Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010262722013 2025:GAU-AS:13395 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./377/2013 KAMAL SAHA S/O LT. RAMESHWAR SAHA, R/O VILL. MAZARGRAM TEA ESTATE,P.S. UDHARBAND, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM - Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B SARMA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/12 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 18.09.2025 Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. 2. The present appeal has been instituted assailing the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in Sessions Case No.10/2008, convicting the appellant under Section 326 IPC and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3(three) years along with payment of fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 3(three) months. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 23-12-2003, at around 5 p.m., the victim, Anjan Chanda, had gone to Mazirgram Tea Estate, along with his brother-in-law, Babla Chanda, to discuss about some contract works with one Babulal Rikiason. Thereafter, while he had gone to approach Shibcharan Bauri, the president of Mazirgram L.P. School, the appellant herein, suddenly came and dealt ‘dao’ blows on Anjan Chanda, as well as on the person of his brother-in-law, Babla Chanda. Resultantly, both of them suffered serious injuries. The victims were thereafter shifted to Silchar Medical College & Hospital (SMCH) for treatment. Information of the said matter being received by the police, a G.D entry came to be made being G.D. Entry No.492, dated 23-12- 2003, at Udharbond P.S and investigation into the matter was Page No.# 3/12 initiated. Thereafter, on 24-12-2003, a formal FIR was lodged by one Ranjit Chanda and the same was registered as Udharbond P.S. Case No.247/2003, under Sections 147/148/149/341/326/ 307 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, the police laid a charge-sheet against the appellant, herein, under Sections 341/323/324/326/307 IPC. The matter on being committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, the Trial Court, basing on the materials coming on record, framed a charge under Sections 326/307 IPC against the appellant, herein. The charge on being read over and explained to the appellant, he having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a Trial ensued. During the Trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9(nine) witnesses and thereafter, the appellant, herein, was examined under Section 313 CrPC. On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court, basing on the evidences coming on record, proceeded to acquit the appellant, herein, from the charge under Section 307 IPC. However, the ingredients of the offence under Section 326 IPC being found to be established against the appellant, herein, he was accordingly convicted thereunder. On his such conviction, the appellant was sentenced as noticed hereinabove. Being aggrieved the appellant has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Ms. B. Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses does not establish the offence charge under Section 326 IPC against the appellant, herein, beyond reasonable doubt. She submits that a perusal of the evidences adduced by PW-4 and PW-5, would bring on record that there exist inherent Page No.# 4/12 contradictions. She submits that while PW-4 in the evidences adduced by him brought on record that the appellant, herein, had with a ‘dau’ dealt a blow on the person of the victim Anjan Chanda, resulting in two fingers of his right hand being cut off. PW-5 had deposed that he had also found the fingers of the right hand of Anjan Chanda to be cut, but he further had deposed that the victim Anjan Chanda had put his signature on the Seizure list (Exhibit-1) by his right hand. She submits that a doubt has arisen as to whether the victim had two fingers of his right hand cut off, on account of the purported blow dealt upon him by the appellant, herein. Ms. B. Sharma, further by referring to the deposition of PW-9, i.e., the doctor examining the victims Babla Chanda and Anjan Chanda on 24- 12-2003 at SMCH, has submitted that there was no hospital number mentioned in the hospital record with regard to the treatment received, therein, by the victim Anjan Chanda. She further submits that the evidence adduced by PW-9 does not bring on record, the period for which Anjan Chanda had received a treatment in the said hospital as an indoor patient. She submits that the said inconsistency existing in the matter would create a doubt with regard to the nature of injuries actually suffered by the victim Anjan Chanda was grievous in nature and accordingly it cannot be held that the charge under Section 326 IPC stood established against the appellant, herein, beyond reasonable doubt. Ms. B. Sarma, further submits that it is the prosecution case that the victim had suffered injuries on his person including two fingers on his right hand being cut off on account of the assault made on him by the appellant, herein. However, she submits that the victim was found to have been taken to the hospital after around 3 to 4 hours from the time Page No.# 5/12 when he had suffered the injury, in question, which again raises a doubt with regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, Anjan Chanda in the matter. She submits that the said doubts arising in the matter ought to have been answered in favour of the appellant, herein, and he was required to be acquitted from the charge so framed against him under Section 326 IPC. 5. In the above premises, Ms. B. Sharma, submits that the impugned Judgment and Order dated 26-09-2013 would mandate an interference by this Court and the appellant, herein, would be entitled to be acquitted from the charge under Section 326 IPC. 6. Per contra, Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has submitted that the evidences adduced by the victim Anjan Chanda with regard to the assault made on him and his brother-in-law by the appellant, herein, and the injuries so sustained by them is corroborated from the evidence adduced by PW-9 i.e., the doctor examining them at Silchar Medical College & Hospital (SMCH). He submits that the non-mentioning of the hospital number in the records of treatment of the victim Anjan Chanda can very well be on account of an oversight and the same cannot be held to be fatal to the case of the prosecution, herein. He submits that the medical reports of the hospital records produced and exhibited as Exhibit-5 does not reveal of any manipulation being carried out, therein and there is no reason why the Medical Officer PW-9, who was a Registrar of Department of Surgery, at SMCH, would depose falsely against the appellant, herein. He further submits that the appellant, had failed to dislodge the evidences adduced by PW-9 and no doubt could be created with regard to the same during the Trial. 7. Mr. M. P. Goswami, further submits that the assault as made upon Page No.# 6/12 the person of the victim Anjan Chanda is further borne out from the evidences adduced by the other prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the appellant, herein, during his examination under Section 313 CrPC had only made his denials to the incriminating circumstances put to him and had not brought on record any circumstance which would have the effect of creating a doubt with regard to the evidences adduced in the matter by the prosecution. With regard to the plea taken by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 CrPC that he was not present at the place of occurrence when the incident had taken place. Mr. Goswami, submits that the said plea was not taken forward by the defence by adducing evidences in the matter to establish such plea. He further submits that such plea was also not put to the prosecution witnesses during their cross- examination. He submits that the said plea raised by the appellant, herein, would not mandate any acceptance. Accordingly, he submits that the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC by the learned Trial Court, would not mandate any interference. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The learned Trial Court upon considering the evidences coming on record had drawn the following points for determination; “ (1) Whether the injured persons suffered any injury and if so, what was the nature of such injury ? (2) Whether the accused person voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the injured persons by means of any sharp cutting weapon ? (3) Whether the accused person caused the injuries on the injured persons with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act, he caused the death of the injured persons, he would have been guilty of murder ?” Page No.# 7/12 10. With regard to the 1st point as to whether Babla Chanda and Anjan Chanda had suffered injury on their person and as regards the nature of the injury, the learned Trial Court proceeded to conclude basing on the evidences coming on record that the injury sustained by Babla Chanda was opined by PW-9 i.e., the doctor examining him, to may have been caused by falling or dashing on a hard substance. With regard to the injury sustained by Anjan Chanda, noticing the evidences adduced by PW-9, the learned Trial Court proceeded to conclude that the injuries sustained by Anjan Chanda were grievous in nature and caused by sharp weapon. 11. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined the issue as to whether the injuries were caused upon the person of Anjan Chanda by the appellant, herein, voluntarily by using of a sharp cutting weapon. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, in this connection, proceeded to conclude that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, herein, had caused grievous injuries on the person of Anjan Chanda by means of a sharp weapon. 12. Having drawn the above conclusions, the learned Trial Court proceeded to examine as to whether the charge under Section 307 IPC stood established against the appellant, herein. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences adduced by the victim Anjan Chanda as PW-1 concluded that it was not permissible to hold that the appellant, herein, had intended to commit murder of the victim Anjan Chanda and accordingly proceeded to hold that the charge against the appellant, herein, under Section 307 IPC was not Page No.# 8/12 established beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly he was acquitted, therefrom. The nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, herein, be established to be grievous in nature, the learned Trial Court proceeded to hold that the same attracts an offence under Section 326 IPC against the appellant, herein and accordingly, proceeded to convict the appellant under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him as noticed hereinabove. 13. The evidence adduced by PW-9 i.e., the doctor examining the victims Babla Chanda and Anjan Chanda has been carefully perused by this Court and this Court finds no contradiction in the evidence so adduced. The non-disclosure of the hospital number against the name of the victim Anjan Chanda in the considered view of this Court may be on account of the lack of understanding on the part of the PW-9 with regard to the materials required to be brought to the Court while deposing as a witness in such matters, the same may also have occasioned on account of an oversight. 14. Considering the evidence adduced by PW-9 and also the fact that the same was not dislodged by the appellant during his cross- examination, this Court is of the considered view that the inconsistencies as pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant, are minor in nature and the same would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. With regard to the contradictions as highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant existing in the evidence adduced by PW-4 and PW-5, this Court, having considered the evidence of PW-9, finds that the same would not in any manner advance the case of the appellant, herein. The evidence adduced by PW-9 having brought on record that one of the injuries sustained by Page No.# 9/12 the victim Anjan Chanda had resulted in clear amputation of his index finger and the middle finger of his right hand which was again opined to have been caused by sharp weapon and the injury to be grievous in nature, this Court is of the considered view that no other interpretation with regard to the said injury would be permissible to be made and the injury suffered has to be considered to be grievous in nature. 15. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now examine the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae, that the appellant during his examination under Section 313 CrPC had stated that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time. The said statement of the appellant was not taken forward and established by the appellant by adducing cogent and reliable evidence in the matter. Further it is not found that the said plea was put to the prosecution witnesses during their cross-examination and accordingly, the said plea would not mandate a further examination by this Court in absence of any cogent material available on record for such examination. 16. In view of the above conclusion reached by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that conviction of the appellant, herein, under Section 326 IPC would not mandate any interference and accordingly the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC stands affirmed. 17. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court notices that the offence involved in the matter was committed by the appellant on 23.12.2003 and around 22(twenty two) years have lapsed since the date of commission of the said offence. Page No.# 10/12 18. The learned Trial Court while considering the sentencing of the appellant, herein, had considered the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, however the benefit thereunder was denied to be extended to the appellant only by considering the nature of offence committed by him in the matter, this Court finds that it is not alleged that the appellant, herein, was involved in offence of similar nature either prior to 23.12.2003 and/or thereafter. Further the appellant is found to be litigating in the matter initially before the Trial Court and presently before this Court in the present appeal. 19. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter since the date of commission of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant, herein, is entitled to be extended with the benefit of the Provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, this Court noticing the nature of the offence committed by the appellant, herein, while extending to him the benefit of Provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, would enhance the fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court against the appellant for the offence committed under Section 326 IPC. This Court is of the considered view that for the ends of justice, the fine amount be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only. 20. Accordingly for the reasons noticed, hereinabove, this Court while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, herein, holds that it is a fit case wherein the appellant, herein, is eligible to be extended the benefits under the said Act of 1958, and the sentence is modified to the effect that instead of sending the appellant to jail, he be given the benefit under Section 4 of the Act of 1958. This Court having modified the sentencing with regard to imprisonment Page No.# 11/12 of the appellant, herein, and enhancement of the fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant would be liable to deposit the enhanced fine amount i.e., Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). 21. In view of the above discussions, it is directed that the appellant, 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, and undertake, to the effect that the appellant 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 appellant within a period of 6(six) months from today, along with the deposit of the enhanced fine amount, as imposed by this Court. In the event, the said fine amount is not deposited by the appellant, herein, before the learned Trial Court, he shall be required to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months. 22. The appellant and/or his counsel being not present during the hearing of the present appeal and the same being conducted by an Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court, the learned Trial Court is required to issue notice to the appellant, herein, to appear before it for deposit of the enhanced amount of fine along with execution of the bond as directed, hereinabove. 23. With the above observations and directions, the present Criminal Appeal stands disposed of. 24. Registry to 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.# 12/12 JUDGE Comparing Assistant