Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010219292012 2025:GAU-AS:10818 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./243/2012 MD. BASHOR ALI SHEKH @ BASOR ALI S/O LT. HAMED ALI VILL- CHAR KASHARIPARA, P.S. SOUTH SALMARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.A CHOUDHURY, MR.G KHANDELIA Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 31.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. T. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 2/10 Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. Bijita Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae. 2. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 R/W Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the convict petitioner namely, Md. Bashor Ali Sheikh @ Basor Ali aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Criminal Appeal No. 17(4)/2008, whereby the judgment dated 27.10.2008 passed by the learned SDJM(S), Dhubri in G.R No. (SSM) 76/05 U/S 498(A) of IPC was upheld, confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner by the learned trial court U/S 498(A) of IPC. 3. The learned trial court had sentenced the revision petitioner/convict to undergo S.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default S.I for two months for his conviction U/S 498(A) of IPC. 4. The learned appellate court while confirming the conviction, however, reduced the present sentence to 3(three) months while leaving the fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and the default sentence untouched. 5. Aggrieved by the appellant also, the petitioner has come up with this revision seeking interference with his conviction and sentence. The trial court record in original were procured from the learned court below. 6. Paper book is also available. 7. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. B. Sarma Page No.# 3/10 appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. The case originally arose out of ejahar dated 08.04.2005 lodged by informant Md. Sopiar Rahman at the Sukchar Police Out Post under Dhubri district. On the basis of the same, GDE No.107 dated 08.04.2005 was registered and the ejahar forwarded to South Salmara P.S for registration of the case, whereby South Salmara P.S Case No.76/2005 was registered U/S 498(A) of IPC. 9. The allegations in the ejahar were that the informant’s younger sister Anowara Begum was married to the accused for four years prior to the lodging of the ejahar. After six months of the marriage, the accused started inflicting physical and mental torture upon her and subsequently also demanded cash amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and when it was refused by his sister, she was kicked, punched and driven out of the house. 10. The investigation resulted in a charge-sheet and trial commenced against the accused person after framing of charge U/S 498(A) of IPC, which was denied by the accused. During the trial, 7(seven) witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Examination under Section 313 of Cr.PC was not followed by any defence evidence. 11. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated above, leading him into file the appeal before the learned Sessions Court Page No.# 4/10 which also came to be dismissed, but with reduction of the prison’s sentence as already stated above. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the depositions which were before the learned trial court and submitted that there is no cogent evidence of independent witnesses and that the ingredients of Section 498(A) of IPC are not proved from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the victim. With regard to the medical evidence of PW-6, it is submitted that the cross-examination has indicated the possibility of the injuries being sustained by ways other than assault also. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in her statement recorded before the learned Court of JMFC during investigation, she has not mentioned about cruelty. It is submitted that the revision petitioner was falsely prosecuted and trial court erred in law and facts in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. It is submitted that the appellate court was also in the wrong, in upholding the conviction overlooking the infirmities in the prosecution case. 14. The learned Additional P.P supporting the judgments rendered by the learned courts below contends that there are no infirmities in the judgments by the learned courts below. It is submitted that the testimony of the victim has been cogent, consistent, which is also corroborated by the medical evidence and also by her statement u/s 164 of Cr.PC. 15. It is also submitted that the testimony of PW-3 also Page No.# 5/10 strengthens the prosecution case lending support to the story of assault and cruelty upon the victim woman by the petitioner. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the accused was arrested on 08.04.2005 as per the arrest memo and the case was registered on the next date i.e. 09.04.2025 but the South Salmara P.S Case No.76/2005 was not mentioned in the arrest memo. In this regard, the learned Additional P.P for the State submits that the endorsement regarding the arrest is available in the case dairy. 17. Nevertheless, the same might constitute procedural infirmity in the investigation, not necessarily related to the credibility of the prosecution case, which has to be seen on the basis of the veracity of the evidence and their reliability. 18. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned herein that the criminal revision against conviction is not a second appeal in disguise, as there is no provision for the same in the criminal procedural law in India. 19. The scope of appreciation of evidence, therefore in a criminal revision against conviction is rather limited; however, upon perusing the evidence of the victim testifying as PW-2, I find that she has testified about torture inflicted upon her, both physical and mental and testified about the demands of the accused of money and a 2-wheeler. It has also emerged from the testimony that though some amount was offered to the accused from the side of the victim’s family which was refused by the accused petitioner. Subsequently, the instant complaint came to Page No.# 6/10 be lodged where she informed about the incident to PW-3, Jinnat Ali. 20. I have perused the cross-examination of the victim/PW- 2. Her testimony about the alleged torture inflicted upon her by her husband has not stood demolished in such cross-examination. She denied that the testimony regarding demand of the scooter and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from her brother are false. She also denied that the incident did not take place. PW-1, Safiyar Rahman, brother of the alleged victim is the informant of the case. Admittedly, he is not an eye witness to the allegations. However, he has testified about being informed by his sister. From the testimony of PW-1, it is revealed that after six months of the marriage, the petitioner/accused demanded scooter and cash amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from his sister. As the same could not be given, she was assaulted. 21. He has also testified about offering Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the accused, pursuant to a village meeting, within a certain period but before the expiry of the said period, demand of Rs.50,000/- was made by the accused. PW-1 has testified about the victim woman being driven out from her matrimonial house which also been stated by the alleged victim woman herself. PW-1 has reiterated most of his statements in his cross-examination. He denied that he falsely stated about his sister being assaulted prior to lodging of the ejahar and being driven out of the house. Page No.# 7/10 22. He stated about the alleged victim woman being examined by Doctor. PW-7 is the I.O of the case has also stated about forwarding the victim for medical examination and subsequently, collection of the medical report. 23. In this regard, the medical report reveals contusions, tenderness and swelling over the body of PW-3, the alleged victim. The injuries are found above her right breast and in front of her right thigh and also in the right scapular region. The doctor has categorized the injuries as simple, fresh and caused by blunt trauma proving the injury report as Exhibit 3 and his signature thereon as Exhibit 3(1). 24. In cross-examination, PW-6/MO has clarified that fresh injury means injury staying from 0 to 12 hours. He has admitted the suggestion that swelling of this kind may be due to allergy or cell with fitted injury. PW-6 has testified that he examined the patient Anowara Begum on 09.04.2005. 25. The said date of examination tallies with the date of lodging of the ejahar and the testimony of the I.O/PW-7 about receiving an ejahar on 08.04.2005 and subsequently, forwarding the victim for medical examination. The alleged victim woman was also produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. In that statement also, the Anowara Begum/PW-2 has stated about being assaulted, slapped, and trampled and about her husband demanding 2–wheeler from her family. The statement of the alleged victim woman before learned JMFC during investigation Page No.# 8/10 lends corroboration to her testimony during the trial. This is in turn is corroborated by the testimony of the Doctor as PW-6. 26. Thus, I find that the testimony of the victim/PW-2 finds corroboration from the medical evidence, thereby, strengthening the prosecution case. From the testimony of PW-5, Sahid Ahmed, it is also revealed about the family of the woman giving a scooter to the accused and that when it developed some mechanical defect, the accused petitioner did not accept and the informant assured to give Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) to him. 27. The testimony of PW-4 lends hard corroboration to the testimony of the victim and her brother. Upon going through the judgment of the trial court and the judgment of learned appellate court, affirming and finding of the trial court, I find that both the learned courts below have found testimony of the alleged victim to be cogent, acceptable and corroborated by medical evidence and the testimony of the informant. 28. The learned courts below have not found any fatal contradictions in the testimony of these witnesses. It is true that PW-1 was the related witness being the brother of the victim PW- 2. However, mere relationship would not necessarily cause doubts on the testimony of the witness. Such doubts would come into picture if they have materials to believe that the witness is partisan. 29. The infirmity pointed out by the learned defence counsel with regard to the arrest would not fatally damage the Page No.# 9/10 prosecution case, in my considered view, especially when the testimony of PW-1 to PW-6 have been found to be acceptable. 30. Thus, upon perusing the materials and evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion and finding that the learned courts below have not committed any jurisdictional or material irregularity or perversity error in recording a conviction U/S 498(A) of IPC. Therefore, the said conviction of the revision petitioner by the judgment dated 27.10.2008, passed by the learned SDJM(S), Dhubri in G.R No. (SSM) 76/05 U/S 498(A) of IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is hereby upheld and confirmed. 31. Section 498(A) stipulates a compulsory prison sentence apart from fine. The learned appellate court has already reduced the sentence to three months while keeping the fine and default sentence intact. In any case, the fine amount is Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only). In the circumstances and keeping in mind that the offence in question is a crime against women, I do not find any scope for further reduction of the sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, the sentence of 3(three) months S.I and fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default S.I of 2(two) months, is also upheld and confirmed. 32. Consequently, the instant criminal revision petition against conviction stands dismissed and disposed of. 33. Return back the trial court records. 34. The Court records its appreciation for the services of the learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Bijita Sarma, who shall be entitled Page No.# 10/10 to her usual fees. JUDGE Comparing Assistant