Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010185712014 2025:GAU-AS:14325 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./265/2014 RAJIB BORPATRAGOHAIN S/O LT. AKAMAN BORPATRAGOHAIN R/O VILL- ATKAI NAHARANI, P.S. SILAPATHAR, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR 2:RANJIT SAIKIA S/O SRI KAMAN SAIKIA R/O VILL- ATAI NAHARANI P.S. SILAPATHAR DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787110 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M BISWAS, MR.T CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 16/10/2025 Heard Mr. T Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 29.04.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Crl. A. No. 01(1)/2014, dismissing the same and thereby, upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji, vide judgment dated 07.12.2013 in G.R. Case No. 148/2010 under Sections 341/323/324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 341 IPC; further imprisonment for 6 (six) months for the offence under Section 323 IPC and further, to undergo imprisonment for 1 (one) year for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Ranjit Saikia had lodged an FIR on 26.02.2010 before the Officer-in-Charge of Silapathar Police Station, inter-alia, alleging, therein that on 25.02.2010 at about 8:00 PM, the petitioner, herein, had wrongfully restrained him while he was returning to his house and had also assaulted him by giving a blow on his head by means of a ‘mit-dao’ and also giving blows over other parts of his body by means of the blunt edge of the said dao. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered the same as Silapathar P.S. Case No. 45/2010 under Sections 341/326 IPC. Police on conclusion of the investigation in the matter, laid a charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Sections 341/323/324 IPC. The learned Trial Court upon consideration of the materials available on record was pleased to frame a charge against the petitioner, herein, under Sections 341/323/324 IPC and the same on being read over and explained to him, the petitioner, herein, having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued in the matter. Page No.# 3/6 The learned Trial Court upon conclusion of the trial and on appreciation of the evidences coming on record proceeded vide judgment dated 07.12.2013 to convict the petitioner, herein, under Sections 341/323/324 IPC and sentenced him, as noticed, hereinabove. The petitioner, being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court had assailed the judgment dated 07.12.2013 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. A. No. 01(1)/2014. Accordingly, the Appellate Court on appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment dated 29.04.2014 to dismiss the appeal, thereby, upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court under Sections 341/323/324 IPC. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the evidences coming on record during the trial. 5. The learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 07.12.2013 upon appreciating the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions:- “From perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the PWs corroborated that the accused assaulted Shri Ranjit Saikia and medical officer on the same examined the accused found several injury on his scalp at parietal reason of size about 3 X ¼ X ¼. Active bleeding was present at that time of examination. The victim examined on the same day at about 10-20 p.m. by the M.O. The accused person after committing the crime absconded and during the investigation police could not trace out the accused person. As per evidence of adduced by accused for his defence he left Assam and working at Kerala in the year 2009 but in his cross-examination he admitted that Shri Ranjit Saikia lodged another case against him in the year 2008. Also admitted that he regularly appeared on that case and at present case is disposed of. DW-1 also admitted that no train ticket and appointed letter could not produce that he Page No.# 4/6 was working at Kerala on that period. Further admitted that he did not show any Identity Card of that company. DW-1 who stated that accused working at Kerala and returned back on last year but in perusal the entire defence evidence I found that there is no evidence shows that accused person during the period of incident working at Kerala. The defence side failed to prove the fact as alleged that he was not involved in this case. Accused person in 313 of Cr.P.C. statement stated that he was working at Kerala and no way related with this case. The prosecution side is able to prove the fact of this case beyond all reasonable doubt. As M.O. on examination found several injury over the body of the victim and the victim was examined on the same day after two hours of the incident by brought him calling 108 to Dhemaji Civil Hospital. As incident took place at 8-00 p.m. at that time on the village path no person was found. The learned advocate for the defence submitted that Investigating Officer did not properly investigate this case by showing accused absconder. Further submitted that Smti. Sunati Gogoi who is nereby the place of occurrence did not examine the Investigating Officer during investigation. Also submitted that during cross-examianation of I.O. several contradiction found of the statement of witnesses. The statement of PW-2 did not corroborated the statement of PW-1 as Shri Ranjit Saikia did not stated before I.O. that he was along with the victim on the day of incident. The learned advocate for the prosecution side strongly objected the same and submitted that accused person fled away from his resident after committing the offence and police submitted charge- sheet. The prosecution side able to prove the fact that accused assaulted Shri Ranjit Saikia and injured him. The prosecution side able to prove the fact U/S 341/323/324 of IPC against the accused person. Accused found guilty U/S 341/323/324 of IPC. As accused person wrongfully confined Shri Ranjit Saikia on his way to his residence and the prosecution witnesses proved the fact and hence accused found guilty U/S 341 of IPC.” 6. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court and finds that the same has been so drawn basing on the evidences coming on record during the trial and no infirmity is found therein. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 07.12.2013 would not mandate any interference. Page No.# 5/6 7. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court has also examined the judgment dated 29.04.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Court. 8. The learned Trial Court on a consideration of the evidences coming on record had proceeded to uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Sections 341/323/324 IPC. 9. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court in the matter and on such perusal finds that the conclusions so drawn are based on the evidences coming on record during the trial and no infirmity is found therein. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment dated 29.04.2014 passed by the Appellate Court would not mandate any interference. 10. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, this Court finds that the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 341/323/324 IPC would not mandate any interference. 11. Having upheld the conviction of the petitioner, herein, this Court finds that the offence was committed in the matter by the petitioner, herein, on 25.02.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner, herein, was found to has been pursuing the matter before the learned Trial Court, thereafter, before the learned Appellate Court and presently, in the present criminal revision petition. 12. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein, and also noticing that the petitioner, herein, was not proceeded against for an offence of similar nature either prior to commission of the offence involved in the present proceeding and/or during the pendency of the present proceeding against him and also noticing the fact that the petitioner, herein, has been litigating the matter initially before the learned Trial Court, thereafter, before the Appellate Court and presently, before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is entitled to be extended the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The said benefit being permissible to be granted by this Court in exercise of its Revisional jurisdiction, this Court extends the benefit under the Act of 1958 to the petitioner, herein. Page No.# 6/6 13. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded, hereinabove, the petitioner, herein, is given the benefit under the Act of 1958 and the sentences modified to the effect that instead of sending the petitioner to jail, he should be given the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that the petitioner, herein, will file two sureties to the tune of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand), along with a personal bond before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji and undertake to the effect that the petitioner, herein, shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of 1 (one) year from the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of this order. 15. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 16. 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