The court established that in cases of assault, credible eyewitness accounts can outweigh discrepancies in medical testimony, and leniency in sentencing is warranted when actions are impulsive rather than premeditated.

JUDGMENT :

This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Judgment dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Dhubri in G.R. No. 182/2004 by which the petitioner is convicted under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment (S.I) for two (2) years. The petitioner had also challenged the Judgment dated 19.09.2012 passed by the learned Court of Session Judge, Dhubri in Criminal Appeal No. 8(2)/2009 by which the learned Sessions Court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. Against the Judgment & Order, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition challenging the same.

FACTS

2. An FIR was lodged on 22.08.2004 by the PW-1 stating inter alia that on 21.08.2004 at around 12 noon when the voting was going on for election of the Managing Committee of Charbari L.P. School, the accused persons named in the FIR including the petitioner altercated with the people present there and that they brought deadly weapons and started to assault others and further, that the petitioner assaulted one Sohidur thereby causing serious injuries on him. The police on receipt of the FIR registered the same as Mankachar Police Case No. 182/2004 and started the investigation. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against six (6) accused persons including the petitioner. Subsequently, after completion of the necessary formalities, the Court below framed charged under Section 147 /148/448/324 IPC which was read over, to which the petitioner as well as other accused persons pleaded not guilty and the trial was initiated. During the trial, 8 prosecution witnesses were examined and thereafter, upon examining the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the Court below had convicted the petitioner and acquitted the five (5) other persons. The petitioner thereafter was sentenced for 2 years S.I under Section 324 IPC.

3. PW-1 is the informant of the case and he stated that when the voting was going on, the petitioner and others started altercating with the people who had come to vote and that later, they brought weapon and started to assault the people, gathered there. He thereafter specifically stated that the petitioner assaulted PW-2 namely, Sohidur and injured his left arm.

4. PW-2 is the injured witness and he supported the evidence of PW-1 i.e., the informant. PW-2 specifically stated that it was the petitioner who had brought the weapon unlike the statement made by PW-1 who stated that all the accused persons including the petitioner had brought the weapons. He stated before the Trial Court that on 21.08.2004 when voting was going on for the said election and when he was looking at the voting process standing on the road, the altercation took place and that the petitioner asked him why he was present during the said altercation and that thereafter, the petitioner hit him with a dagger on his left arm. He thereafter stated that he was taken to the hospital for treatment first to the Public Health Center and then to the Dhubri Hospital and he was administered 14/15 stitches.

5. PW-3 was also an eyewitness and he stated that when the voting was going on, there was an altercation between the petitioner and the injured witness and the petitioner hit the injured witness by a dagger on his left arm.

6. PW-4 is a hear say witness.

7. PW-5 stated in his examination-in-chief that he saw the petitioner hitting the injured witness but during the cross-examination, he stated that he saw only people running and does not know who hit whom.

8. PW-6 and PW-7 are