The Court upheld the conviction and sentence under IPC Sections 448 and 325, affirming the sufficiency of evidence while reiterating the limits of revisional jurisdiction to prevent reappraisal of factual evidence.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Ms. S. Mushahary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.

2. The present criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 & 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) challenging the judgment & order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the learned Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as the “appellate court”), in Criminal Appeal No. 7 (1) of 2014, affirming the conviction of the accused/petitioner passed by the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”), in G.R. Case No. 1220/09, under Section 448 /325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “ IPC ”), whereby the accused/petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month for commission of offence u/s 448 of the and simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default simple imprisonment for 10 (ten) days for commission of offence under Section 325 of the . Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 03.07.2009 at about 9.00 pm the accused/petitioner pelted stones on her house and thereafter came to her house and asked her to open the door, and when she opened the door, the accused/petitioner beat her on her face, thereby causing injuries to her.

4. Accordingly, a case was registered as Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 348 dated 12.07.2009, under Section 336 /448/325 of the IPC . After completion of the investigation, a charge- sheet was submitted under the aforesaid sections. Thereafter, the accused/petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial court then framed charges under Section 448 /325 of the and accordingly commenced the trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined 6 (six) witnesses: the informant as PW-1, the son of the informant as PW-2, the brother-in-law of the informant as PW-3, the sister of the informant as PW-4, the doctor who examined the informant as PW-5, and the Investigating Officer as PW-6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/petitioner was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he merely denied all the incriminating materials that were put to him.

5. PW-1 deposed that on 3-07-2009 the accused used filthy words against her, entered into her house at about 7.30 p.m., and gave her a fist blow on her face, resulting in the falling out of four teeth with grievous injuries. After the incident, she called her sister over the telephone, who came to her house at night, and after informing the matter to the Gabhorupathar Out Post, she took her for treatment along with the police. After taking treatment, she returned to her house, and thereafter she lodged a written F.I.R. in the police station. The PW-1 also deposed that on the said day before the incident, the accused person also pelted stones on her house, and the said stones were seized by the police during the investigation of the case. PW-2, the son of the informant, in his deposition stated that on that day at the time of occurrence of the said incident at about 7.30/8 p.m., he was present at home. According to him, the accused person misbehaved with his mother and gave her a fist blow, for which blood oozed out from the mouth of his mother and she became senseless. Thereafter, he informed h