Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010220022012 2025:GAU-AS:14401 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./526/2012 BHAJA BORO and 10 ORS S/O SRI BONIRAM BORO 2: SRI BIPUL BORO S/O SRI GANGARAM BORO 3: SRI DEBANANDA BORO S/O SRI KUHIRAM BORO 4: SRI BINOY BORO S/O SRI KRISHNA BORO 5: SRI LOHIT BORO S/O LT. DEVA RAM BORO 6: SRI SOMEN BORO S/O SRI NARAYAN BORO 7: SRI BIMOL BORO S/O SRI DUKHURA BORO 8: SRI KABIRAM BORO S/O SRI KALEM BORO 9: SRI MADHAB BORO S/O LT. MANGAL BORO 10: SRI DIPJON BORO S/O SRI KANDURA BORO 11: SRI KAMALA BORO Page No.# 2/13 S/O SRI UPARAM BORO ALL ARE R/O PARBAHU CHUBA VILL- UZIR GAON P.S. PANERI DIST. UDALGURI BTAD ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.Z ALAM, MR.N D SARMA,MR.A A KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 27/10/2025 Heard Mr. Z Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. Mr. Z Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, has submitted that during the pendency of the present proceeding, on 27.11.2023, the petitioner No. 3 has passed away and accordingly, submits that the present criminal revision petition, insofar as it concerns the petitioner No. 3 stands abated. 3. The position is not disputed by Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 4. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition stands abated in respect of the petitioner No. 3 and the present order is confined to the other petitioners only. Page No.# 3/13 5. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment and order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri, in Crl. A. No. 5(D- U)/2012, dismissing the appeal and thereby, upholding the judgment dated 12.07.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Magaldai, Darrang, in G.R. No. 179/2008 convicting and sentencing the petitioners under Sections 148/352/325/ 323/506(II)/384/149 IPC. 6. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant, Mridusmita Boro had lodged an FIR on 28.02.2008, inter-alia, alleging, therein, that on 23.02.2008, the petitioner No. 1, herein, had borrowed from her brother, Dilip Boro, his bicycle and on the next day, when her brother asked the petitioner No. 1, herein, to return the bicycle, he refused to do so, which led to a quarrel ensuing between them. It was further alleged that on 24.02.2008 at around 7:30 PM, the petitioners including the petitioner No. 3, armed with deadly weapons came to the house of the informant and assaulted her mother, Phuleswari Boro; father, Hari Chandra Boro and brother, Dilip Boro. It was also alleged that again on the next day morning, i.e., on 25.02.2008 at around 10:00 AM, the petitioners, herein, had again come to their house and had assaulted their mother, Phuleswari Boro by undressing her and confining her in a room and torturing her. It was also projected in the FIR that the petitioners, herein, had thereafter taken her mother, Phuleswari Boro; father, Hari Chandra Boro and brother, Dilip Boro in a handcart to a vacant field and had again assaulted them. The informant further alleged that the petitioners, herein, had obtained the signature of her brother, Dilip Boro in a blank paper and threatened them with dire consequences if they reported the matter to police. On receipt of the said FIR, the same was registered as Paneri P.S. Case No. 14/2008 under Sections 147/148/149/325/354/457/384/506 IPC. On completion of the investigation, police laid a charge-sheet against the present petitioners under Sections 147/148/325/447/354 IPC. The learned Trial Court on consideration of the materials brought on record was pleased to frame a charge under Sections 148/452/323/325/ 341/506(II)/384 IPC read with Section 149 IPC against the petitioners, herein and the same on being read over and explained to the present petitioners, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial Page No.# 4/13 ensued. During the trial, the prosecution examined 13 (thirteen) witnesses and thereafter, the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC. came to be recorded. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, was pleased vide judgment dated 12.07.2010 to convict the petitioners, herein, under Sections 148/352/325/323/506(II)/384/149 IPC and they were thereafter sentenced for the offences as held to be established against them in the matter. The petitioners, herein, being aggrieved by their conviction by the learned Trial Court, assailed the judgment dated 12.07.2010 by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. A. No. 5(D- U)/2012. The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment dated 12.09.2012, to dismiss the said appeal and uphold the conviction of the petitioners, herein, by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners, here, have instituted the present proceeding. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased to draw the following conclusions:- “From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses I find that neither PW1 nor PW3 nor PW6 have witnessed any of these occurrences and their evidence regarding the same are mere hearsay. PW8 to PW12 have deposed just the opposite of the prosecution case, in short, they have not supported the prosecution case. So I have to confine my discussion on the evidence of Pw2. Pw4 and Pw5 mostly. Before, I begin my discussion, I would like to refer to a decision of our Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of “Arvind Joshi vs CBI” reported in 2009 (1) GLJ 98 wherein it has been laid down that "... It is a trite that a witness may fall into any of the three categories namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable or neither reliable nor Page No.# 5/13 wholly unreliable...... The difficulty is however faced when a witness is neither, wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The evidence of this category of witnesses... should not be ordinarily rejected outright, rather the court shall make all endeavour to ascertain if there is any credible corroboration, direct or circumstantial from other evidence on record.” The point here is that, after scanning the evidence of Pwl. Pw4 and Pw5, I find that they fall under the aforesaid category as neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable because there are certain contradictions/inconsistencies in their depositions, more so with their previous statements to police. As such, let me test the veracity of these witnesses in the light of the above case law. Point no. 1 and 2 Firstly, the statement of Pw1 that on 24/2/08 @ 7-30 pm the accused persons came inside her house and pulled her sweeter or accused- Binoy giving a punch in her neck or accused- Bipul giving a slap on her ears or accused-Dipson kicking her in her stomach or accused- Binoy tearing her sweeter or the accused persons did not her husband come out of her house has not been corroborated by either PW4 or PW6. Rather, PW4 have contradicted her by stating that the accused persons came to their house and threatened his parents. Further, PW5 have also contradicted PW2 by stating that the accused persons came to their house and pushed/pulled them. Further, PW13 did not corroborate her that she had shown him the sweeter during investigation. Moreover, PW5 did not corroborate PW2 that the accused persons did not let him come out of his house. That apart PW2 and PW5 did not corroborate PW4 that the accused persons had threatened them. Secondly, there is no evidence on record which suggests that the accused persons came to the house of the informant side armed with deadly weapons. But the fact remains that the PWs have stated that the accused person had come to their house but mere coming to the house does not amount to any offence. As such, in absence of corroboration as per ration laid down by our Hon’ble High Court the testimonies of PW2, PW4 and PW5 are not believable. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons committed any offence punishable u/s 148/341/354 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Page No.# 6/13 These points for determination is accordingly decided in negative and in favour of the defense. Point No. 3 and 4 The evidence of Pw2 that the accused persons came to her house and assaulted her has been corroborated by Pw4 and Pw5 who witnessed the occurrence. The evidence of Pw2 that as a result of the assault by the accused persons by lathis she sustained hurt in her right hand and left thigh has been corroborated by the Pw7 who has specifically stated that on examination he found a small lacerated injury in her head and which was bleeding and that Pw2 sustained fracture of her right hand and left thigh as per diagnosis done at GMCH. The evidence of Pw2 that she lost her senses as a result of the assault has also been corroborated by Pw4 and Pw5. Her further evidence that she recovered her senses at Tangla has been corroborated by Pw7 who has deposed that she was brought in a condition of non-ambulatory condition which means she must have been senseless. According to PW7 the said injuries were caused by blunt weapon and lathi in my opinion is a blunt weapon. Even though Pw4 and Pw5 did not corroborate Pw2 that the accused persons assaulted her with lathis then also her evidence will prevail as medical opinion has corroborated her. Therefore, I find that the oral testimony of Pw2 is wholly reliable. The defense could not bring out any vital discrepancies in her evidence. Even though the testimonies of Pw1, Pw4 and Pw5 are not wholly reliable but they have corroborated Pw2 in bits and parts. That apart, I alos find that the evidence of Pw2 before court and her statement to police during investigation is consistent. Even though Pw2 did not specifically state to police that she sustained injury in her arms and thigh it does not amount to contradiction because she has generally stated in her previous statement that she was assaulted by the accused persons. She had deposed during her cross examination that accused-Binoy had pulled her clothes and when her husband pleaded him not to assault her he went away. This statement is also consistent with her previous statement made to police. The evidence of Pw4 that the accused persons also assaulted him and that he became senseless has been corroborated by Pw5. Moreover, Page No.# 7/13 Pw7 has also corroborated his statement that he sustained injuries. And, so, in my opinion the sole testimony of Pw2 is enough to hold that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. These points for determination are answered in affirmative and decided in favour of the prosecution. Point no. 5 and 6 PW1 has further stated that the accused persons then threatened to kill her father, mother and brother if they reported the matter to the police and also took their signatures in a blank paper. Pw4 has further stated that when he regained his senses the accused persons took his signature in a blank paper. Pw5 has further stated that the accused persons forcefully took his, his wife’s and son’s signatures in a blank paper in the field. As such, I find that the this part of the testimonies of these witnesses are believable as they have corroborated each other and the defense failed to bring any contradiction in their evidence or rebut their evidence. These points for determination are answered in affirmative and decided accordingly decided in favour of the prosecution.” 9. Having drawn the above conclusions, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioners, herein, under Sections 148/352/325/323/506(II)/ 384/149 IPC. On their such conviction, the petitioners, herein, were sentenced as follows:- “The accused persons are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for commission of an offence u/s 148 IPC. Further, the accused persons are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for commission of an offence u/s 352/149 IPC. Further, the accused persons are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default 30 days imprisonment for commission of an offence u/s 325/149 IPC. The accused persons are further sentenced to undergo simple Page No.# 8/13 imprisonment for a period of 3 months for commission of an offence u/s 323/149 IPC. The accused persons are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year for commission of an offence u/s 506(II)/149 IPC. The accused persons are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year for commission of an offence u/s 384/149 IPC. All these sentences shall run concurrently. The amount of fine if realized from the accused persons shall be paid to the victim-Phuleswari Boro as compensation.” 10. The said judgment on being assailed before the learned Appellate Court, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 12.09.2012, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased to draw the following conclusions:- 19. On scrupulous perusal of the evidence of Mridusmita Boro, Harichandra Boro, Phuleswari Boror and Dilip Boro, I have no doubt that though Mridusmita Boro was admittedly not present at the time of occurrence and she has left no stone unturned to see that the appellants are convicted. I have decided to ignore his fact because these things do not go into the root of the case. Leaving aside the evidence of Mridusmita Boro, I have found that the evidence of Harichandra Boro, Phuleswari Boro and Dilip Boro have inspired confidence. 21. Now, the question arises, whether the evidence of the related witnesses can be relied upon, where the independent witnesses have not sufficiently corroborated their evidence. However, there is clear evidence that Harichandra Boro, Phuleswari Boro and Dilip Boror together at a time had taken treatment at Tangla Civil Hospital. This fact has been supported by all the independent witnesses. 22. In Hari Obula Reddy & Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1981) 3 SCC 675, while dealing with the question whether the evidence of an interested witness can form the basis for conviction even without corroboration by an independent evidence, a three-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, speaking through his lordship R.S. Sarkaria, J. had laid down that: Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is Page No.# 9/13 not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon. Although in the matter of appreciation of evidence, no hard and fast rule can be laid down, yet, in most cases, in evaluating the evidence of an interested or even a partisan witness, it is useful as a first step to focus attention on the question, whether the presence of the witness at the scene of the crime at the material time was probable. If so, whether the substratum of the story narrated by the witness, being consistent with the other evidence on record, the natural course of human events, the surrounding circumstances and inherent probabilities of the case, is such which will carry conviction with a prudent person. If the answer to these questions be in the affirmative, and the evidence of the witness appears to the Court to be almost flawless, and free from suspicion, it may accept it, without seeking corroboration from any other source. Since perfection is seldom to be found, and the evidence of a witness, more so of an interested witness, is generally fringed with embellishment and exaggerations, however true in the main, the court may look for some assurance, the nature and extent of which will vary according to the circumstances of the particular case, from independent evidence circumstantial or direct, before finding the accused guilty on the basis of his interested testimony. However, these are only broad guidelines which may often be useful in assessing interested testimony, and are not iron-cased rules uniformly applicable in all situations. In Ashok Kumar Chaudhury & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2008 SC 2436) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the question of creditworthiness of the evidence of relatives of the victim. On a view of several decisions on the point, including Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1954) 1 S.C. R. 145) Masalti Vs. State of U/O.[ (1964)] 8 S.C. R. 133] and Riza & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Page No.# 10/13 Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgar [(2003) 2 SCC 661] it has been observed that thoug the Court has to scrutinize such evidence with greater care and caution but such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of the interest of such witness in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. Mrely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive. In Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007 AIR SCW 1835), the Hon’ble Supreme Court (speaking through his lordship C.K. Thakker, J.) has held that A close relative cannot be characterized as an interested witness. He is a natural witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject the evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one. ……….. 24. Thus the law is very clear. For the very reason that the witnesses are close relatives does not make their evidences unacceptable. Now comes the topic of delay in filing the ejahar. I agree with the ld. Counsel for the appellant that unless properly explained, the delay in lodging ejahar is fatal to the prosecution case. But, while appreciating the evidence in a criminal case, the court has to look in to the social system of the parties where they reside. Here in this under developed district predominantly inhabited by uneducated people, the village meeting is the ultimate destination of the people seeking justice. It has come up in evidence that a village meeting was organized to sole the dispute between the parties. It has Page No.# 11/13 also come up in evidence that there was also a compromise between the parties in that meeting. The informant is a young student of law and pursuing her education at Guwahati at the time of occurrence. May be she is the only educated member of her family. She did not want to soft pedal the matter. Hence, she filed the ejahar when she had come home after getting information about the incident. I also agree that the informant seems to be over enthusiastic while perusing the matter. Perhaps that is why she appears to have left no stone unturned to see that the appellants are convicted. I agree that her evidence is full of embellishments. These are the reasons for which I am not inclined to hold that the unexplained delay in lodging the ejahar is fatal in this case. 25. In the case in hand, I have reasons to hold that the evidence of Harichandra Boro, Phuleswari Boro and Dilip Boro inspired confidence. The medical evidence supported their evidence. The contradictions or omissions painstakingly highlighted by the appellants do not touch the merit of the case. Thus, I have found that the ld trial court has rightly convicted the appellant 148, 352, 323, 325, 341, 506(II) and 384 IPC R/W 149 of the said Code.” Basing on the said conclusion, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the petitioners, herein, by the Trial Court. 11. This Court has carefully perused the conclusions drawn in the matter by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. On a close perusal, this Court finds that the conclusions are so drawn basing on the evidence coming on record and no infirmity, thereon, is found by this Court. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners, herein, under Sections 148/352/325/323/506(II)/384/149 IPC would not mandate any interference. 12. This Court further notices that the learned Trial Court while proceeding to sentence the petitioners, herein, had not considered as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Page No.# 12/13 13. This Court finds that the offence was committed by the petitioners, herein, on 24.02.2008 and 25.02.2008. It is found that more than 17 years have lapsed since the commission of the offence by the petitioners, herein. This Court also notices that the petitioners have been, during the last around 17 years, litigating the matter initially before the learned Trial Court, thereafter, before the learned Appellate Court and presently, before this Court in the present criminal revisions petition. 14. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, herein, are entitled to be extended with the benefits under provisions of the Act of 1958. At this stage, this Court also notices that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 10 were initially arrested and were kept in judicial custody till they were granted bail on 17.04.2008 by the learned Trial Court. 15. In view of the above position, this Court is of the considered view that while the conviction of the petitioners, herein, would not mandate any interference. However, the sentencing of the petitioners stands modified and it is provided that instead of sending the petitioners, herein, to jail, they should be extended with the benefit under the Act of 1958. However, this Court has not interfered with the sentencing of fine as imposed upon the petitioners, herein, excluding the petitioner No. 3, by the learned Trial Court. 16. This Court has only modified the sentencing with regard to imprisonment of the petitioners, herein, and the fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court not having been interfered with, the petitioners, herein, would be liable to deposit the fine amount. 17. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and 4 to 11, herein, will file two sureties to the tune of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each, along with a personal bond before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangaldai, Darrang and undertake to the effect that the petitioners, 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 petitioners within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of this order along with deposit of the fine amount. 18. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition Page No.# 13/13 stands disposed of. 19. 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