Court recognized the ability to modify a sentence to fines instead of imprisonment due to the significant time elapsed since the offence, emphasizing justice and fairness in penalization.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.P. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. The instant Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 401, read with Section 397 of the Cr.PC assailing the Judgment & Order dated 16.03.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jorhat in G.R. Case No. 1143/2008 convicting the accused/petitioners under Section 143/341/324 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years under Section 324 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 143 IPC and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month and to further pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each under Section 341 IPC and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for 7 (seven) days. The petitioners have also challenged the Judgment & Order dated 11.02.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners were dismissed and the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court was upheld.

FACTS

3. The brief facts of the instant case is that on 07.10.2008 at about 6:30 am, the informant’s son went to his land to inspect the tea garden and there, the petitioners wrongfully restrained the informant’s son and caused hurt to him by striking with sharp weapons on his head and hands. On getting the news, the husband of the informant went to the place of occurrence and the petitioners had also hurt him on his hands and legs. The Police on receipt of the FIR, registered the case as Pulibor P.S. Case No. 118/2008 and upon conclusion of the investigation, submitted Charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 341/143/326 of the IPC. Thereafter, on completion of the necessary requirements under the law, charges were framed against the petitioners under the said aforesaid Sections, which were read over and explained to the petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and stood trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses and the petitioners, i.e., the accused persons in their defence adduced 1 (one) witness. Thereafter, the petitioners were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.PC and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioners as mentioned above.

EVIDENCE

4. PW-1, i.e., the informant in her examination-in-chief has deposed that on 07.10.2008 at about 6:30 am, she heard two women passing by shouting that some people are hacking some people and thereafter, her husband rushed to see their son, who was working in the nearby tea garden. She too rushed towards the garden and met her son on the way and she found her son in an injured stage with wounds on his head, hands and back. Upon asking, her son told all the names of the petitioners to have hurt him with rod, who also stated that the said petitioners have hurt his father too. The informant went ahead towards the place of occurrence and found her husband lying in an injured stage and stated that his right hand was severed from his body with number of other injuries.

5. PW-2 is the husband of the complainant and one of the injured witness. He deposed that on 07.10.2008 at about 6:30 am, he heard two women running outside shouting that some people are hacking people and when he went ahead to his tea garden, he found the petitioners surrounding his son holding spears, rod and knives. When he objected not to harm