P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. I.A. Hazarika, for the petitioner Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Hussain for the accused opposite party.

2. This revision petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 25/2002 under Section147/148,149/448,149/323,149/302, 149/325 of the IPC whereby the accused/opposite parties No. 2 to 17 were acquitted of offences charged against them.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Sri Ansar Ali was a resident of Dali Dahar Grant where he had a dwelling house and cultivable land. On 30.10.1997 at about 6 A.M. at the instigation of Babul Ali, the accused/opposite parties No. 2 to 17 trespassed the house campus of Ansar Ali and killed Kamrul Huda and also caused injuries upon the persons of Ansar Ali, Nurul Huda, Ali Ahmed, Fhakar Uddin and Rafiq Uddin by voluntarily assaulting them by means of dangerous weapons. The FIR was lodged by Sayed Ahmed Laskar, PW-1, and a crime was registered being Algapur Police Station Case No. 172/97 and the Police investigated the same. In the course of investigation Police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and caused the injured persons medically treated. The post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased Kamrul Huda. On completion of the investigation, Police submitted charge sheet against Anam Uddin and the accused/opposite parties No. 2 to 17 under Section 147/148/149/325/323/302 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, as the offences are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The Charges having been read over and explained the accused persons pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses including the Investigating Officer and medical officer and the statements of the accused/opposite parties were recorded. The learned trial Court passed the impugned Judgment and Order convicting accused Anam Uddin and sentencing him imprisonment for the period he has already undergone and also sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months while the other co-accused persons were acquitted.

4. The learned trial Court while convicting and sentencing the accused opposite party, Anam Uddin as stated above, acquitted all the co-accused. Separate revision petition being Criminal Revision (P) 136/2006 was preferred by the petitioner challenging their acquittal and prayed for conviction and sentence of the said co-accused persons. The said petition was also heard along with the present revision petition as they arose from the same Judgment and Order and a separate Judgment and Order has been pronounced by this Court in the said revision petition. All the acquitted co-accused have been arrayed as opposite parties No. 2 to 18 in the present petition but their names were deleted vide order dated 08.05.2006 and as such we are to confine ourselves only to a question as to whether the impugned sentence of accused/opposite party Anam Uddin to imprisonment for a period which he has already undergone and also to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months, is legally authorized and proportionate to the offence committed and if not, whether the sentence should be enhanced.

5. It is noteworthy that in the impugned Judgment no indication is given about the period of imprisonment the accused had undergone at the time of acquittal and ordering the sentence. On perusal of the case record it is found that accused/opposite party surrendered himself along with five other accused before the police on 13.11.1997 and they were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi on the same date. The accused/opposite party along with fiv