The failure to present incriminating evidence to the accused during trial vitiated the conviction, emphasizing the necessity of a fair trial under Section 313 of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. N. Sarkar, learned counsel for the accused/petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This petition is filed under Section 397 of the CrPC, 1973 read with Section 401 and Section 482 of the CrPC seeking setting aside and quashing of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) in GR Case No. 491/2009, whereby the accused/petitioners were convicted under Section 341/325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month under Section 341 IPC and Simple Imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 325 of IPC, in default, Simple Imprisonment for one month and the impugned Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 25(3)/2011, whereby the Appellate Court partly modified the Judgment passed by the Trial Court by acquitting the accused/petitioners under Section 341 of IPC and reducing the sentence of imprisonment under Section 325 of IPC to six months instead of one year by maintaining the fine.

3. Mr. N. Sarkar, learned counsel for the accused/petitioners submits at the outset that the accused/petitioner No. 1 i.e. Smt. Sarathi Bala Barman during the pendency of the petition expired on 23.12.2024 and accordingly produced a copy of the Death Certificate issued by the Govt. of Assam, Dept of Health and Family Welfare, which is kept on record and marked as ‘X’.

4. The brief facts of the case is that on 09.09.2009 at 1:30 am, one Rameswar Barman knocked the door of the informant and since she refused to open the door, he left her house by saying that he would take revenge for the same. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the following morning, since the informant apprised the villagers about the same, the accused/petitioners attacked her on village path and assaulted her with lathi, for which she sustained serious injury on her forehand. It is the further case of the prosecution that again at 6:00 pm, the accused/petitioners entered into her house and assaulted her and her minor daughter with a lathi, as a result of which, her left wrist was broken and she sustained injuries on head and forehead and her daughter sustained injury on her right finger. Accordingly, on 12.09.2009, the informant lodged FIR before the jurisdictional Police Station which was registered as Bongaigoan Police Station Case No. 363/2009 under Section 341/447/325/506 of IPC. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and submitted chargesheet under Section 341/325/506/34 of IPC against the accused/petitioners.

5. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 341/325/506/34 of IPC against both the accused/petitioners. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 prosecution witnesses including the Medical Officer and Investigating Officer whereas the accused/petitioners have been examined under Section 313 of CrPC, wherein the plea of defence was total denial. No defence witness was adduced. The Trial Court after closure of evidence and hearing the parties was pleased to hold the accused/petitioners guilty under Section 341/325/34 of IPC and accordingly convicted thereafter.

6. Aggrieved by such conviction, the accused/petitioners filed appeal before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court acquitted the accused/petitioners under Section 341 of IPC. However, while maintaining the conviction under Section 325 of IPC, modified/reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months.Situated thus, the present revision petition has been filed.

7. Mr. N. Sarkar, learned counsel for the accused/petitioners submits that the Trial Court ought not have convicted the accused/petitioners in the absence of reliable evidence to the effect that the Investigating Ag