Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010009342014 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./189/2014 AMINUR ISLAM @ AMINUR HOQUE S/O MD BOKKAR ALI R/O VILL- BASHBARI GAON P.S. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR 2:BAZALUL BASID AHMED S/O LT. SORPAT ALI R/O VILL- BASHBARI GAON P.S. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ALAM, MR.M S ALAM,MS.A BEGUM,MR.I H LASKAR,MR.P K DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM,, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 17-10-2025 Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State/ respondent. Page No.# 2/6 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 18-05-2013, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Crl. Appeal No. 1(1)/2007, dismissing the same and thereby upholding the judgment dated 05-12-2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri in G.R. (GPR P.S.) Case No.204/2004, convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 (one) month and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Bazlul Basid Ahmed had lodged an FIR on 01-11-2004 before the Officer-in-Charge, Gauripur Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on 30-10-2004 at 10:00 a.m., the petitioner and 02 (two) other persons had assaulted his father, namely, Sarpat Ali with lathi, fala and dagger, while his father was coming back from the paddy field. The police on receipt of the said FIR, registered Gauripur P.S. Case No. 204/2004 under Section 341/ 325/ 34 IPC. The learned Trial Court on considering the materials available on record framed charge against the petitioner, herein, and the other accused persons under Section 341/ 325/ 34 IPC and the same on being read over and explained to them, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued in the matter. During the trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 05-12-2006, proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 (one) month and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days. The other co-accused persons Abdul Mannaf and Boktar Ali came to be acquitted from the Page No.# 3/6 charge so framed against them under Section 325/ 34 IPC. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved with his conviction by the learned Trial Court, assailed the judgment dated 05- 12-2006, before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 1(1)/2007. The Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment dated 18-05-2013 to dismiss the same and thereby upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusion:- “28. A careful perusal of the whole case record, it appears that immediately after the incident, PW-2, the injured was removed to civil hospital on that very day and Dr. R.K. Mohato, who was then on duty had treated him. There is nothing on record to show that Dr. Mohato had no reason to act in a partial or unfair manner wither to the prosecution or to the defence. The injuries on the person of Md. Sarpat Ali was soon first in point of time by Dr. R.K. Mohato and he opined in his report that after consulting X-Ray, fracture of upper end of fuma with displacement was detected and therefore, he was competent to opine whether or not the injury of Md. Satpat Ali are simple or grievous in nature. PW-7 Dr. R.K. Mohato deposed before the Court that the injury of the victim was grievous, fresh and caused by blunt weapon. Despite the eye-witnesses, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, clearly stated that the accused attacked PW.2 by means of a lathi. So, in view of the positive evidence of Dr. R.K. Mohato, corroborated with the direct evidence of the victim and other eye-witnesses, I am bound to hold that the victim sustained a grievous injury as fracture or dislocation of bone is considered as grievous within the definition of U/S. 320(7) of the I.P.C. 29). A careful perusal of the whole case record, it appears that the prosecution has categorically fails to prove at the accused persons in furtherance of Page No.# 4/6 their common intention wrongfully restrained Md. Sarpat Ali at the relevant time. As such, they are all acquitted from the alleged charge U/S 341/34 of the I.P.C. 30) Now the question has arised who has particularly assailed the victim. In the F.I.R., the Complainant stated that all were in common intention assaulted Md. Salpat Ali. On the other hand, PW-1, in Court stated that at the relevant time, he seen accused Aminur Islam assaulted his father by means of a lathi. Pw.2 Md. Sarpat Ali, the alleged victim stated that at the relevant time, accused assaulted him by means of lathi. PW-3 also stated that he seen accused assaulted Sarpat Ali. The another eye-witnesses PW.4 and PW.5 deposed that at the relevant time, accused Aminur Islam assaulted Sarpat Ali by means of a lathi. None of the witnesses indicates specifically accused Abdul Mannaf Ali and Boktar Ali in any of the alleged charge in their evidence. 31) Under the aforesaid circumstances, accused Abdul Mannaf and Boktar Ali are acquitted from the alleged charge U/s. 325/34 of the I.P.C. But considering the materials of the record, it is axiomatic that prosecution has able to prove that at the relevant time, accused Aminur Islam has assaulted Md. Serpat Ali by means of a lathi, causing him grievous injury beyond all shadow of doubt. As such, he is held guilty for charge U/s.325 of the I.P.C.” 5. On drawing the said conclusion, the learned Trial Court sentenced the petitioner, herein, as follows:- “Having regard to the age, antecedents and circumstances, leading to commission of the crime and the degree of injury of the victim, I sentenced accused Aminur Islam for R.I. of 1(One) month and a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand), in default to suffer further R.I. for 15(Fifteen) days.” 6. The appeal being preferred, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18-05-2013 had drawn the following conclusions:- “The clinching evidence on record is that the appellant at that relevant time & place voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Sarpot Ali-the injured causing fracture on the left leg by a lathi-a blunt object. In cross-examination, the testimony of all witnesses has been remained unshaken and unimpeached except putting some suggestions and irrelevant matters. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial court are appearing to be sound in law.” Page No.# 5/6 7. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court and on perusal of the same in the light of the evidences coming on record, this Court finds that the conclusions were so drawn on due and proper evidences coming on record and no infirmity is found therein. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 325 IPC would not mandate any interference. 8. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court finds that the offence involved in the matter was committed on 31-10-2004 and around 21 years have passed since the date of commission of the offence. This Court also notices that the petitioner, herein, was litigating in the matter for the last around 21 years, initially before the learned Trial Court, thereafter, before the learned Appellate Court and presently before this Court in the present criminal revision petition. Further it has not been brought on record that the petitioner was involved in commission of offence similar in nature either prior to 30-10- 2004 and/ or thereafter. As such, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, herein, is entitled to be extended with the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The said benefit being permissible to be extended by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, this Court directs that the petitioner, herein, be not required to undergo the sentence of imprisonment and he be extended the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This Court has, however, not interfered with the punishment of payment of fine as imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 05-12-2006 and the petitioner would now be required to deposit the same. 9. As such, it is directed that the petitioner, herein, will file 02 (two) sureties to the Page No.# 6/6 tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, along with a personal bond before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri and undertake to the effect that the petitioner 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 petitioner within a period of 03 (three) months from today, along with deposit of the fine amount as awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri within a period of 01 (one) month from today. 10. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 11. Registry to send back the TCR forthwith along with a copy of the present order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant