The absence of medical evidence for grievous injury led to conviction being reduced to simple injury under Section 323 IPC.

JUDGMENT

Date : 11-06-2019

Present revision is preferred against the judgment and order, passed by the learned Session Judge, Barpeta, in Criminal Appeal No.16(A)/2008, whereby, by its judgment and order dated 25.05.2009, the learned Sessions Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, in GR Case No.1340/2000, whereby the present accused persons are convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 325 /34 IPC, and sentenced each of the accused persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.300/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for another three months.

2. I have heard Mr. K Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State.

3. Necessary factual matrix that emerges from the record is that on 05.10.2000, at about 9.30 am, there was a quarrel between the parties on the matter of destruction of cultivation of Moran Mandal and other three family members of Moran Mandal, namely, Parbati Mandal, Pradip Mandal and Jyotshna Mandal. In the said incident, four persons, named above, have sustained injuries and the informant, namely, Krishna Kt. Bhowmic, lodged an FIR on 07.10.2000, appraising the entire incident. The injured were taken for medical treatment.

4. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, Sarthebari Police Station registered a case under Section 341/325/34 IPC against the accused persons and after completion of the investigation; charge- sheet was submitted against them under the said sections of law.

5. The accused persons stood in the trial, denied the charge famed under Section 325 /34 IPC. Prosecution examined eight witnesses and defence examine none. The plea of defence is of total denial. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court convicted the accused persons under Section 325 /34 IPC and sentence them for imprisonment as aforesaid. The appeal preferred was also dismissed by the learned appellate court affirming the judgment of the learned trial court.

6. Challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned court below, the present revision has been preferred on the ground that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the matter in proper perspective of law and there is absolutely no evidence to prove the offence under Section 325 IPC. Moreover, the learned trial court has failed to take note of factum of hostile relation between the parties and the quarrel between the parties on the fateful day. That apart, the prosecution has not been able to explain the delay of two days in filing the FIR.

7. I have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has appraised this Court about the evidence that was adduced by the prosecution and submitted that the prosecution out of four injured persons only two injured have been examined. Attention has also been drawn to the evidence on record as well as the evidence of the Medical Officer and also the quarrel between the parties on the fateful day.

8. I have also heard the submission of the learned counsel for the State.

9. On careful examination of the evidence on record it is to be noted that the FIR was filed by the PW-1 with the allegation of assault upon the four injured persons by the accused persons with weapons in their hand. According to the informant/PW-1, although he was not present at the place of occurrence, but on his return he found those injured persons with injury on their persons and they appraised that it was the accused persons, who assaulted them. On query made by PW-1, he was appraised by the persons, who happened to be present at the place of occurrence i.e. Sridam Mandal (PW-2), An