TAIJUDDIN versus STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 01-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 444
444
TAIJUDDIN
v.
STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1526 of 2021)
DECEMBER 01, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147/148/324/302/201 r/w 149 –
Unlawful assembly – When not part of – Land dispute – Victim died
in a mob attack – 32 accused persons convicted and sentenced to
life imprisonment – High Court convicted some while gave benefit
of doubt to others – SLPs by unsuccessful appellants dismissed –
However, notice issued in appellant’s case – Held: Only role
assigned to the appellant was that of pointing out the place where
the victim was hiding – Family members of the deceased never even
pointed a finger at the appellant – His presence at the site is explained
– His house was almost adjacent to where the deceased was hiding
– He did not come along with the mob – He was carrying no weapon,
he did not assault anybody – Finding of his accompanying the mob
is not sustainable – Mere fact that the appellant was not brave
enough to conceal where the victim was hiding did not make him a
part of the unlawful assembly – Acquitted.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 PW-1, the informant, attributed to the appellant
the role of pointing out the location of the deceased. Nothing
more is stated qua the appellant. Further, PW-8 was not a witness
who had seen the incident but he believed what others said and
narrated the same. Thus, the reliance placed in the impugned
judgment on the testimony of PW-8 to rope in the appellant under
Section 149 of the IPC cannot be sustained. This is more so as
PW-7 is also a hostile witness. The mere fact that the appellant
was not brave enough to conceal where the victim was hiding did
not make him a part of the unlawful assembly. The presence of
the appellant is explained at the early hours in the morning because
of his house being almost adjacent to where the deceased was
hiding. He certainly did not come along with the mob. He was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
445
carrying no weapon and he did not assault anybody. The finding
of his accompanying the mob is not sustainable on the basis of
the evidence. The only evidence of his involvement is that he
pointed to the house where the victim was hiding. Given that a
murderous mob fully armed was hunting for him, the appellant at
best can be said not to be brave enough to conceal the deceased
or even to have not pointed out where he was, but that by itself
cannot rope in the appellant under Section 149 of the IPC. [Paras
5, 9, 10 and 11][447-A-B; 448-D-E; 448-E-F; 449-B-D]
1.2 Taking into consideration the inconsistency in the
testimonies – inasmuch as the family members never even pointed
a finger at the appellant as also some of the other witnesses,
while the witnesses who did point a finger only assigned the role
of pointing out the place where the victim was hiding, coupled
with his natural presence at site, it cannot, thus, be said that by
any stretch of imagination the case against the appellant has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt or for that matter really no case
seems to have been proved against the appellant given the role
assigned to him in the testimony of the witnesses. The appellant
is entitled to a clean acquittal in the given facts. The conviction
under Section 147/148/302/201/149 is set aside [Paras 11, 14]
[449-G-H; 450-A-B]
Subal Ghorai v. State of  West Bengal (2013) 4 SCC
607 : 2013 (5 ) SCALE 275; Ranjit Singh v. State of
Punjab and Ors (2013) 16 SCC 752 : [2013] 13 SCR
633; C. Magesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010)
5 SCC 645 : [2010] 5 SCR 623 – relied on.
Case  Law  Reference
[2013] 13  SCR 633
relied on
Para 12
[2010] 5 SCR 623
relied on
Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1526 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2019 of the High Court
of Gauhati at Gauhati in Crl. A. No.166 of 2015.
Abir Phukan, Surya Prakash, Ashkrit Tiwari, Ms. Anisha Mathur
for M/s Kmnp Law, Advs. for the Appellant.
TAIJUDDIN v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
Debojit Borkakati, Vivek Sonkar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. A land dispute caused the loss of life of Abdul Wahab (‘the
victim’). A house was being constructed on land stated to be of the
victim and others when the accused persons came in a mob towards the
house of the victim armed with lathis, spears, da

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.