Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010008992014 2025:GAU-AS:14494 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./177/2014 SIDHIRAM HAZARIKA S/O LT. KANTI RAM HAZARIKA R/O VILL- PAKABANGRIPARA, P.S. MANGALDOI, DARRANG. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM 2:BHAIRAB HAZARIKA S/O LT. BUDDHI HAZARIKA VILL- PAKABANGI PARA MOUZA- RANGAMATI P.S. MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A CHOUDHURY, MS.M KONCH,MR.S ISLAM,MR.B K HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 29-10-2025 Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State/ respondent. Page No.# 2/6 2. The present revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 25- 03-2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai Crl. Appeal No. 43(D-4)/2013, dismissing the appeal and thereby upholding the judgment dated 18-11- 2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darrang, Mangaldai in G.R. Case No. 1176/2010 convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 325/ 323 IPC and sentencing him accordingly. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Bhairab Hazarika had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Mangaldai Police Station, inter-alia, alleging therein that on 03-06-2010 at around 04:00 p.m., one Sopa Hazarika had a quarrel with his nephew Bikash Hazarika. It was alleged that when the informant tried to restrain them from quarrelling, the petitioner, herein, came from the backside and had assaulted him on his head with a lathi causing injury to him on his head, neck and also in his hand. It was further alleged that on account of the assault, the informant fell on the floor and on seeing the incident, villagers having gathered at the place of occurrence, the accused run away. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered the same as Mangaldai P.S. Case No. 502/2010 under Section 325/ 506 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation in the case, police laid charge-sheet under Section 323/ 325/ 34 IPC against the petitioner, herein, and one Sopa Hazarika. Charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 323/ 325/ 34 IPC, by the learned Trial Court and the same on being read over and explained to the accused persons including the petitioner, herein, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be Page No.# 3/6 tried, a trial ensued in the matter. During the trial, the prosecution had examined 09 (nine) witnesses and the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 323/ 325 IPC. The co-accused Sopa Hazarika was acquitted of the charge framed against her under Section 323/ 325 IPC. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court sentenced the petitioner, herein, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 (one) month under Section 325 IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 (three) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days under Section 323 IPC. Being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 18- 11-2013, the petitioner, herein, had assailed the same before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 43(D-4)/2013. The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record proceeded vide judgment dated 25-03-2014 to dismiss the said appeal, thereby upholding the conviction of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. Page No.# 4/6 5. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record during the trial had proceeded to draw a conclusion that the petitioner, herein, had voluntarily caused injury to the informant on his head, neck and also on his hand. 6. Basing on the said conclusion, the learned Trial Court proceeded to sentence the petitioner, herein, as follows:- “20. Accordingly, the accused Sidhiram Hazarika is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 [six] months and to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- [rupees one thousand] i/d to undergo S.I. for one month U/S 325 ipc and to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 3 [three] months and to pay a fine of Rs 500/- [rupees five hundred] i/d to undergo S.I. for 15 days u/s 323 IPC. Both sentences shall run concurrently.” 7. The learned Appellate Court in the appeal filed, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record found that the evidences of the witness contained no discrepancy and/ or contradiction. The learned Appellate Court also found that the defence witness deposing in the matter had also supported the fact that there was a quarrel and that the petitioner was in a inebriated condition at the relevant point of time. The learned Appellate Court, accordingly, concluded that the prosecution had established the offence against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the appeal in question. 8. This Court has carefully perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court, in the light of the evidences coming on record and on such examination, this Court found that the conclusions drawn, to have been so drawn on due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record and no infirmity is found therein. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 323/ Page No.# 5/6 325 IPC would not mandate interference. 9. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court notices that the offence involved in the matter was committed by the petitioner, on 03-06-2010, around more than 15 years have lapsed since the date of commission of the said offence. The learned Trial Court vide proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, had noticed the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, the benefit, there-under, was denied to the petitioner only by noticing the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, herein. This Court also notices that the petitioner has not been alleged to have committed an offence of similar nature prior to 03-06-2010 and/ or thereafter. Considering the said factors, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is entitled to be extended with the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The said benefit being permissible to be extended by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, this Court directs that the petitioner, herein, be not required to undergo the sentence of imprisonment and he be extended the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This Court has, however, not interfered with the imposition of fine by the learned Trial Court. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai and undertake to the effect that the petitioner 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 petitioner within a period of 02 (two) months from today, along with deposit of the fine amount before the Page No.# 6/6 court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mandaldai, within a period of 02 (two) months from today. 11. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 12. Registry to send back the TCR forthwith along with a copy of the present order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant