Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010004952014 2025:GAU-AS:14496 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./23/2014 NABANIT KAKOTI S/O- SRI BOLIN KAKOTI, R/ VILL.- MEDHICHUK, P.O. and P.S.- PANIGAON, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.R GOGOI, MS.B GOGOI,MS.J RAJKUMARI,MR.PARAG J SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ,, Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 29.10.2025 None appears for the petitioner on call. Heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 21.12.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur, in Crl.A.No.22(3)/2013, dismissing the same and thereby upholding the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur, vide Judgment dated 24.06.2013, passed in G.R. Case No.661/2012, convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 325/354 IPC, and sentencing him accordingly. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that, one Lila Kanta Bhuyan, lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, North Lakhimpur Police Station, inter alia, stating therein, that the petitioner, herein, had on several occasions threatened his sister Pallavi Bhuyan, to kill her. On 19.05.2012, when the sister of the informant had gone to Town Medical Hall, along with her mother, the accused had accosted her and attempted to kill her by giving a blow on her face and head. The police on receipt of the said FIR, registered the same as North Lakimpur P.S. Case No.425/2013, under Sections 420/406/409 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation in the matter, police laid charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Sections 354/325 IPC. Page No.# 3/9 The learned Trial Court on appreciating the materials coming on record also framed a charge under Sections 354/325 IPC against the petitioner, herein. The charge on being read over and explained to the petitioner, he having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a Trial ensued. During the Trial, the prosecution examined 7(seven) witnesses and thereafter the petitioner, herein, was examined under Section 313 CrPC. On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court, on appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide Judgment dated 24.06.2013, to convict the petitioner, herein, under Sections 354/325 IPC and sentenced him accordingly. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction vide Judgment dated 24.06.2013, by the learned Trial Court, assailed the same by way of filing an appeal, being Criminal Appeal no.22(3)/2013, before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur. The Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record during the Trial, proceeded vide Judgment dated 21.12.2013, to dismiss the appeal and thereby uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, 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. 5. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions; “18. After carefully analysing the evidence of the Pws, specifically the evidence of PW-4, the victim and PW-7, the Doctor, it appears that the accused caught hold the hairs of the victim when she came with her mother to attend Doctor to show the disease of her mother at Town Medical Hall. According to PW-4, the accused called her, gave a blow on her nose and slapped her. As a result of hand blow, blood was oozing out from her nose. PW-7 who examined the victim on the very date of occurrence at 7 P.M Page No.# 4/9 found nasal bone fracture on her nose. Doctor categorically stated that the injury sustained by the victim was a grievous one. Doctor also found abrasion on her nasal. PW-1 and PW-2 who are independent witnesses in this case categorically admitted that on hearing hullah they came out from pharmacy and saw blood was oozing out from the nose of a girl. The mother of the victim though did not see the occurrence but heard about the occurrence from her own daughter. It is not disputed that the victim was taken to Civil hospital on the same day and she was undergoing treatment in the hands of PW-7. The defence by way of cross-examining her did not deny the said fact. Moreover, the defence by way of cross-examination of PW-4 neither challenged the injury sustained by the victim on her nose due to assault by the accused nor denied the said fact. It is well established principle that when the defence has failed to challenge the fact in cross- examination then that fact is considered to be remained as proved. The law in this respect has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sawan Singh V/s State of Punjab reported in (2003) 6 SCC 240. (19) PW-4, the victim, specifically stated in her evidence that the accused caught hold of her hair, gave blows on her nose and slapped her. The evidence of PW-4 in this particular fact, as stated above has practically remained unchallenged. Absolutely, this court find no cross-examination by the defence in this regard. The Hon'ble Apex Court In Sawan Singh(Supra) has observed that "it is rule of essential justice that when ever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his case in cross-examination it must follow that the evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted". As noted herein before the defence did not challenge the said fact of assault on the nose of the informant. Therefore, the said fact remained unchallenged and thereby it is accepted by the defence. (20) Though PW-3 stated that he saw assault on the person of his sister by the accused but his evidence is not believable by the court because her mother specifically stated that she has informed about the occurrence to his son over telephone. We know that assault or use of criminal force upon a woman is one of the essential pre-condition for applicability of section 354, IPC but the same has to be with an intent to outrage the modesty of a woman or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. It is contended by the learned defence counsel that the accused had no Page No.# 5/9 intention to outrage the modesty of the victim who is going to be his wife but this court do not agree with that argument because slapping or giving blow on the nose of a woman in a public place would definitely outrage her modesty. For the act of the accused, it definitely outrage the modesty of the victim and there is no ground to disbelieve the said fact. After gone through the evidence of PW-1,2,4,5, as well as, PW-7, it is crystal clear that the accused not only committed the offence punishable u/s 354,IPC but also committed the offence punishable u/s 325 IPC by giving blows by means of hand on the nose of the victim thereby causing grievous injury to her which was duly proved by the medical officer. In view of the above conclusions, the learned Trial Court, proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Sections 354/325 IPC. On his such conviction the petitioner, herein, was sentenced by the learned Trial Court as follows; “22. Heard the accused regarding his conviction and sentence to be imposed upon him. He pleaded mercy. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused, this court do not think it fit to release him on Probation under the Provision of Probation of Offender's Act. But considering the fact that there was ring ceremony between the accused and the victim, the circumstances under which the accused has committed the crime, his antecedent this court thinks it fit to impose lenient punishment upon him. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to under Rigorous Imprisonment (in short R.I) for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 3000/-(three thousand), in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I for 60 (sixty)days for his offence punishable u/s 325,IPC. The accused is also further sentence to undergo R.I for sixty days for his offence punishable u/s 354,IPC.” 6. The learned Appellate Court, on the appeal being instituted before it, on appreciating the evidences coming on record during the Trial and after considering the grounds raised in the appeal, proceeded vide Judgment dated 21.12.2013, to draw the following conclusions; “16. Now, from the entire legal evidence on record, it appears that the accused appellant performed ring ceremony with the injured victim girl for marriage, but subsequently the girl refused to marry with the accused and the inmates of the Page No.# 6/9 victim girl also did not fix any date for marriage. While the accused was examined u/s 313 CrPC, the accused has also admitted the said fact that he performed ring ceremony with the injured victim girl, but subsequently the victim girl wanted to marry with others. From the evidence of PW.1, Sri Babul Dasgupta, it appears that immediately after the occurrence, he had seen the victim girl with bleeding injuries in her nose. PW.2, Sri Rana Dutta also supported the evidence of PW.1. PW.3, Sri Lila Kanta Bhuyan, who is the brother of the victim girl is an eye witness of this case, and his evidence is supported by PW.1 and PW2, who are the independent witnesses of this case. The evidence of the victim girl, PW.4, Smit Pallabi Bhuyan is also supported by her mother, Smti Mina Bhuyan (PW.5). PW.5 categorically deposed that while she was with the victim girl in the chamber of the doctor, the accused came there and he called the victim girl to the outside of the chamber, and the victim girl was severely assaulted by the accused with fist blows causing bleeding injury in her nose. So, it appears that PW.5, who is an old lady, the mother of the victim girl has supported the evidence of other PWs, and I do not find any reason to disbelieve the said witness. The Medical Officer (PW.7), in his evidence, categorically stated that he found fracture in the nostril bone of the injured victim girl. In this case, there was a plea from the accused that he had performed ring ceremony with the victim girl, and subsequently the girl with a view to grab the gold ornaments and other valuables presented to her in the ring ceremony, instituted the false case, but the plea taken by the accused appellant appears to be not at all sound and bonafide. It is difficult to believe that the girl and her mother would come forward with such type of allegation relating to assault couple with outraging her modesty where her honour and prestige of family is involved. …………………………………… 18. In the present case in our hand, it appears that the evidence of the injured victim girl has been corroborated by her mother, Smti Mina Bhuyan (PW.5) and her brother, Sri Lila Kanta Bhuyan (PW.3). Further, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses have been supported and corroborated by other two witnesses viz., PW.1, Sri Babul Dasgupta and PW.2, Sri Rana Dutta, who had seen injury on the person of victim immediately after the occurrence. 19. Considering the entire legal evidence on record, I constrain to hold that the prosecution has variably proved this case against the accused appellant u/s 325/ 354 IPC. Accordingly, I find the accused appellant guilty under the aforesaid Sections of Law. Hence, I find no illegality in the impugned Judgment & Order passed by the learned lower court, and accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Page No.# 7/9 Order of conviction so passed by the learned lower court is, hereby, affirmed and upheld.” Basing on the said conclusions the learned Appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court. 7. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court in the matter. On a perusal of the conclusions so drawn, in the light of the evidences coming on record, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusions have been drawn basing on a due and proper examination of the evidences coming on record and there is no infirmity found, therein, with regard to such conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court in the matter. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Sections 325/354 IPC would not mandate any interference. 9. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court notices that the offence involved in the matter was committed by the petitioner, herein, on 19.05.2012. More than 13(thirteen) years have lapsed since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein. Further the materials brought on record does not reveal that the petitioner, herein, had been involved in commission of an offence of a similar nature either prior to 19.05.2012 and/or thereafter. 10. This Court also notices that for the last around 13(thirteen) years, the petitioner has been litigating in the matter, initially before the Page No.# 8/9 learned Trial Court, thereafter before the learned Appellate Court and presently before this Court in the present proceedings. 11. In view of the above position, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner, herein, is entitled to be extended the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is seen that the learned Trial Court while proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, had noticed the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, but considering the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner in the matter, the benefit thereunder was denied to be extended to the petitioner. The benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, being permissible to be extended to the petitioner, by this Court even in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court extends the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the petitioner, herein. 12. Accordingly, for the reasons noticed, hereinabove, this Court while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, herein, holds that it is a fit case wherein the petitioner, herein, is eligible to be extended the benefits under the said Act of 1958, and the sentence is modified to the effect that instead of sending the petitioner to jail, he be given the benefit under Section 4 of the Act of 1958. This Court having only modified the sentencing with regard to imprisonment of the petitioner, herein, and the fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court, not having been interfered with, the petitioner would be liable to deposit the fine amount. 13. In view of the above discussions, it is directed that the petitioner, herein, will file 2(two) sureties to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand)each, along with a personal bond before the Page No.# 9/9 learned Trial Court, and undertake, to the effect that the petitioner shall maintain peace and good behavior 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 today, along with the deposit of the fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court, before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. In default of depositing the fine amount, the petitioner to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months. 14. With the above observations and directions, the present Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant