Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010006322013 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./146/2013 JOINUL HAQUE S/O ABDUL MANNAN R/O VILL- PURANCHANDPUR, P.S. PATHERKANDI, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S K TALUKDAR, MR.J M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 15-10-2025 Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State/ respondent. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 04-03-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Crl. Appeal No. 13(3)/2011 Page No.# 2/8 upholding the conviction of the appellant, herein, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj vide judgment dated 20-08-2011 in GR Case No. 171/2005, under Section 323/ 324 IPC and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 07 (seven) days under Section 323 IPC and further to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 (six) months with payment of fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) in default to suffer imprisonment for 07 (seven) days under Section 324 IPC. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that Jogodish Sinha, Principal of Model Higher Secondary School, Patherkandi had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Patherkandi Police Station, inter-alia, alleging therein that the petitioner, herein, had on 07-03-2005, at around 05:15 p.m., assaulted one Sekhar Das. It was alleged that the petitioner along with his party had taken out Sekhar Das from the vehicle and had assaulted him and had also tried to kill him. It was further stated that the victim was taken by one Indra Debnath to the Hospital at Patherkandi. In the FIR it was further alleged that on the date of the incident, i.e. on 28-02- 2005, the petitioner, herein, was expelled from the examination by Sekhar Das and perhaps for the said incident the petitioner had injured Sekhar Das who was a subject teacher of the Model Higher Secondary School, Patherkandi. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered Patherkandi P.S. Case No. 25/2005 under Section 341/ 325/ 307/ 34 IPC. On conclusion of the trial, the police laid charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Section 341/ 323/ 324/ 34 IPC. The learned Trial Court framed charge against the petitioner, herein, under Section 323/ 324/ 34 IPC and the same on being read over and explained to the petitioner and the other accused, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued. Page No.# 3/8 During the trial, prosecution had examined 08 (eight) witnesses and thereafter, the accused including the petitioner, herein, were examined under Section 313. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 20-08-2011 proceeded to convict the appellant, herein, under Section 323/ 324 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) under Section 323 IPC in default, he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 07 (seven) days. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) under Section 324 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of 07 days. The co-accused in the matter was acquitted from the charge under Section 323/ 324 IPC. Being aggrieved by the conviction of the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 20-08-2011, the petitioner, herein, had assailed the same by filing an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 13(3)/2011 before the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj. The Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment dated 04-03-2013 to uphold the conviction and sentencing of the learned Trial Court and thereby dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, herein. 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 adduced during the trial was pleased to draw the following conclusions: “Thus in the particular case from the facts and circumstances and also evidence Page No.# 4/8 and more particularly from the evidence of the victim the P.W. 2 it can be safely held that he was beaten by the accused Jainul Islam. The credential of the P.W.2 the victim can be assessed from another angle. In his evidence he had simply implicated the accused Jainul Islam and he remained silent about the other accused. In my considered view had he been dishonest he would have implicated both the accused persons but he did not do that. It is true that other P.We who were present in the place of occurrence did not name the accused, but in a case reported in the AIR 1973 SC 944 it has been held that conviction can be based on the honest and trustworthy evidence even of a single witness and I found the P.W.2 both honest and trustworthy. Again in a case report in 1989 Gr.L.J.2113 (SC) it has been held that evidence of injured witness can't be rejected on the ground of interestdness. I also found that there was no provocation and the accused acted voluntarily. Hence I am convinced that the accused Jainul had voluntarily caused hurt to Sekhar Das Hence, I hold that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused Jainul Islam U/s 323 IPC, but the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the other accused. PWs state nothing against the accused Hobibul Bahar Kandakar. Regarding the 2nd point as to whether the accused person had voluntarily caused hurt with sharp object I hold that while deciding the earlier point I found that the accused had voluntarily caused hurt to Sekhar Das but the question is with what weapon. I have very carefully perused the section 324 IPC and I found that in a case reported in the AIR 1979 SC1510 it has been held that in order to sustain conviction under this section prosecution must prove that he accused voluntarily caused hurt and such hurt was caused by means of an instrument referred to in the section, Nothing short of that will suffice. In this case it is already established that the accused Jaoinul Islam had caused hurt to Sekhar Das voluntarily. I found that Sekhar Das was returning home like other day after completing his duty and on his way to his home he was attacked by the accused. I found that there was no provocation from the side of Sekhar Das and the accused had acted voluntarily. After careful perusal of section 324 IPC I found that hurt must be caused by 1. By any shooting instrument or 2. by any stabbing instrument or 3. by any cutting instrument or 4. by any instrument, if used as a weapon of offence, likely to cause death, or.... Page No.# 5/8 5. 6. 7. 8. In this particular case the victim did not name the weapon and he had simply stated that by some heard object he was assaulted. But the first attending doctor P.W.6 Matindra Sutradhar narrated that one & injury of Sekhar Das was caused by sharp object and rest were caused by blunt object. P.W.7 Dr. Suparna Paul also narrated that the injury was caused by sharp object. The learned defence counsel argued regarding the nature of offence and he submitted that the victim did not specifically reveal the name of the weapon. But I found that in the case of Anwaral Vs. State reported in (2005) 10 SCC 581 it has been held that doctors opinion about the weapon used in the crime though theoretical can't be totally wiped out. Thus from the facts and circumstances I convinced that the accused Jainul Islam had voluntarily caused hurt to Sri Sekhar Das by sharp weapon. As such I hold that prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused Joinul Haque u/s 324 IPC.” 6. Having drawn the above conclusion with regard to the guilt of the petitioner, herein, the learned Trial Court sentenced him in the following manner “Heard the accused on the point of sentence. Accused prayed for leniency, as such I hold the accused Joinul Haque guilty U/s 323/324 IPC and he is convicted under the said sections. The accused is sentenced to pay a Fine of 500/-(five hundred) U/s 323 IPC I/d he shall suffer S.I. for seven days. Accused is also sentenced to undergo S.I. for seven days. Accused is also sentenced to undergo S.I. For six months and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of 500/- (five hundred) u/s 324 IPC I/d he shall suffer S.I. for seven days.” 7. The learned Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 04-03-2013 upon appreciating the evidences coming on record as well as the grounds urged by the petitioner, herein, held that the commission of assault by the petitioner, herein, upon the victim Sekhar Das was established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeal came to be dismissed by maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, herein. Page No.# 6/8 8. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn in the matter by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. This Court upon due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record finds no infirmity with regard to the conclusions drawn in the matter by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not pointed out any infirmity with regard to the conclusions drawn in the matter by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. Accordingly, in absence of any infirmity existing with regard to the conclusions drawn in the matter both by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court, this Court is not called upon to re-appreciate the evidences coming on record in the present criminal revision petition. 9. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, the conviction of the appellant, herein, under Section 323/ 324 IPC would not mandate any interference. Having drawn the above conclusions and the conviction of the appellant having been upheld, this Court notices that the learned Trial Court while proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, had considered the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, however, denied to extend the benefit there-under to the petitioner, herein, only by noticing the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner in the matter. This Court notices that the incident involved in the matter had occasioned on 07-03-2005 and around 20 years have elapsed since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein. The materials brought on record does not reveal that the petitioner, herein, had committed any offence similar in nature prior to 07-03- 2005 and or thereafter, during the pendency of the proceeding involved in the matter. It is seen that the petitioner, herein, has been litigating in the matter initially before the learned Trial Court, thereafter, before the learned Appellate Court and presently in the present Page No.# 7/8 criminal revision petition before this Court. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be extended with the benefits under the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 10. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the benefit of the Act of 1958 is required to be extended to the petitioners, herein, by this Court, in exercise of its revisional powers. Accordingly, for the reasons noticed hereinabove, the petitioners are granted the benefit under the Act of 1958 and the sentence stands modified to the effect that instead of sending the petitioners to the jail, they should be given the benefit of the Act of 1958. However, the fines as imposed upon the petitioners by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 06-06-2012 is not interfered with. 11. As such, it is directed that the appellant, herein, will file 02 (two) sureties to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each along with a personal bond before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Karimganj and undertake to the effect that the appellant shall keep peace and good behaviour during the period of 06 (six) months from the date of filing of such bond. The aforesaid bond shall be filed by the appellant within a period of 02 (two) months from today along with deposit of the fine amount as awarded by the learned Trial Court. 12. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 13. Registry to send back the TCR forthwith along with a copy of the present order for information and necessary action. Page No.# 8/8 JUDGE Comparing Assistant