Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010114072016 2025:GAU-AS:14507 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./166/2016 ABDUR RAHMAN @ JUMMA and ANR 2: TABIUR RAHMAN @ MINTU BOTH ARE S/O ATOWAR RAHMAN @ ABDUL R/O MUSLIMPATTY P.O. P.S. and DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 78130 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR 2:M/S RINIMA BEGUM THE INFORMANT D/O SAMED ALI R/O VILL. BONBORIA BHELLA P.O. BHELLA P.S. and DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R A CHOUDHURY, MR.H R A CHOUDHURY,MR.R ALI,MR.A ALAM Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 28/10/2025 Heard Mr. A Alam, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2. The present appeal has been instituted by the appellants, herein, assailing the judgment dated 26.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Sessions Case No. 17/2015, convicting the appellant No. 1 under Section 324 IPC and appellant No. 2 under Section 323 IPC and sentencing them accordingly. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant, Rinima Begum, had on 17.01.2011 lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Barpeta Police Station, inter-alia, alleging, therein that on that day, at around 5:30-6:00 P.M., the appellants, herein, had forcibly dragged her away from the side of the road near Barpeta Bhandar and had assaulted her by stabbing her with a dagger and thereby, inflicted injuries upon her person. It was further alleged in the FIR that the appellants, herein, had attempted to kill the informant and accordingly, stabbed her one after another. It was also alleged that the appellants, herein, in course of the act done by them had also caused injuries to one bystander, namely, Ajit Das. The FIR further projected that the accused persons had fled away from the place of occurrence, subsequent to gathering of public at the place of occurrence. Police on completion of the investigation, laid a charge-sheet against the present appellants under Sections 341/307/324/34 IPC. The learned Trial Court on the matter being committed to it, appreciating the materials coming on record, had framed a charge under Sections 341/307/324/34 IPC against the appellants, herein, and the same on being read over and explained to them, the Page No.# 3/8 appellants having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued. During the trial, the prosecution had examined 11 (eleven) witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the appellants, herein, were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 26.05.2016, while proceeding to acquit the appellants, herein, from the charge under Sections 341/307/324/34 IPC on the benefit of doubt proceeded to convict the appellant No. 1 under Section 324 IPC and appellant No. 2 under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Being aggrieved with the conviction by the learned Trial Court, the appellants, herein, have instituted the present appeal. 4. Mr. A Alam, learned counsel for the appellants, after taking this Court through the depositions of the witnesses during the trial, more particularly, the deposition of the victims as PW1 and PW2, has fairly submitted that although, there are certain inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses, the same are minor and he fairly submits that the conviction of the appellant No. 1 under Section 324 IPC and appellant No. 2 under Section 323 IPC would not mandate interference. He, however, submits that the offence committed by the appellants, herein, was so committed on 17.01.2011 and around 14 years having lapsed since the date of commission of the said offence. He submits that this Court would be pleased to leniently consider the sentencing of the appellants, herein. 5. Per-contra, Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, submits that the evidences coming on record having established beyond reasonable doubt the offence committed by the appellants, herein, under Section 324 IPC and Section 323 IPC respectively and the assault as committed by them upon the informant being established, the conviction of the appellants, herein, by the learned Trial Court would not mandate any interference. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials coming on record. 7. The learned Trial Court upon considering the evidences coming on record had drawn Page No.# 4/8 the following conclusions:- “26. Now from having perused the entire materials on record as it appears palpably clear that accused Jumma armed with a dao was found to have stabbed both PW1 Rinima and PW2 Ajit Das. The injuries sustained by both PW1 and PW2 are in the nature of simple, caused by dao which is a sharp weapon. The injuries are found in fresh. Accordingly, accused Jumma @ Abdur Rahman is convicted U/S 324 IPC. 27. Accused Mintu Rahman was found armed with a dagger but he has not used the dagger. Rather gave a kick to injured Rinima, caught hold her hair and assaulted her physically. So he cannot escape from being punished U/S 323 IPC. 28. Accused Chintu, though stated to have awaited by starting the motor bike with a view to give lift to the accused Jumma and Mintu but the evidence as it appears does not support such a view that accused Chintu was, in fact involved in this case and there is nothing to show that accused persons have got any common intention as they have got any pre-plan either to assault Rinima or to take her away. The incident as it happened may be the result of their instant outburst. 29. The evidence does not suggest any attempt made by the accused persons either to kill Rinima or to eliminate her from the world. Had their intention been to murder the injured Rinima the accused could have easily kill her by stabbing. But their intention could not be gathered that the accused attempted to kill her. So no offence is at all made out against the accused persons punishable U/S 307 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted from the aforesaid charge on benefit of doubt. 30. There is no evidence that the injured was criminally restrained by the accused persons with a view to assault her. So no offence punishable U/S 341 IPC is made out against the accused persons. Accordingly, they are acquitted from the aforesaid charge. 31. Heard the accused/convict persons on the point of sentence. The plea of the accused is recorded in separate sheets U/S 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. Page No.# 5/8 32. The facts and circumstances under which the accused Jumma stabbed the victim Rinima as many as three times but she somehow managed to escape from such stabbing, however, even sustained injury over her left wrist does not give a sound ground to extent any benefit of leniency to accused Jumma. Moreover, the place of occurrence is a public place which is thickly populated town area and accused, in an evening dare to assault a woman, who was found unarmed that too attire with professional dress would not desire any benefit U/S 3/4 of the P.O. Act. 33. The accused Mintu was armed with dagger. He kicked an Advocate in a public place by caught hold her hair, dragged her away towards the road thereby trampling her also does not deserve any benefit U/S 3/4 of the P.O. Act. 8. Upon drawing the said conclusions, the learned Trial Court proceeded to sentence the appellants, herein, as follows:- 34. So, having considered the matter in entirety I sentence the accused Jumma @ Abdur Rahman to suffer RI for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- i.d. RI for 3 (three) months. 35. I also sentence the accused Tabibar Rahman @ Mintu to suffer RI for 3 (three) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i.d. SI for one month. 9. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court in the light of the evidences coming on record and finds that the same have been so drawn basing on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record and no infirmity is found therein. The conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court for acquitting the present appellants from the charge framed against them under Section 341/34 IPC would also not mandate any interference. 10. Likewise, the conviction of the appellants, herein, under Section 324 IPC and Section 323 IPC respectively, in the considered view of this Court would also not mandate any interference. 11. In view of the above position, the conviction of the appellant No. 1 under Section 324 Page No.# 6/8 IPC and that of the appellant No. 2 under Section 323 IPC stands affirmed. 12. This Court having drawn the above conclusions has noticed the sentencing of the appellants, herein and finds that the appellant No. 1 was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for further 3 (three) months for the offence under Section 324 IPC and the appellant No. 2 was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 323 IPC. 13. This Court notices that the offence in the matter was committed on 17.01.2011 and around 14 years have lapsed since the date of commission of the offence in the matter by the appellants, herein. 14. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter and also noticing that the appellants, herein, were litigating in the matter for the last around 14 years, initially before the Trial Court and presently, before this Court in the present appeal, this Court is of the considered view that the sentencing of the appellants, herein, by the learned Trial Court would mandate a modification. 15. In this connection, this Court has perused the provisions of Section 323 IPC and Section 324 IPC. The provisions of Section 323 IPC and Section 324 IPC, being relevant, the same are extracted hereinbelow:- “323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” 324. 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 a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated Page No.# 7/8 substance, or by means 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.” 16. A perusal of the provisions of Section 323 IPC, which mandates punishment for voluntarily causing hurt provides for a term of imprisonment of either description, which may extend to 1 (one) year, or with fine, which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both. Section 324 IPC also mandates punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 (three) years, or with fine, or with both. 17. Section 324 IPC having mandated alternative punishment, i.e., imprisonment or fine or both, this Court is of the considered view that considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter since the date of commission of the offence by the appellant No. 1, herein, ends of justice would be met in modifying the sentencing of the appellant No. 1, herein, by the learned Trial Court, to that of imposition of a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further 3 (three) months. Accordingly, the appellant No. 1, herein, shall appear before the learned Trial Court within a period of 2 (two) months from today to deposit the fine amount. 18. Similarly, Section 323 IPC having also mandated alternative punishment, i.e., imprisonment, or fine, or both, this Court is of the considered view that considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter, since the date of commission of the offence by the appellant No. 2, herein, ends of justice would be met, in modifying the sentencing of the appellant No. 2, herein, by the Trial Court, to that of imposition of fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month. Accordingly, the appellant No. 2 shall appear before the Trial Court within a period of 2 (two) months from today to deposit the fine amount. 19. With the above modifications with regard to the sentencing of the appellants, herein, the present appeal stands disposed of. Page No.# 8/8 20. 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