JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Crl. Appeal No. 7(4)/2006 affirming the judgment and order dated 02.11.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhubri in G.R. Case No. 30/2001 convicting the accused petitioner under section 326 of the IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for 3 months. However, the learned Sessions Judge, although maintained the conviction of the accused petitioner under section 326 IPC but, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to 2 years without interfering with the fine imposed against the accused petitioner by the trial court.

2. The case projected by the prosecution, sans unnecessary details, is that on 17.03.2001 at about 6.30 AM at Kalapani under Mankachar Police Station in the Dhubri district, the accused petitioner Ripon Mollah along with others caused grievous injuries on the stomach of Momin Hussain with a dagger. Mankachar Police Station Case No. 30/2001 was registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the father of the victim. The Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused Ripon Mollah, Abdul Mannan and Sahinur under sections 326/506/34 of the IPC.

3. The learned trial court convicted the accused petitioner under section 326 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine as stated above. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri with reduction of sentence to 2 years from 3 years.

4. Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

5. Inviting my attention to the impugned judgment the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that there was concurrent finding of facts by the learned courts below and it is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record to upset the concurrent findings. It is a settled legal proposition that ordinarily it is not open to the High Court when there is concurrent finding of facts to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction, unless it is shown that the evidence on record was misread or misinterpreted by the courts below.

6. Keeping in view the above principle while going through the evidence on record particularly the evidence of the alleged victim Momin and his sister P.W. 4 Mustt. Yasmin @ Baby there is hardly any room for doubt that the accused Ripon Mollah stabbed the victim Momin Hussain @ Munna with a dagger on his abdomen as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. Evidence of P.W. 2, Momin @ Munna Hussain is that the accused petitioner Ripon Mollah stabbed him with a dagger on his stomach as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on his stomach which prevented him to follow his ordinary pursuits for 22/23 days. In spite of vigorous examination by the defence his testimony could not be shaken and almost remained intact and un-rebutted. His evidence is fully corroborated by P.W, 4 who is his elder sister and it appears from her evidence that she also accompanied her brother at the relevant time and she saw the accused stabbing her brother on his abdomen with a dagger. The evidence of these two witnesses is also corroborated by P.W. 3, Hamed Ali, father-in-law of P.W. 4 and although he had not seen the occurrence, he heard about the same from his daughter P.W. 4 that the accused stabbed the victim Momin. P.W. 1, Ismail Hussain, father of the victim noticed the injury on the abdomen and according to him, the intestines were coming out from the abdomen and although the contradiction was sought to be introduced in his evidence but, the medical officer who examined the injured confirmed that on examination he found intestines coming out from the injured portion of the stomach and consequently the contradiction introduced was rightly nullified by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document