Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010009902012 2025:GAU-AS:14502 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./549/2012 SAHINUR ISLAM S/O LT. ROSTOM ALI R/O VILL- CHATAPARA, P.S. BILASIPARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SHEIKH, MR. A PHUKAN, AMICUS CURIAE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 28-10-2025 Heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned amicus curiae for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State/ respondent. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 19-09-2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Crl. Appeal No. Page No.# 2/7 06(2)/2011 dismissing the appeal and thereby upholding the judgment dated 04-06-2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilasipara, to the extent of convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 323 IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 (six) months along with fine of Rs. 500 (Rupees Five Hundred), in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 01 (one) month. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that Hajarat Ali, had lodged an FIR on 06-11-2006 before the Officer-in-Charge of Bilasipara Police Station, inter-alia, alleging therein that at around 09:00 a.m., of the same day, the accused persons named therein had raised altercation with them regarding domestic matter. It was further alleged that the nephew of the informant Yakub Ali while proceeding towards Bilasipara on motorcycle, the accused persons wrongfully restrained him and thereafter his nephew was assaulted by iron rod causing grievous injury on his head. It was further alleged that his nephew Yakub Ali had lost Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) at the place of occurrence. On receipt of said FIR, the same was registered as Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 300/2006. On conclusion of the investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Section 341/ 326/34 IPC. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the materials available on record proceed to frame charge under Section 341/ 326/ 34 IPC against the petitioner, herein, and other accused persons. The charges on being read over and explained to the petitioner and the other accused, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 04-06-2011, proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 341/ 323 IPC. The learned Trial Page No.# 3/7 Court acquitted the other accused persons, viz. Md. Jainur Islam, Md. Jahan Uddin and Musstt. Sahera Bewa from the charges brought against them. Upon such conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment undergo 06 (six) months along with fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) for the offence under Section 323 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 01 (one) more month. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred), in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 341 IPC. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court assailed the judgment dated 04-06-2011 by filing an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 6(2)/2011, before the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased to uphold the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner, herein, under Section 323 IPC. The learned Appellate Court, however, acquitted the petitioner, herein, from the charge framed against him under Section341 IPC. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the materials available on record. Upon perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court on appreciating the evidences coming on record was of the view that the injuries as sustained by the victim in the matter cannot be termed to be grievous in nature. However, the evidences having come on record of hurt being sustained by the victim, the learned Trial Court proceed to hold that offence Page No.# 4/7 under Section 323 IPC stood proved beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner, herein. Further, the learned Trial Court also held that the petitioner, herein, having wrongly restrain the victim, the offence under Section 341 IPC was also proved beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner, herein. Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner, herein, as follows:- “Keeping in mind the nature and gravity of the offence the accused person Md. Sahinur Islam is sentence to undergo 6 (six) months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/ (Five hundred) u/s 323 IPC, i/d to pay the fine, further 1 (one) month simple imprisonment AND 15 (fifteen) days simple imprisonment u/s 341 IPC and a fine of Rs.200/- (Two hundred) i/d to pay the fine, further 15 (fifteen) days simple imprisonment.” 4. The judgment passed by the learned Trial Court on being assailed before the learned Appellate Court, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 19-09-2012 was pleased to draw the following conclusions:- “15. Here in this case the appellant Shahinur faced the conviction U/s.341/323 I.P C. The evidences as discussed herein before would show that injured Yakub Ali sustained injuries and it was caused by accused appellant Shahinur Ali. Inasmuch as evidences in support of the aforesaid factum appear to be specific straightforward and without ambiguity. 16. Therefore, it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that on the date of incident and at the relevant point of time, it was the accused Shahinur, who inflicted blow on the head of the injured Yakub Ali. But so far the evidences in support of the offence of wrongful restrainment is concerned, it appear that evidences in support of the said offence against the accused Shahinur are lacking as the same does not appear to be corroborated by the P.W-5, who appears to be most material witness. 17. For the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is felt that the conviction of the accused appellant U/s 341 I.P.C. has no legal footing to stand. Accordingly, the same is required to be set aside. Considering the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant U/s.323 I.P.C. is upheld whereas the conviction of accused appellant U/s.341 I.P.C. is set Page No.# 5/7 aside.” 5. Upon perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, it is apparent that the learned Appellate Court basing on the appreciation of the evidences coming on record had upheld the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 323 IPC but had acquitted the petitioner, herein, from the charge framed against him under Section 341 IPC. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. Upon perusal of the conclusions so drawn, this Court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as those drawn by the learned Appellate Court have been so drawn basing on due and proper examination of the evidences coming on record and no infirmity is found therein. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant, herein, under Section 323 IPC would not mandate any interference. 6. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court notices that the learned Trial Court while proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, had noticed the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, however, noticing the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, the benefit there-under was denied to be extended to the petitioner, herein. 7. This Court notices that the incident involved in the matter had occasioned on 06- 11-2006 and around 19 years have elapsed since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein. The materials brought on record does not reveal that the petitioner, herein, had committed any offence similar in nature prior to 06-11-2006 and/or Page No.# 6/7 thereafter, during the pendency of the proceeding involved in the matter. It is seen that the petitioner, herein, has been litigating in the matter initially before the learned Trial Court, thereafter, before the learned Appellate Court and presently in the present criminal revision petition before this Court. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be extended with the benefits under the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 8. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the benefit of the Act of 1958 is required to be extended to the petitioners, herein, by this Court, in exercise of its revisional powers. 9. Accordingly, for the reasons noticed hereinabove, the petitioner is granted the benefit under the Act of 1958 and the sentence stands modified to the effect that instead of sending the petitioner to the jail, he should be given the benefit of the Act of 1958. However, the fines as imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 04-06-2011 is not interfered with. 10. As such, it is directed that the petitioner, herein, will file 02 (two) sureties to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each along with a personal bond before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dhubri and undertake to the effect that the appellant shall keep peace and good behaviour during the period of 06 (six) months from the date of filing of such bond. The aforesaid bond shall be filed by the appellant within a period of 01 (one) months from today along with deposit of the fine amount as awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilasipara. Page No.# 7/7 11. Before parting with the record, this Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. A. Phukan, learned amicus curiae in disposal of the present criminal revision petition. 12. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 13. Registry to send back the TCR forthwith along with a copy of the present order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant