A bench of justices J K Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia issued notice to respondents on the petition against Gauhati High Court.
Gauhati High Court on August 24, 2023, reversed the conviction of the Respondents namely, Dipanjali Borgohain, Lila Gogoi, Jatin Dowari and Muhi Handique under Section 302 (murder) and Section 323 r/w Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3(a) and 4(b) (i) of the Explosive Substances Act r/w Section 120-B IPC and Section 10(b)(i) and Section 13(1) (a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Respondent namely, Hemen Gogoi under Section 10(a)(iv) and Section 13(2) of the UAPA.
The appeal was filed by the State of Assam, challenging the judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 24.08.2023.By the said judgment, the High Court overturned the Trial court’s judgment of 04.07.2019 which had convicted five accused including ULFA members, held responsible for the incident.
The Petition in the Supreme Court was argued by Nalin Kohli, Sr. AAG for the State of Assam. Sr AAG Nalin Kohli was, assisted by Nimisha Menon Adv., Ankit Roy (Counsels for State of Assam) and Advocate Shruti Agarwal.
“The High Court has erroneously reversed the conviction of the Accused by rejecting the confessional statement of Jatin Dowari on the ground that the same was retracted, despite such retraction being after an inordinate delay of ten years,” the petition said.
Trial Court while convicting the Accused Respondents, placed strong reliance on the confessional statements of Jatin Dowari, the petition said citing Diwari confessional statement.
“The High Court erred in observing .that the no prosecution sanction was granted under the UAPA Act. In this regard, it is submitted that prosecution sanction was granted under Section 10/13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 vide orderdated 10.01.2011. The same was also stated to be enclosed with
the charge-sheet which also formed part of the trial record,” read the plea.
Assam Govt said that it is pertinent to highlight that the High Court did not take into account this crucial fact that two prosecution sanctions were duly submitted along with the charge-sheet and that no objection was raised by the Accused Respondents herein during the course of the trial and therefore any objection so raised at the Appellate stage would be immaterial. (ANI)
