Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010184942014 2025:GAU-AS:14327 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./143/2014 MD. AMZED ALI S/O LT. ALI MOHAMAD R/O FETABASTI VILLAGE P.O. DERGAON P.S. DERGAON, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B BORA, MR.A BARUA,MR.A BHATTACHARYA,MR.T J MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 16/10/2025 Heard Mr. A Barua, 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 by the petitioner, herein, assailing the judgment and order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Crl. A. No. 19/2013, dismissing the same and thereby, upholding the conviction Page No.# 2/5 of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, vide judgment dated 04.06.2013 in G.R. Case No. 1273/2012 under Sections 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months with fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 2 (two) more months. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Intaj Ali lodged an FIR on 26.08.2012, before the Officer-in-Charge, Dergaon Police Station, inter-alia, stating therein that on 25.08.2012 at about 11:00 AM, while the brother of the informant, Mustam Ali was busy in Nahardunga Tea Estate, engaging his labourers in some works, the accused person had assaulted him with dao and lathi, as a result Mustam Ali suffered injuries and requiring medical attention. It was stated that the injured was taken to Dergaon CHC and thereafter, he was referred to Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, for treatment. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered Dergaon P.S. Case No. 276/2012 under Sections 457/326 IPC against the petitioner, herein, and on conclusion of the investigation in the matter, charge-sheet under Sections 447/324 IPC came to be laid against the petitioner, herein. The learned Trial Court upon considering the materials available on record framed a charge under Sections 447/324 IPC against the petitioner, herein and the same on being read over and explained to him, he having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued in the matter. During the trial, the prosecution examined 7 (seven) witnesses and thereafter, the petitioner, herein, was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment and order dated 04.06.2013 to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him, as noticed, hereinabove. The petitioner, being aggrieved, had assailed his conviction by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 04.06.2013 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. A. No. 19/2013. The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record during the trial, was pleased vide judgment and Page No.# 3/5 order dated 01.03.2014 to dismiss the said appeal, thereby, upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, 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 vide judgment dated 04.06.2013 on appreciating of the evidences coming on record was pleased to hold that the petitioner, herein, had assaulted and injured the victim Mustam Ali with a dao, causing injuries on his head and the same was held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner, herein, for commission of an offence under Section 324 IPC. However, the charge framed against the petitioner, herein, under Section 447 IPC was found to have been not established and accordingly, the petitioner, herein, was acquitted, therefrom. 6. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court in the matter and finds that the same has been so drawn basing on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record during the trial and no infirmity has been found thereon. Accordingly, the judgment dated 04.06.2013 would not mandate any interference. 7. This Court has also examined the judgment and order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Court in the matter. 8. On a perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court in the matter, this Court finds that the same has been so drawn basing on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record during the trial and no infirmity therein has been found. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Court would not mandate any interference. 9. In view of the above conclusions, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 324 IPC is upheld. This Court notices that the learned Trial Court while proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, had noticed the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, however, the benefit thereunder was denied to the petitioner only on noticing the Page No.# 4/5 nature of the offence committed by him in the matter. 10. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning after the commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein, and also considering the fact that the petitioner, herein, was not proceeded against for an offence of similar nature either prior to commission of offence involved in the present proceeding and/or during the pendency of the proceedings against him, and further noticing 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 in the present revision petition, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is entitled to be extended the benefits 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. 11. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded, hereinabove, the petitioner, herein, is given the benefit under the Act of 1958 and the sentence stands 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. 12. This Court has only modified the sentencing with regard to imprisonment of the petitioner, herein, and the fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court not having been interfered with, the petitioner, herein, would be liable to deposit the fine amount. 13. 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, Golaghat 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, along with the deposit of the fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 04.06.2013. 14. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 15. 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