Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010012802013 2025:GAU-AS:13577 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./453/2013 GONENDRA MOHAN SINGHA S/O GORI MOHAN SINGHA VILL- RONGPUR PT. IV P.S. KATLICERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR Advocate for the petitioner : Mr R A Choudhury. Advocate for the respondent : Mr R J Baruah, Addl. P.P. Assam Date of Judgment : 22.09.2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) (N.Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) Heard Mr R A Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner in the present proceedings has presented a challenge to the Judgment dated 14.06.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2010, dismissing the same, thereby upholding the Page No.# 2/6 conviction and sentencing of the petitioner, herein, under Section 325 IPC, by the learned CJM, Hailakandi, vide Judgment dated 23.03.2010, in GR Case No. 38/2007. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that Digendra Mohan Singha lodged an FIR on 20.01.2007, to the effect that the cattles belonging to the present petitioner and two others had entered into the vegetable garden of the informant, after breaking its fence and had damaged the crops standing thereof. It is further stated in the FIR that the informant had informed the petitioner, herein, and his two sons, Ramendra Singha and Sulon Singha of the incidents, but no credence was given to it by them. The son of the informant, thereafter, chased the cattle from their land. At that time, an altercation occasioned with the son of the informant, herein, and he was threatened with dire consequences by the petitioner and 2 (two) others. Thereafter, it was stated in the FIR that on 15.01.2007, at around 05:30 am, when the son of the informant had gone to visit their vegetable garden, the petitioner, herein, along with two others, armed with iron rod and sticks, had attacked him, but he somehow managed to escape. On hearing the hue and cry, the wife of the informant proceeded to save her son, but she was beaten by the petitioner and two others, causing serious injuries on her person, for which she was required to be admitted initially, at Hailakandi Civil Hospital, and from where she was referred to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar, for further treatment. 3.1. On receipt of the said FIR, Police registered Katlicherra PS Case No. 08/2007, under Sections 325/34 IPC. The Police, on completion of the investigation, laid a charge sheet against the petitioner, herein, and two others under Sections 341/325/34 IPC. Page No.# 3/6 3.2. The learned Trial Court, thereafter, framed a charge against the petitioner, herein, and two others, under Sections 341/325/34 IPC and on the same being read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, and accordingly, a trial ensued. 3.3. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses, in support of their case. Thereafter, the petitioner and two others were examined under Section 313 CrPC. The learned Trial Court, on conclusion of the trial, by appreciating the evidences coming on record, was pleased vide Judgment dated 23.03.2010, to acquit the two co-accused, Ramendra Singha and Sulon Singha, from the charge framed against them. The learned Trial Court basing on the evidence coming on record, proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 325 IPC. On such conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) Only, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one more month. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court, assailed the same before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, by way of instituting an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2010. The learned Appellate Court, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record proceeded vide Judgment dated 14.06.2013, to uphold the conviction of the appellant, herein, however, the sentencing of the appellant was modified and the appellant came to be sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year, for the offence under Section 325 IPC. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 5. The conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court has been closely perused Page No.# 4/6 by this Court. The conclusions as drawn by the learned Trial Court is found to be drawn upon a proper and due appreciation of the evidences coming on record. The conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 325 IPC, in view of the said conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court, is not found to be erroneous by this Court. Further, no infirmity has been so found in the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 325 IPC. 6. This Court has also perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court, vide the Judgment dated 14.06.2013, and this Court finds that the conclusions to be drawn, upon a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record and accordingly, the same would also not mandate any interference by this Court. This Court, having not interfered with the Judgment dated 23.03.2010, passed by the learned Trial Court and Judgment dated 14.06.2013, passed by the Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 325 IPC, stands affirmed. 7. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court notices that the learned Trial Court, while proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, had noticed that the petitioner was dealing in petty business of selling betel nuts and the income received therefrom, he had managed his family. 8. The learned Trial Court also noticed that the petitioner had 3 (three) sons, one of whom was working in Bangalore, as a security guard and the other two were the co-accused in the matter. The appellant was aged about 66 years, at the time of passing of the Judgment dated 23.03.2010, by the learned Trial Court. 9. This Court notices that the commission of offence by the petitioner, herein, Page No.# 5/6 had occasioned on 15.01.2007 and long 18 (eighteen) years have passed since then. The petitioner is presently aged 80 years. This Court also finds that the petitioner has been litigating in the matter in the matter for the last around 18 years, initially before the Trial Court, thereafter, before the Appellate Court, and presently, in the proceedings of the instant revision petition. The learned Trial Court while proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, had not considered extension of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to him. Further, the learned Appellate Court had also not considered the entitlement of the petitioner, herein, for being extended with the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 9.1. This Court has already noticed that the offence was committed by the petitioner on 15.01.2007, and around 18 (eighteen) years have elapsed since then. The petitioner was aged about 66 years on the date, the learned Trial Court had passed the Judgment dated 23.03.2010. This Court, also has noticed that the petitioner, was litigating in the matter for the last 18 years. 10. For the said reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is entitled to be extended with the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 10.1. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the petitioner is given benefit under the Act of 1958, and the sentence is modified to the effect that instead of sending the petitioner to jail, he should be given the benefit of the Act of 1958. However, the sentencing towards payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) Only, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one more month, as passed by the learned Trial Court, is not interfered with and the petitioner is required to pay the same. Page No.# 6/6 11. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner, herein, will file 2 (two) sureties to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) Only each, along with a personal bond before the learned trial Court, and undertake to the effect that the petitioner 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 3 (three) months from today. The petitioner shall also, along with submission of the bond, deposit the fine amount, as directed, hereinabove. 12. With the above observations and directions, the present revision petition stands disposed of. 13. Send down the records to the learned trial Court, along with a copy of this Judgment and Order, for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant