Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010009742013 2025:GAU-AS:13392 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./339/2013 SAIDUL ISLAM @ ALI S/O- ABDUL KADER, VILL.- TUKRA, P.S.- AGIA, DIST.- GOALPARA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A MOBARAQUE, MR.A ROSHID Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 18/09/2025 Heard Mr. A Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present criminal revision petition, has assailed the judgment dated 29.06.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Crl. A. No. 41/2012, dismissing the same and thereby upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, herein, under Sections 411/380 IPC vide judgment dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Goalpara in G.R. No. 1654/2011. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Rafiqul Islam lodged an FIR on 08.09.2011, with the Agia Police Station, inter-alia, alleging, therein, that on 07.09.2011 at about 12 O’clock, the petitioner, Page No.# 2/4 herein, in his absence, by breaking the door entered into his house and had stolen away cash and ornaments. It is further stated in the FIR that the local people had recovered the stolen articles from the petitioner, herein and the petitioner was handed over to police. On receipt of the said FIR, Agia P.S. Case No. 105/2011 under Sections 457/380 IPC came to be registered. On completion of investigation, police laid a charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Sections 457/380 IPC in G.R. No. 1654/2011 (corresponding to Agia P.S. Case No. 105/2011). The Trial Court framed a charge under Sections 457/380 IPC against the petitioner, herein and the same on being read over and explained to the petitioner, he pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, the trial ensued. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner, herein, was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, appreciating the evidences coming on record, was pleased vide judgment dated 07.05.2012 to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 411 IPC. On his such conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year along with payment of fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand), in default, to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month. The petitioner being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court, assailed the judgment dated 07.05.2012, by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. A. No. 41/2012, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara. The learned Appellate Court, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, was pleased vide judgment dated 29.06.2013, to dismiss the said appeal and thereby uphold the conviction of the appellant (petitioner herein) passed by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 5. This Court has carefully perused the evidences coming on record. 6. The evidence of PW2, Ajabar Ali reveals that the petitioner, herein, on being accosted by the public, had admitted to have kept the ornaments stolen from the house of the informant, in his house. PW2 further had deposed that the VDP personnel and the local people had proceeded to the house of Page No.# 3/4 the accused petitioner and on reaching his house, the petitioner, herein, had returned the ornaments kept in his house. Accordingly, police was informed. PW2 had also deposed that in presence of police, the petitioner, herein, had returned back one trunk from the drain. 7. PW4 deposed that the gold and silver ornaments of the informant were recovered from the house of the petitioner. 8. In view of the evidences coming on record, more particularly, from the depositions of the PW2 and PW4, it is apparent that the recovery of the stolen articles were made from the house of the petitioner, herein. The petitioner, herein, during the trial had not claimed ownership of such articles recovered from his house. The petitioner, herein, had also not disputed such recovery. Accordingly, during the trial, the evidences that have come on record had only established beyond reasonable doubt, the recovery of stolen articles from the house of the petitioner, herein, and commission of an offence under Section 411 IPC was established beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner, herein. 9. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of the evidences coming on record proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 411 IPC. It further went to hold that the evidences coming on record being not sufficient to hold the offence under Sections 457/380 IPC to be established against the petitioner, herein, beyond reasonable doubt, proceeded to acquit him from the said charges and convicted the petitioner, herein, only under Section 411 IPC. 10. On a perusal of the conclusions drawn in the matter by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds that the conclusion so drawn of the offence under Section 411 IPC being established against the petitioner, herein, beyond reasonable doubt, is based on a due and proper appreciation of the materials coming on record. No infirmity is found by this Court with regard to such conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 411 IPC would not mandate any interference. 11. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now examine the judgment dated 29.06.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara. On a perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court, this Court finds that the said conclusions were so drawn by relying on relevant evidences coming on record in the trial against the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity with the conclusions as drawn by the learned Appellate Court in the matter. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner having failed to highlight any infirmity and/or perversity Page No.# 4/4 existing in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and by the learned Appellate Court in the matter, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would not be called upon to re- appreciate the evidences coming on record. However, this Court has noticed the relevant evidences coming on record only for the purpose of satisfying itself about the conclusions reached by the learned Trial Court, as well as by the learned Appellate Court in the matter. 13. In view of the above discussions, this Court holds that the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 07.05.2012 under Section 411 IPC would not mandate any interference. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court would also not mandate any interference. Further, as noticed, hereinabove, the judgment dated 29.06.2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court would also not mandate any interference. The conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 411 IPC is upheld. 14. The petitioner, herein, is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court, i.e., Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Goalpara within a period of 1 (one) month from today to carry out the remaining portion of the sentence of imprisonment as ordered in his case along with payment of fine. 15. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Goalpara shall monitor the compliance of the directions passed by this Court, hereinabove. 16. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands dismissed. 17. Registry to send down the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant