Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010193662013 2025:GAU-AS:14508 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./419/2013 SRI PARESH PAIT S/O LT. RUDHESWAR PAIT R/O VILL- TAJIK GAON, P.S. GOGAMUKH, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.U K BARMAN, MR.N ANAND,MR.A K SINGH,MR.V N UPADHYAY,MR.H ALI Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM,,, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 28/10/2025 Heard Mr. U K Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 23.07.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, in Crl. A. No. 42(4)/2012, dismissing the same and thereby, upholding the judgment dated 28.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji in G.R. Case No. 906/2009 (GMK), convicting the petitioner, herein, under Sections 342/384/354 IPC and sentencing him Page No.# 2/5 accordingly. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Smti. Bini Yechak lodged an FIR, on 31.12.2009, before the Officer-in-Charge, Gogamukh Police Station, inter-alia, alleging, therein, that the petitioner, herein, had assaulted her and her daughters, Smti. Musmi Bini and Smti. Lijum Angu Bini, while she along with her husband and her daughters had gone to the house of Krishna Pait, in pursuance to a telephonic invitation given for discussion about the marriage solemnization of one Rupali Pait with La Tazik, as Rupali Pait after her marriage had left her matrimonial house. It was stated in the FIR that on reaching the house of the petitioner, herein, the accused persons had ill-treated the informant and her family and subsequently, her husband and driver were assaulted. It was further alleged that the villagers, including the petitioner, herein, had molested her daughters. It was also alleged that the accused persons, including the petitioner, herein, had confined them in their house for the whole night and they were released only in the early hours of the next morning after payment of a ransom of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand), in cash and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), in cheque. It was also alleged in the FIR that as a result of the physical assault suffered, her husband was under medical treatment and in great trauma. Police on receipt of the said FIR, registered the same as Gogamukh P.S. Case No. 186/2009 under Sections 343/387/325/354/34 IPC. Police on conclusion of the investigation, laid a charge-sheet against the accused persons including the present petitioner under Sections 342/384/354/325/34 IPC. A charge, thereafter, was also framed by the learned Trial Court in similar lines. The learned Trial Court on conclusion of the trial, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record proceeded vide judgment dated 28.09.2012 to convict the petitioner, herein, under Sections 342/384/354 IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months under Section 342 IPC, Simple Imprisonment for 2 (two) years under Section 384 IPC and Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months under Section 354 IPC. The other co-accused in the case were acquitted from the charges framed against them in the matter. Page No.# 3/5 The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 28.09.2012, assailed the same by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. A. No. 42(4)/2012. The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record proceeded vide judgment dated 23.04.2013, to dismiss the appeal, thereby, upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Sections 342/384/354 IPC by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment dated 28.09.2012 to draw the following conclusions:- “From perusal the evidence and the material Ext. it appeared that the accused Paresh Pait demanded Rs.5/6 Lac from the complainant and his family and subsequently which was given to the accused Paresh Pait a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Out of their demand which was proved by the Investigating Officer in his examination in chief. The I.O., i.e., PW-9 during his investigation he recovered the material which shows that the accused Paresh Pait demand and receiving the demanded amount from the Binmi Tatam. Also from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is established that the accused Paresh Pait assaulted the daughter of the complainant and trying outrage their modesty. The PW-7 corroborated the evidence and which he saw the occurrence. The PW-7 being a TMPK member of Gagamukh local committee. All the PWs. Corroborated the evidence and established that as per invitation of the accused family. The complainant family came into the residence and thereafter hot altercation took place in between two families. The PW-8 also admitted that in his examination in chief that Bini Tatam was assaulted and he was not in a position of good health on that day which he saw Bini Tatam physically. From perusal the entire evidence on records it is established that the accused Paresh Pait was involved by demanding and delivering Page No.# 4/5 Rs.50,000/- from the complainant family and also established that he was assaulted two daughters of the complainant trying to outrage their modesty by uprooted their hairs. The other accused persons though involved in this case not from the sufficient materials against them for punishment.” 6. On drawing the said conclusion, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Sections 342/384/354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment, as noticed, hereinabove. 7. The learned Appellate Court on an appeal being preferred before it, proceeded to appreciate the evidences coming on record during the trial and thereafter, considering the grounds taken in the appeal by the petitioner, herein, proceeded vide judgment dated 23.07.2013 to dismiss the said appeal, upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein. 8. This Court has examined 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. On a due consideration of the conclusions so drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court, this Court finds that the conclusions were drawn on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record and no infirmity is found therein. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Sections 342/384/354 IPC would not mandate any interference. 9. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court finds that the offence involved in the matter was committed by the petitioner, herein, on 28.12.2009. It is seen that around 16 years have lapsed since the date of commission of the said offence by the petitioner, herein. The materials brought on record does not reveal that the petitioner, herein, was involved in commission of an offence of similar nature either prior to 28.12.2009 and/or thereafter. This Court in view of the long lapse of time occasioning since the date of commission of the offence is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is entitled to be extended with the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 10. Accordingly, for the reasons, noted above, it is directed that the petitioner, herein, will file two sureties to the tune of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand), along with a personal Page No.# 5/5 bond before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji and undertake to the effect that the petitioner, herein, shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of 1 (one) year from the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of this order. 11. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 12. Send down the records of the case to the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant