Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HITESH KUMAR SARMA, J.
Shri Mridul Das, S/o Shri Nirman Das - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 301 Of 2007
Decided On : 01-09-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. P Bhowmick.
For the Respondent: Mr. NJ Dutta.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of thoroughly examining the evidence on record and upheld the conviction based on the evidence presented.
Headnote:
Cr.PC - Criminal Revision Petition - Sections 397/401, Section 482 - IPC - Section 323 - [Sections 397/401, Section 482, Section 323]
Fact of the Case:
The accused petitioner was convicted under Section 323 of the IPC for assaulting the father of the complainant. The evidence showed discrepancies regarding the weapon used and the specific role of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 323 of the IPC but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count under Sections 447/323 of the IPC.
Issues: Discrepancies in the evidence regarding the weapon used and the specific role of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that while there were discrepancies in the evidence, there was no illegality or impropriety in the judgment of the trial court to justify interference.
Final Decision: The accused petitioner's conviction under Section 323 of the IPC was upheld, and the sentence was modified to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count under Sections 447/323 of the IPC.
1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition, filed under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC, praying for setting aside the judgment and order, dated 23.08.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in Criminal Appeal No. 18/2007, sentencing the accused petitioner to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Section 323 of the IPC.
2. Heard Mr. P Bhowmick, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Also heard Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.
3. I have perused the petition as well as the impugned order annexed with the petition.
4. The case for the prosecution is that, Sri Bapchand Das of Jorhat, filed an FIR on 02.11.2004 with the Jorhat Police Station, alleging that on 30.10.2004, at about 7:30 pm, the present accused petitioner along with other co-accused, Sri Nirman Das, Sri Ganesh Das, Sri Jitu Das and Sri Titu Das trespassed into his house, assaulted his father Sri. Bhebela Das with sharp and blunt weapons, causing injuries to his person.
5. On receipt of the FIR, the Jorhat Police Station registered a case, being No. 333/2004, investigated into it, collected evidence, arrested the accused persons, and finally, submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 147/447/323 of the IPC.
6. The learned Trial Court explained particulars of offences to the accused persons, on their appearance, under Sections 147/447/323 of the IPC and the accused persons, including the present accused petitioner pleaded innocence. Accordingly, the trial commenced.
7. The prosecution examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses in the case, including the Investigating Police Officer and the Doctor.
8. I have meticulously examined the evidence on record.
9. It appears from the materials on record that the PW6 and PW7 in this case are respectively the Doctor and the Investigating Police Officer. Other 5 (five) witnesses are from the same family.
10. The allegation made in the FIR as well as in the evidence of the PW2 that the accused petitioner assaulted his father/injured with a sword. PW2 stated that the accused petitioner entered into his house with an intention to assault him but as he was not available, the accused petitioner assaulted his father/injured. There is an admission from the PW2 himself that there was previous enemity between the parties for which he was targeted by the accused petitioner and the other co-accused.
11. The injured PW1 appears to be a person of 90 years of age on the date of occurrence. He is found to have stated in his evidence that the present accused petitioner assaulted him with a sword and the other accused persons assaulted him with a stick.
12. The concern in this present revision petition is the accusation levelled against the present petitioner, Sri Mridul Das.
13. According to the PW1, he was assaulted by the present accused petitioner with a sword.
14. The evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5 makes it appear that the entry of the present accused petitioner along with other co-accused in their house, as alleged in the FIR, is substantiated and during the cross-examination, the defence failed to assail there entry to the house of the injured/PW1 in the late evening on the date of occurrence with intention to commit some offence.
15. The evidence of PW6, who is the Doctor clearly shows that he did not find any injury caused by sharp weapon, as alleged by the injured in his evidence, examined as PW1.
16. The evidence of the Investigating Police Officer/PW7 also makes it appear that the only injury, the kind of which is caused by stick could be found in the person of the injured, which found corroboration from the evidence of the Doctor, examined as PW6.
17. The specific accusation against the present accused petitioner is that he has inflicted injuries on the person of the PW1 with a sword, which is not a fact in view of the evidence of PW6 that there was no such injury found which could have been caused by a sharp weapon. The
