IMPORTANT POINT
The court confirmed that the conviction under IPC Sections 341, 324, and 506 was valid based on the evidence of the injured parties, emphasizing the role of corroborative evidence in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

2. The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence vide impugned Judgment and order dated 02/06/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Barpeta, affirming the Judgment of the trial court in Criminal Appeal No. 02/2011, which has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 20/12/2010, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Barpeta, whereby the revision petitioner was convicted u/s 341/324/506 IPC, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-in default further SI for one month u/s 341 IPC. The revision petitioner was also sentenced to undergo SI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-in default SI for four months u/s 324 IPC and u/s 506 IPC to undergo SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default SI for three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that an FIR has been lodged by the informant stating inter-alia that on 25/08/2004 at around 7 PM, his cousin brother Labaram Nath and his elder brother Arun Nath went to Balbari chowk for marketing. While they were busy in marketing, suddenly the accused petitioner came to the spot and attacked Labaram Nath with a dao causing injury on his person. When his brother Arun Nath tried to resist the accused/petitioner then the accused gave two dao blows on his forehead and as a result of which he also sustained injuries on his person. After the incident, both the injured were taken to hospital for their treatment.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Sarthebari PS case No. 64/04 u/ss 341/326/307/34 IPC and investigation was initiated. During investigation, the I.O visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence and collected injury reports of the victims. As the investigating officer in spite of vigorous search failed to nab the accused/petitioner, he could not be arrested and as such, charge sheet has been laid against the accused/petitioner u/ss 341/323/324/307 IPC showing him as absconder.

5. During trial, on appearance of the accused/petitioner before the trial court, charge was framed under Sections 341/324/307/506 of IPC which was read over and explained to the accused/petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited some documents. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and projected a defence that the injured probably sustained injuries in a scuffle or in a fall. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

6. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty u/ss 341/324/506 IPC and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 20/12/2010, the accused approached the Court of Sessions, Barpeta vide Criminal Appeal No. 02/2011. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Barpeta, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Now the accused is before this court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the learned trial court has misread the evidence on record and thereby misconstrued the facts in this case and thereby arrived at a wrong finding to convict the accused/ revision petitioner and subsequently on appeal affirmed the Judgment passed by the trial court.

8. It is further submitted that the alleged occurrence took place in the market area. According to the prosecution witnesses, more than two hundred people were present at the relevant time. In spite of such circumstances not even a single independen