Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010132312013 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./452/2013 BRAJEN BARUAH S/O BIPUL BARUAH R/O LECHENGKA GAON, UNDER BAREKURI P.S. IN THE DIST. OF TINSUKIA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D TALUKDAR, MR.P CHOUDHURY,MR. K SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 22.09.2025 Heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State Respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceedings has presented a challenge to the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the Judgment dated 20.05.2013, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, in G.R. Case No.291/2011, thereby upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 08.03.2011, one Gohin Moran, Head Master of Hatigarh M.E. School, had lodged an FIR, alleging, inter alia, that on 07.03.2011, at about 9.15 a.m, when he had come to the school he found the door lock of the room in a broken condition and found 2(two) bags of rice for Mid Day Meal purpose along with some pieces of iron pipes and some books missing therefrom. The police in receipt of the said FIR registered Makum P.S. Case No30/2011 under Section 457/380 IPC. On conclusion of Page No.# 3/9 the investigation in the matter, police laid charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, and one Md. Mustafa Hussain, under Section 457/380/411 IPC. The learned Trial Court on the appearance of the accused persons before it, framed a charge against them under Section 457/380/411/34 IPC. The accused persons having pleaded not guilty to the charge, claimed to be tried and accordingly, a Trial ensued. During the Trial, the prosecution examined 8(eight) witnesses in support of their case. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC. No defense witness came to be adduced by the petitioner, herein. On conclusion of the Trial, appreciating the evidences coming on record, the learned Trial Court was pleased vide Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2013, to convict the petitioner, herein, under Sections 380/457 IPC. On his such conviction, the petitioner, herein, was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months along with a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) month under Section 457 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months and a fine of Rs. Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) under Section 380 IPC, in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for another 1(one) month. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction by the Page No.# 4/9 Trial Court, assailed the same by way of instituting an appeal being Crl.A.No.22(2)/2013, before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia. The Appellate Court upon appreciating the materials coming on record was pleased by the Judgment dated 25.09.2013, to dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the conviction of the appellant under Sections 457/380 IPC by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. This Court has perused the deposition of the prosecution witnesses as well as the statement made by the petitioner during his examination under Section 313 CrPC during the Trial. 5. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide the Judgment and Order dated 20-05-2013, to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 457/380 IPC. On his such conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months and a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further 1(one) month for the offence under Section 457 IPC. The learned Trial Court also sentenced the petitioner, herein, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months along with a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) more month for the offence under Section 380 IPC. 6. I have also heard the learned counsel for the parties and Page No.# 5/9 also perused the materials available on records. 7. The evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses as well as the statement recorded during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, has been closely perused by this Court. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record has drawn the following conclusions ; “From the aforementioned analysis of evidence of witnesses it is evident that the theft articles of the school were covered from the possession of accused Brojen Barua as well as accused Mustafa Hussain. Accused Mustafa Hussain was caught red handed when he was carrying the broken pieces of rods which were school properties. On interrogation it is apparent that accused Mustafa Hüssain himself admitted the fact he brought those articles from Brojen Barua. Subsequently, the rice bags were recovered from the residence of Brojen Barua as led by accused, Mostafa Hussain. The aforesaid facts indicate that accused Brojen Barua was directly involved in the theft committed in the intervening night of 06.03.11 and 07.03.11 in the Hatigarh M.E School as the rice bags belonging to the said schools were found and recovered from his residence. As such, there is no doubt whatsover regarding commitment of theft by accused Brojen Barua: From the aforesaid analysis of evidence at hand it has again percolated that accused Mustafa Page No.# 6/9 Hussain had received and retained the broken iron pieces which he purchased from the other accused. All the aforesaid witnesses had identified the recovered articles as that of school properties.” 8. This Court has perused the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court with regard to the offence alleged against the petitioner, herein. This court finds that the conclusion as drawn by the learned Trial Court to have been so drawn on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record. The commission of the offence under Section 457/380 IPC has been found to have been established against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. 9. This Court on appreciation of the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court in the light of the evidence coming on record finds that the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 380/457 IPC would not mandate any interference. 10. This Court also perused the conclusion drawn by the learned Appellate Court vide the Judgment dated 25-09-2013. This Court on a close perusal of the same, finds that the conclusion drawn against the petitioner, herein, by the learned Appellate Court, was so drawn basing on a due and proper appreciation of the evidence coming on record in the Trial. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the Judgment and Order dated 20-05-2013, would not call for any interference. Page No.# 7/9 11. Having drawn the above conclusion, this court notices that the offence involved in the matter was committed by the petitioner on 07-03-2011. Long 14(fourteen) years have passed since the occurrence of the incident involved in the present proceeding. The learned Trial Court had while proceeding to consider the sentencing of the petitioner, herein, had noticed the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, however, by noticing the nature of offence committed by the present petitioner, the learned Trial Court held that it was not a fit case to extend the benefit of the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the petitioner, herein. 12. This Court also has noticed that the learned Trial Court had refused to extend the benefit under the Provisions of the Act of 1958, to the petitioner only on considering the nature of the offence alleged against him without taking a realistic view of the same. The learned Appellate Court, however had not considered the provisions of the Act of 1958 while considering the matter. 13. This Court, considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter and also the fact that the petitioner, herein, has been litigating before the Courts, initially before the Trial Court, thereafter before the Appellate Court and presently before this Court in the present revision petition, finds that this is a fit case wherein, for the reasons noticed, hereinabove, the petitioner is entitled to be extended with the benefit of the provision of the Page No.# 8/9 Act of 1958. 14. Accordingly, for the reasons, noticed hereinabove, the petitioner, herein, be given the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and consequently the sentence of the imprisonment of the petitioner as imposed by the learned Trial Court stands modified and it is provided that instead of sending the appellant in jail, he should be extended the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, the sentencing of the petitioner to the extent of payment of fine is not interfered with. 15. In view of the above discussions, it is directed that the petitioner, herein, will file 2(two) sureties to the tune of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)each, along with a personal bond before the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, and undertake, to the effect that the petitioner shall maintain peace and good behavior during the period of 1(one) year from the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the petitioner within a period of 1(one) month from today, along with the deposit of the fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2013. 16. With the above observations and directions, the present Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. 17. Send down the records of the case to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. Page No.# 9/9 JUDGE Comparing Assistant