matter of application of mind to materials on record at the E stage of framing of charges and also at the time of convicting the appellant - Conviction order is set aside - Penal Code, ' 1860 - s.302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.313- Purpose and F object of- Held: Provisions of s.313 are for the benefit of accused and to give him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him - The provision is based on salutary principle of natural justice and maxim 'audi a/teram partem' is enshrined in them - Therefore G > examination under s.313 has to be of utmost fairness - ,.. Doctrines/Principles - Natural justice - Maxims. Basavaraj R. Patil & others v. State of Karnataka & ....... 1209 H -( 1210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R. A others (2000) 8 SCC 740; Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (1994) 4 sec 602, relied on. Case law reference: B (2000) a sec 140 relied on Para 28 ' (1994) 4. sec· 602 relied on Paras 31 to 34 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal C No. 1018. of 2007. D P.K. Ghosh and Manish Goswami (for Map & Co) for the Appellants. ·Avijit Roy (for Corporate Law Group) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GANGULY, J. 1. This app~al has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'T ADA(P) Act') impugning E the judgment dated· 11. 7.2007 passed by the learned Designated Court, Assam, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted by the learned Judge of the Designated Court under Section 3(2)(i) TADA(P) Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for F life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default further imprisonment for six months. 2. On the benefit of doubt being extended, the other accused, namely, Premodhar Gogoi was acquitted. G 3. The material facts of the case as alleged by the H prosecution are that on 2.9.1991 at about 7.30 a.m., Sub~ Inspector B. Kalita, who was in-charge of Naohalia Out Police Post informed the Office-in-Charge of Bordubi Police Station over telephone that on the previous day i.e. on 1.9.1991 at ' ..... ( ~ ,).. - \. GANESH GOGOi v. STATE OF ASSAM 1211 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] about 7.30 p.m. one Dinanath Agarwalla Naohalia was taken A away in a Maruti car by some unknown persons and this information was entered vide General Diary Entry No. 19 dated 2.9.1991. 4. Thereafter, Prabhat Gogoi, Officer-in-Charge along with B his staff reached the place of occurrence for investigation and subsequently an FIR was lodged by him. 5. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet dated 25.9.2001 was filed under Sections 365/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(2)(i) and 3(5) of the TADA c (P) Act against the appellant and Premodhar Gogoi. 6. Thereafter, on 10.1.2003, the learned Designated Court, Assam framed charges against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(5) of the TADA(P) 0 Act. In the Trial evidence was adduced and the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ultimately by the impugned judgment dated 11. 7 .2007 the appellant was convicted by the learned Designated Court under Section 3(2)(i) of the T ADA(P) Act and was sentenced as E stated hereinabove. 7. Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant while assailing the judgment under appeal advanced various submissi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.