Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010225362014 2025:GAU-AS:15581 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./170/2014 SHAJID HUSSAIN AKHTAR @ MAZU @ SAJID HUSSAIN AKHTAR S/O LT. AKHTAR HUSSAIN AR/O VILL- BIDYAPARA PART-II, P.S. and DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B D GOSWAMI, MR.P BORAH,MR.M P BORAH,MR.D BORA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ,,MR.B P SINHA Page No.# 2/14 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 01.11.2025 Heard Mr. B. D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 29.03.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri, in Criminal Appeal.No.1(3)/2009, dismissing the same and thereby upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri, vide Judgment dated 04.06.2009, under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 2(two) years. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Abdur Rahim Sk., had lodged an FIR to the effect that his younger brother Nur Alom, while attending a marriage party, a little distance away from his house, the petitioner, herein, called him to Azad Hotel, which is situated at a little distances from the marriage house and when his brother had reached the place he was assaulted by the petitioner, by means of sharp weapon and a blow which had fallen on his neck, injuring him grievously. The neighbouring people having rushed to the spot, the petitioner, herein, fled from the said place. It was further stated that his brother Nur Alom, was shifted to the Civil Hospital, Dhubri, where he remained as a indoor patient for a few days. It was further stated that his brother had sustained cut injury over the right side of his neck. In the said FIR it was also disclosed about commission of theft in respect of a cash amount of Page No.# 3/14 Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) and a Nokia mobile handset at the time of the incident involved. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered the same as Dhubri Police Station Case No.222/2007 under Section 326/379 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, the police laid a charge- sheet under Section 324 IPC against the petitioner, herein. The learned Trial Court also framed a charge against the petitioner, under Section 324 IPC. 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 8(eight) witnesses and thereafter the petitioner 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 04.06.2009, to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 324 IPC. On his such conviction, the petitioner, herein, was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2(two) years. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction vide Judgment dated 04.06.2009, passed by the learned Trial Court, assailed the same by way of filing an appeal, being Criminal Appeal no.1(3)/2009, before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri. The Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record during the Trial, proceeded vide Judgment dated 29.03.2014 to dismiss the appeal and thereby uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 324 IPC 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.# 4/14 5. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions; “Thus there is overwhelming and abundant evidence to hold that the prosecution is fully able to establish the fact on 13-5-07 . Pw.2 sustained cut injury on his neck. Thus the contrary statement made by the I.0. rather from his memory makes no dent prosecution claim on the matter that PW.2 was injured on his neck by means of sharp weapon, on and he attended Civil Hospital, Dhubri and he remained there as an Indoor Patient for few days. I have already given resume of the evidence so led by of the material witnesses in the instant case and now I proceed to evaluate their testimony to see if their evidence is Worthy of reliance and truthful. For that matter the solitary testimony of PW.2 is sufficient to hold that the occurrence alleged took place the way that has been projected by the prosecution. PW.2 gave a graphic account of the whole incident in a lucid manner. I have very closely and minutely assessed his evidence and find that it is free from any infirmity or inconsistency. This witness remained categorical on the point that on the eventful night when he was attending the marriage party by a little distance away from the site of the incident he was called by accused Maju in front of Azad Hotel and when he reached there accused whipped out a razor like sharp weapon with which he dealt blow upon him thus causing cut injury on his neck. He was still there when PW.3 Ramjan and PW.1 Abdul Rahman came over there and they took him to P.S. and therefrom to Civil Hospital, Dhubri, Page No.# 5/14 I have closely scrutinized his evidence and find nothing to disbelieve it on any score. His evidence remains cogent, consistent and convincing throughout and at no stages it deviated. Further though he was cross-examined at length but it remained unimpeached and unshattered and that being the position there is no ground to disbelieve his evidence, he is the victim of the instant case and suffered serious injury on his neck and he will be the last person to resort to falsehood to implicate an innocent person by giving a clean chit to the real assailant and the evidence of this witness when closely scrutinized it is found of such a nature that only on the basis on sole testimony of this witness conviction can be based. However, it is a case where the prosecution had examined only one eye witness to the whole incident. The evidence of this witness i.e PW.3 Ramjan in assailed on various ground. According to the Ld. defence counsel he is a chance witness and his presence at the site of the incident is highly doubtful. He is a member of Rainbow Private Video Hall and at the time of the incident, the last show of the day in that video hall was going on and no occasion arises for him to leave this video hall unattended; hence his evidence should not be believed at all. I have considered this matter side by side the evidence so led by the prosecution by examining PW3 and when on closely scrutinized I find that his evidence is worthy of reliance. Though he is a Video operator, but according to him on the last show there were very few audience; hence he left the video hall and was passing by Page No.# 6/14 the site of the incident when he noticed the whole incident. I have scrutinized his evidence and find nothing regarding his unnatural conduct at that moment. It is quite natural that a person on his standing working video shop may leave unattended when the machine which display film does not require constant presence of the operator at the place. Anybody if show is over can switch off the machine. Further more he does not in his evidence at any stage stated that there was no other person who can operate machine even if he left the hell. No effective cross-examination has been done in respect of the Witness regarding the video of the hall or any other person was present at the time when the show was going on, hence no undue importance can be attached on the matter of PW.3 leaving that video hall at that moment. This witness in his evidence very categorically stated that while he was proceeding by taking that road he noticed the accused inflicting a blow by means of sharp weapon and it fell on the neck of Nur Alom(Pw.2). He tried to catch the accused, but he fled away immediately after committing offence. Even he went to the marriage house and informed the brother of the injured and along with them he took the injured to his house and therefrom to Hospital through Police. This witness is not related to any side. He is an Independent witness and from the attending facts and circumstances of this case his presence at the site of the incident is found very natural and in the cross- examination the defence has failed to dislodge his evidence on material particulars. It also fails to show any animosity or ill will being nurtured by this witness to Page No.# 7/14 depose falsely against the accused to frame him accused in this case. Further more, the defence does not controvert his presence at the site of the incident as is apparent from trend of cross-examination. The fact that this witness remained at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident finds further corroboration from the testimony of PW.4 and PW.5. Both of these witnesses remained at the marriage house and according to them Ramjan(PW came over there and informed them of the incident. They all rushed to the spot and took the injured to P.S. and therefrom to Hospital. Though there is some discrepancies as regards the fact as to who accompanied PW.3 to the site of the incident as according to PW.3 it was Abdul Rahman (PW.1) who came to the spot along with PW.4 Joinal when informed of the matter at the marriage house, but this court is not inclined to attach much importance to this minor discrepancies. As Pw.1 Abdul Rahman Sk. and PW5 Rahim Sk; hence some confusion might have crept at the time while recording deposition. It may happen that the Ld. court while recording statement might have heard Rahim as Rahman. Whatever it may be, but the fact remains that PW.1 in his evidence very categorically stated that he remained at home when he was informed of the incident and PW.5 very specifically stated that while he was at marriage party he was informed of the matter by Ramjan (PW.3). On hearing the incident he along with PW.4 Joinal came to the spot. Thus this minor discrepancy which is usual in most of the criminal cases can be over booked. On the whole the evidence so adduced by the PW.3 is found cogent, convincing and Page No.# 8/14 worthy of reliance. In this case though PW.8 the I.0. did not examine any of the neighbouring people or the owner of Rainbow Video Hall or Azad Lodge, but all these facts pale into insignificance in view of the fact that the occurrence took place at odd hour when the road was deserted and there was not any soul nearby As regards the submission of the Ld. defence counsel it was quite a dark night and it is not possible on the part of the person assaulted to identify the assailant in that pitch of darkness. But this submission of the Ld. defence counsel is noted to be rejected out right as there is abundant evidence on record to hold safely that it was a moon light night and there was sufficient lights through which a persons could be identified. In this case the accused is not a stranger one to PW.2 Nur Alom, the injured victim. He is known to him since long and it is he who went to the marriage party and brought PW.2 Nur Alom to the site of the incident. Hence there can be no question of misidentification or wrong identification. As regards the so called delay in filing Ext(1) the there is sufficient and satisfactory explanation for the same. PW.2 Nur Alom sustained injuries on his neck and his life was hanging in balance. He was immediately rushed to the Civil Hospital, Dhubri where he was admitted as an Indoor Patient and he remained there for a few days. Hence, the primary concern to the brothers 1.e. PW.1 and PW.5 must have been to save his life and filing of the F.I.R. took backseat and on the following day when a condition became stable PW.5 went to the P.S. and filed the same. So, whatever delay cost there it has Page No.# 9/14 been satisfactorily explained and it does not affect the prosecution case. The cited decision as noted in 2005 Supreme Court Cases(Cri) 579 (Shankarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan) placed before this court has no application in the instant case. It further appears that the Ld. defence counsel tries to take, wind out, sail the prosecution case by strenuously hammering on the point that if this court believes Ext(1) the F.I.R. then the entire prosecution evidence should be treated knocked out as in Ext(1) there is a mention of a group of unknown persons who were lying in ambush near the Azad Hotel prior to the time of the incident and as soon as PW.2 Nur Alom appeared there all of them surrounded him from all sides and assaults was launched. But the evidence so led by the prosecution goes on the opposite direction. None of the PWs stated so, hence the prosecution version should be disbelieved. I have considered this submission of the Ld. defence counsel and to meet this contention revert back to the evidence on record and find that Ext(1) was not lodged by the injured, but by his elder brother (PW.5) and PW.5 in his deposition cleared the mist by deposing in categorical manner that this fact though reflected in the F.I.R., but he had gathered the same from the mouth of some other people. Thus on from his categorical assertion the art of the informant i.e. PW.5 it is crystal clear that this piece of information was supplied to him by some other persons and not by the injured 1.e. PW.2 Nur Alom, Hence even if this portion is reflected in the F.I.R. it makes no dent to the prosecution allegation and Page No.# 10/14 it can be simply by passed . As regards the discrepancy as noted in Ext(2) the Injury Report and Ext(1) the F.I.R. on the matter of G.D.Entry, this court is not inclined to attach much importance to this aspect as whatever defects the investigation may have suffered, it will not affect the prosecution case on the factual matter of the core of the case. After on close scrutiny, I find that the case of the prosecution allegation is proved beyond all shadows of doubt and these factors have no role to play weakening the prosecution case. Thus in view of the above discussion and reasons thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has fully succeeded in proving the case against the accused, Maju for committing of offence U/S.324 of 1.P.C. with the materials beyond all shadows of doubt. Hence the accused is found guilty and he is accordingly convicted thereunder.” 6. The learned Appellate Court, on an appeal being preferred in the matter 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 29.03.2014, to draw the following conclusions; “14. Now if we analyse the deposition of witnesses, it reflects that the version of the victim (PW-2) has been corroborated by the eye witness PW-3 who had in fact saw the entire incident. It is also noteworthy that as soon as the victim received injury and lying on the ground, he Immediately went to the marriage party to Page No.# 11/14 inform the persons at the marriage ceremony in fact rushed to the place where the injured was lying at serious condition. All those witnesses who took him to Dhubri Civil Hospital have witnessed that there was severe cut injury on the neck of the victim (PW-2) which is caused by sharp razor like weapon From the evidence of M.O, it is crystal clear that the cut injury caused by sharp weapon was very deep in size though he commented it as simple injury. It has also been observed that before shifting to Dhubri Civil Hospital, they first made an entry to the Police Station from where they took the help of a Homeguard and, thereafter, went to the hospital. 15. The contradictions of G.D. Entry made in the ejahar as well as in the medical report is not sustainable on the ground that though the ejahar was lodged on the next day of the incident but the victim was taken to the Dhubri Civil Hospital via Dhubri police station in as much as the persons who took the victim to the hospital took a Homeguard personnel from the police station. Therefore, the police station had made G.D. Entry of the incident 16. Therefore, from the totality of the fact and evidence, I find no infirmity of the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri in rendering its judgment dated 4.6.09 in GR(DBB) Case No.222/07. The Ld. Trial court has rightly convicted and held the accused/appellant guilty for the offence U/s.324 IPC. Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merit and the conviction of the accused-appellant is upheld.” 7. This Court has examined the conclusions drawn by the learned Page No.# 12/14 Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court, in the light of the evidences coming on record and finds that the conclusions were drawn on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences brought on record. No infirmity is found with the conclusions so drawn by the learned Courts. This Court also notice that the learned Trial Court had taken into account all the requisite circumstances arising in the matter and had thereafter drawn the above conclusions. In view of the concurrent findings returned by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court, this Court is of the considered view that in absence of any infirmity and/or any jurisdictional error being highlighted in the impugned Judgment, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 324 IPC would not mandate any interference. 8. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court notices that the offence involved in the matter was committed by the petitioner on 13.05.2007. More than 18(eighteen) years have lapsed since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein. 9. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that his sentencing would mandate a modification. The petitioner having been punished under the provisions of Section 324 IPC, the same being relevant is extracted hereinbelow; “Section324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means Page No.# 13/14 of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” A perusal of the provision of Section 324 IPC would reveal that it mandates imposition of punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3(three) years or with fine, or with both. 10. 10. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the mater, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the sentencing of the petitioner is modified and he be imposed a punishment of payment of fine in lieu of undergoing imprisonment, the same being permissible under the provision of Section 324 IPC. Accordingly, the punishment for imprisonment for 2(two) years imposed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to payment of fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand), in default of the payment of the fine, the petitioner, herein, would undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2(two) months. 11. With the above observations and directions the present Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. 12. Registry to send down the records of the case to the Trial Court Page No.# 14/14 along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant