The limitations of the court's jurisdiction under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C and the principles of reappreciating evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S.N. Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned JMFC, Charaideo at Sonari in G.R. Case No. 308/2012, whereby, the petitioner was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 2(two) months.

3. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Charaideo at Sonari in Criminal Appeal No. 02(2)/2019, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

4. The case of the petitioner is that on 09.06.2012, the respondent No. 2, one employee of Khomtai Tea Estate, Tinsukia Division lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Moranhat Police Station stating inter alia on 09.06.2012 at about 5 p.m., the accused petitioner namely Mohanlal Karmakar and another were stealing the green tea leafs from their garden. When the respondent No. 3 i.e. the victim, who was the chowkider of the garden at the relevant time, while tried to prevent the accused/petitioner, the victim was assaulted by him with sharp weapon causing grievous injuries on his person. Thereafter, the victim was taken to garden hospital for treatment.

5. On receipt of the FIR, a case was registered vide Moranhat P.S. Case No. 84/2012 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Section 326 PC. During trial, prosecution examined 7(seven) witnesses including the medical officer. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused/petitioner. On completion of trial and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant under Section 326 IPC as aforesaid.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Charaideo. On hearing the appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal dated 05.08.2019. Hence, this revision.

7. Mr. S.N. Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and other materials on record. On perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, it can safely be concluded that there is no ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 326 IPC and as such, the accused/petitioner cannot be convicted under the said provision of law. Hence, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside.

8. It is also the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have failed to appreciate the facts that all the witnesses produced by the prosecution side are interested witnesses and as such, the entire case of the prosecution was based on interested witnesses. No independent witness was adduced by the prosecution side.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have failed to appreciate the fact that there was contradiction in the story narrated in the FIR and what has been stated in the charge-sheet. In the FIR, the informant has projected a case of tussle between the victim and the accused persons while accused/petitioner was stealing green tea leafs but in the charge-sheet, the investigating officer has clearly denied any such incident of stealing. Such contradiction clearly creates serious doubt about the story narrated in the FIR which is the foundation of the entire case. It is also pointed out that the victim might have sustained injury in some other place and has falsely implicated the accused/petitioner with the incident at the behest of the informant. Un