Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010013022014 2025:GAU-AS:14380 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./333/2014 KERKON BORA and ANR. S/O LT. PUTO BORA R/O HABICHOWA CHINATOLI P.O. CHINATOLI P.S. KAMARGAON DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. 2: SUNTI BORA S/O LT. PUTO BORA R/O HABICHOWA CHINATOLI P.O. CHINATOLI P.S. KAMARGAON DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM 2:SMTI JINA MONI BORA D/O CHENIRAM BORA R/O HABICHOWA CHINATOLI P.S. KAMARGAON DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D HAZARIKA, MR.J M GOGOI,MRJ PAYENG Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/11 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 22.10.2025 Heard Mr. J. M. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The present revision petition has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 04.06.2014, passed by the Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Criminal Appeal No.03/2013, upholding and affirming the conviction of the present petitioners, herein, by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Golaghat, vide Judgment dated 29.12.2012, in GR. Case No.322/2010, under Sections 341/326/34 IPC, along with the sentencing for undergoing Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year along with payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand) only, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3(three) months for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 IPC and further to payment of fine of Rs.300/-(Rupees Three Hundred) only, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment of 2(two) days for the offence punishable under Section 341/34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Jinamoni Bora lodged an FIR before the In-Charge Khumtai Police Outpost on 23.03.2010, inter alia, stating therein, that on 22.03.2010, at around 4.00 p.m, while her father Cheniram Bora was proceeding to Melamara from his house on a bicycle, the Page No.# 3/11 petitioner no. 1, Kerkon Bora followed him with a ‘Khukri’ in his hand and intercepted him at Habichuwa village and gave him a blow with the Khukri. It was further alleged that at the instigation of one Gajen Bora, Ramen Bora and Sunti Bora gave blow on the right leg of her father by means of a sharp weapon. It was further alleged that the accused inflicted a cut injury on the finger of the left hand and the elbow of the right hand of her father. It was stated that the victim was shifted to Kushal Konwar Civil Hospital, Golaghat, for treatment. On receipt of the said FIR, the In-Charge, Khumtai, Police Outpost, prepared a G.D. Entry No.336 dated 23.03.2010, and forwarded the Ejahar to Officer-in-Charge, Kamargaon Police Station for registration. Accordingly, Kamargaon Police Station Case No.26/2010, under Sections 341/326/34 IPC came to be registered. On completion of the investigation police laid a charge-sheet under Sections 341/326/34 IPC against the present petitioners and Ramen Bora and Gajen Bora. The learned Trial Court basing on the materials available in the charge-sheet proceeded to frame a charge under Sections 341/326/34 IPC against the accused including the petitioners, herein. The charge being read over and explained to the accused persons, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a Trial ensued in the matter. During the Trial the prosecution adduced 8(eight) witnesses. The accused persons were examined under the provisions of Section 313 CrPC and the accused persons also adduced 1(one) Defence Witness. On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court upon Page No.# 4/11 considering the evidences coming on record proceeded to convict the petitioners, herein, under Sections 341/326/34 IPC. With regard to the other co-accused Ramen Bora and Gajen Bora, the learned Tribunal convicted the said accused under Sections 341/34 IPC. On such conviction the petitioners, herein, were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand) each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 3(three) months for committing offences punishable under Sections 326/34 IPC. The present petitioners along with Ramen Bora and Gajen Bora were also sentenced to undergo payment of fine of Rs.300/-(Rupees three hundred) each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 2(two) days for committing an offence under Sections 341/34 IPC. The accused persons including the petitioners, herein, being aggrieved by their conviction by the learned Trial Court, assailed the same by way of instituting an Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.3/2013, before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Golaghat. The Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide Judgment dated 04.06.2014, to uphold the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under Sections 341/326/34 IPC. Being aggrieved the petitioners, herein, had instituted the present proceedings. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and Page No.# 5/11 perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned Trial Court vide Judgment dated 29.12.2012, upon considering the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions : “9. In the result considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon analyzing the evidences on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges U/S 341/326/34 IPC the accused persons Kerkon Bora and Sunti Bora beyond any reasonable doubt and they are convicted for the same. This court is also of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge U/S 341/34 IPC against the accused persons Ramen Bora and Gajen Bora beyond any reasonable doubt and are convicted for the same.” 6. Basing on the said conclusion, the learned Trial Court sentenced the accused including the petitioners, herein, in the following manner : “12. I hereby sentence the accused Kerkon Bora and Sunti Boro after taking into consideration all the factual as well as legal aspect to under rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for committing offences punishable u/s 326/34 IPC. I hereby sentence all the four accused persons to pay fine of Rs.300/- each and in default Page No.# 6/11 of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 days for committing an offence punishable U/S 341/34 IPC. The period of detention of the accused persons Kerkon Bora and Sunti Bora shall be set off from their sentence of imprisonment. The sentence shall concurrently.” 7. The learned Appellate Court vide Judgment dated 04.06.2014, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record proceeded to draw the following conclusions : “35. The prosecution case should not be thrown out due to defective investigation by the Investigating Officer of this case. But the Court has to see whether the evidence as available on record is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused persons or not. The Investigating Officer drew up the sketch map of the place of occurrence vide Ext- 3. As per Ext-3, the house of the accused/appellants and the informant are situated adjacent to each other separated by a bamboo fencing. The place of incident is on the road situated on the southern side of the house of the accused/appellants and the injured person. Southern side of the place of incident is a paddy field belonging to the injured person. On the southern side of the paddy field of the injured person, there is a house belonging to P.W.6 Puna Bora and thereafter, the house of one Kalia Bora. The house of Monoj Bora, Rupa Bora and Tonmoy Bora are not shown around the place of incident as Page No.# 7/11 stated in the sketch map (Ext-3) of the place of occurrence. The Ext-3 the sketch map of the place of occurrence has not been challenged by the defence during the cross examination of the I.O. (P.W.7), who prepared the same. Therefore, non- examination of Monoj Bora, Rupa Bora, and Tonmoy Bora does not affect the credibility of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and the injured P.W.5. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were not present at the time of incident. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were threatened by the accused/appellants not to go there. There was a land dispute between the parties since long. The accused/appellants filed a Criminal case against the injured Cheniram Bora (P.W.5) and the husband of P.W.1. On the fateful day, the accused/appellant attacked the injured with "khukri' and 'lathi' causing him grievous and simple injuries. The injured (P.W.5) at the time of recording his evidence before the learned trial Court on 14.12.2011, has stated that he was not completely cured. The learned trial Court has rightly held after perusing the injury report and the medical evidence that the accused/appellants Kerkon Bora and Sunti Bora are guilty for the offence u/s 326/34 of IPC, Hence, call for no interference into the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court against them. The learned trial Court has also assigned the reasons for sentencing the accused/appellants Kerkon Bora and Sunti Bora for the offence u/s 326/34 of IPC and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo Page No.# 8/11 rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- each for the offence u/s 341/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of two days.” 8. Accordingly, the appeal came to be disposed of. Basing on the said conclusions, the conviction of the petitioners, herein, under Sections 341/326/34 IPC came to be upheld. It is to be noted that the learned Appellate Court basing on the materials coming on record proceeded to acquit the 2 (two) accused Gajen Bora and Ramen Bora from the charge under Sections 341/34 IPC leveled against them. This Court has perused the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. On a perusal of the same, this Court finds that the conclusions have been drawn basing on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record and no infirmity, therein, is found to exist. 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the petitioners, herein, under Sections 341/326/34 IPC would not mandate any interference. 10. Having drawn the above conclusions this Court notices that the learned Trial Court while proceeding to sentence the petitioners, herein, the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, was considered, however, the benefit thereunder was not extended to the petitioners, herein, only considering the nature Page No.# 9/11 of the offences proved against them. 11. It is a settled position of law that while exercising the discretionary power under the Act, 1958, the Courts are to consider the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the character of offender. It is also settled that while considering the nature of the offence, the Court is to take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. It is also to be noted that the discretionary power under the provision of the Act of 1958, is also permissible to be exercised by the Court even at the appellate or the revisional stage and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the backdrop of the above settled position of law, this Court finds that the offence in the matter was committed on 22.03.2010, long 15 (fifteen) years have lapsed since the date of commission of offence by the petitioners, herein. The materials brought on record does not reveal that the petitioners were involved in a similar offence prior to the one so committed by them on 22.03.2010, and/or that they had thereafter committed offence of a similar nature. 13. The petitioners are found to have been litigating the matter since the last 15 (fifteen) years initially before the Trial Court, thereafter before the Appellate Court and presently in the proceedings of the instant revision petition, before this Court. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the present is a fit case, wherein, the petitioners are entitled to be Page No.# 10/11 extended with the benefit of the provision of the Act of 1958. 14. Accordingly, for the reasons noticed, hereinabove, it is directed that the petitioners be given the benefits of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and accordingly, the sentence is modified to that effect, and it is provided that instead of sending the petitioners to jail, they be extended the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, the fine as imposed upon the petitioners by the learned Trial Court and in default of payment of the same, the direction to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2(two) days is, however, not interfered with. 15. In view of the above discussions, it is directed that the petitioners, herein, will file 2(two) sureties to the tune of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) each, along with a personal bond before the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Golaghat, and undertake, to the effect that the petitioners 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 petitioners within a period of 2(two) months from today, along with the deposit of the fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 29.12.2012. 16. With the above observations and directions, the present Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. 17. Send down the records of the case to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. Page No.# 11/11 JUDGE Comparing Assistant