The revisional court's role is to ensure legality and propriety of lower court findings without re-evaluating evidence, modifying sentences only for propriety.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.H. Alamgir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state.

2. By filing this application u/s 397/401 R/W Section 482 of the Cr.PC, 1973, the accused petitioners have prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.06.2013, passed in Crl. Appeal No.32/2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 07.07.2009 passed by the learned CJM, Hailakandi in C.R Case No.206/2004, u/s 323/342/34 IPC and sentencing the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default simple imprisonment for 1 month each for their conviction u/s 323/342/34 IPC on each count.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 06.06.2004, at around 7/8 pm, accused/petitioner Kalpana Das called complainant Joygopal Das to her residence and thereafter, the remaining accused petitioners namely Kutu Das, Subol Das, Arun Das, Jadav Das, Dulal Das, Chandu Das, Bindu Das and Ashit Das assaulted the complainant with fists and blows causing injuries on his person. Accordingly, the complainant filed a complaint case in the Court of learned CJM, Hailakandi vide C.R Case No.206/2004 and cognizance was taken. During trial, the complainant side adduced evidence to prove his case. After completion of trial and after hearing both sides, the accused petitioners were convicted as aforesaid.

4. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.06.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, the accused petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the findings arrived at and conclusion reached by the trial court are perverse to the material on record in as much as the trial court did not deal with the fact and law in the impugned judgment which led to passing of the erroneous judgment and order.

6. It is also submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court fails to appreciate the contradiction where the petitioners first took the complainant in Kalacherra Outpost on 06.06.2004 but the in-charge of outpost set the complainant free by totally disregarding the Provision of Section 47 of the Assam Police Act, 2007. The learned Court below also overlooked the evidence of the prosecution witnesses while passing the impugned judgment which is liable to be set aside.

7. It is also contended that the learned trial court and the appellate court have failed to understand PW-4 is neither friend nor enemy of the complainant, has admitted in his cross-examination that the matter in dispute was settled in Kalacherra outpost for which in-charge of the outpost set the complainant free on 06.06.2004. But subsequently, the complainant lodged the complaint on 19.06.2004 before the CJM, Hailakandi after 13 days of the alleged incident which was not considered by the trial court or the learned Sessions Judge and as such the judgment and order passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside.

8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial court has failed to examine the police officer of Kalacherra outpost for which the true incident did not come to light. Hence, non-examination of police officer in the instant case is fatal as such the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court is liable to be set aside.

9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state has argued to support the findings recorded in the impugned judgment and urged that findings of conviction concurrently recorded by the Courts below are neither perverse nor against the law and do not warrant interference by this Court. It is further pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the High Court in Criminal Revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate court and the scope of interference