1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Present: - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.

C.R.R. No. – 1635 of 2018 IN THE MATTER OF Goutam Bayen & Ors.

Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabir Ahmed Adv., Mr. A.K. Banerjee Adv., Mr. Biswajit Sarkar Adv., Mr. Dhiman BanerjeeAdv., Ms. Suman Biswas Adv. For the State : Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta Adv. Judgment on :

12.09.2023 Subhendu Samanta, J. This is an application u/s 382 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment and order dated 12th February, 2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum at Rampurhat in connection with criminal appeal no. 6 of 2018 arising out of which GR no. 254 of 2003 thereby convicting the present appellants under sections 323/324 of IPC and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs 500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one 2 month for offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC and also to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each along with imposition of fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable u/s 324 of the IPC 1860.

The brief fact of the case is that the present petitioners were convicted by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampurhat Birbhum in connection with GR No. 254 of 2003. The present petitioners preferred an appeal before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampurhat Birbhum against the said order of conviction. The Learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties has passed the impugned order against which the instant appeal has been preferred.

Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the disputes were cropped up between the parties in respect of the Local “Dharam Puja” and for distribution of meat. It alleged that the present petitioners have assaulted Sarbeswar Bayen and sabitri Bayen with lathi and sharp cutting weapons. The said Sabitri and Sarbeswar sustained bleeding injuries and they were admitted to the hospitals. The prosecution has produced 10 PWs and after hearing the parties Ld. ACJM found the present petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under sections 323/324 of the IPC.

3 Learned Advocate for the petitioners further argued that there are no eye witnesses in the said alleged incident of assault. The so- called eye witnesses were not examined by the police and police has not collected the blood stain earth and blood stain wearing apparels of the injured. The police also did not seized the offending weapons during the course of investigation of this case. He argued that the observation of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge is completely erroneous. The statement of the PWs are full of contradictions. He further argued that during the admission of injured before the hospital the name of the present petitioners was not uttered by the injured persons or the patient party. He further argued, it would be revealed that the injury sustained by the injured is simple in nature. So the offence punishable u/s 324 IPC is not at all proved. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge and for acquittal of the present petitioners.

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the states submits that the impugned order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers no illegality. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has perused the evidence of injured i.e. PW 4 and PW 5 and he also perused the evidence of the 4 doctors i.e. PW 7 and PW 8. Wherefrom the involvement of the present petitioner and offence committed by them has been sufficiently proved. The impugned judgment passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be set aside.

Heard the Learned Advocates.

Perused the materials on record also perused the impugned judgment passed by the Learned Sessions Judge as well as the impugned Judgment of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concern. It a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document