Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010233302013 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./12/2013 PUNIRAM DAS and 4 ORS S/O LT. CHENGELI DAS 2: SRI PRABIN DAS S/O LT. LIKHESWAR DAS 3: SRI JOGESH DAS @ JOGESWAR DAS S/O AKONMAN DAS 4: SRI GOKUL CH DAS S/O SRI PUNIRAM DAS 5: SRI LUKAN DAS S/O LT. LIKHESWAR DAS ALL ARE R/O KHUTIAPUTA GAON UNDER JORHAT P.S. IN THE DIST. OF JORHAT ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P CHOUDHURY, MR. K SAIKIA,MR.D TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, , Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 04.11.2025 Heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Respondent. 2. The present revision petition has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 10.10.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Criminal Appeal No.2/2006, dismissing the same and thereby upholding the Judgment dated 06.12.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Jorhat, in G.R. Case No.658/2004, convicting the petitioners, herein, under Sections 143/323/324 IPC and sentencing them accordingly. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Bhuluk Das, on 30.09.2004, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Jorhat Police Station, inter alia, alleging, therein, that on 29.09.2004, at about 9.00 p.m, the petitioner no.1, herein, had woken up the victim Bhola Das i.e. the father of the informant and in response, victim had come out from his residence and the petitioner no.1 along with the other petitioners had assaulted him with sharp cutting weapon. On hearing the shout of the victim, his youngest son had come out and when he approached near his father, i.e. the victim, he was also Page No.# 3/8 assaulted by the petitioners, herein, with sharp cutting weapon as well as by blunt weapon like rod, bamboo piece, etc. It was further alleged in the FIR that on hearing the scream of Bhula, the father and the brother of the informant, other inmates of the house namely Madhukali Das, Aruna Das, had also come out from their residence but they were also assaulted by the petitioners, herein. It was further stated that Bulu Das was assaulted by the petitioner no.2, herein, and after the commission of the offence, the petitioners, herein, except the petitioner no.2 fled away from the place of occurrence and the petitioner no.2 was apprehended while he fell down in a pond. The police on receipt of the said FIR registered the same as Jorhat P.S. Case No.288/2004 under Sections 143/324/325 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, police laid a charge- sheet under Sections 143/323/324 IPC against the petitioners, herein. The learned Trial Court also framed a charge against the petitioners, herein, under Sections 143/323/324 IPC. The charges on being read over and explained to the petitioners, herein, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a Trial ensued. During the Trial, the prosecution examined 11(eleven) witnesses and thereafter the petitioners, herein, also examined 7(seven) witnesses on their behalf. On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide Judgment dated 06.12.2005, to convict the petitioners, herein, Page No.# 4/8 under Sections 143/323/324 IPC, and sentenced them accordingly. Being aggrieved by their conviction, by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners assailed the Judgment dated 06.12.2005, before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, by way of instituting an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.02/2006. The Appellate Court upon examining the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide Judgment dated 10.10.2012, to dismiss the said appeal and thereby uphold the conviction and sentencing of the petitioners, herein, by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved the petitioners, herein, have instituted the present proceedings. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials coming on record. 5. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded to draw the following conclusions; “47. Thus, from the above appraisal, appreciation of evidence on record and application of law, it appears that the prosecution has been able to establish that on 29.9.04 at about 9 P.M all the accused persons assaulted Shri Bhula Das, Shri Bulen Das, Smti. Aruna das and Smti. Madhukali Das at Khutiaputa gaon under Jorhat police station by sharp cutting weapon like dao and blunt object like lathi. The active participation of all the five accused persons with the occurrence of assault clearly indicates that they had the common object to cause hurt on the person of the family members of the informant, all of the accused persons had the knowledge that they constituted an unlawful assembly and intentionally joined and continued in the unlawful assembly, with the common object of causing hurt they used violence against Sri Page No.# 5/8 Bhula Das, Shri Bulen Das, Smti. Aruna Das, Smti. Madhukali Das and others and thereby caused multiple incised wound and contusion by sharp cutting as well as blunt object, Accordingly, all the points are decided in favour of the prosecution. Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Trial Court, convicted the petitioners, under Section 143/323/324 IPC and sentenced them as follows; “ 51. Accordingly, each accused person is sentenced to undergo S.I imprisonment for a period of three (3) months U/S 324 IPC, sentenced to pay a fine of is. 100/-(Rupees one hundred) U/S 323 IPC, Rs. 50/-(Rupees fifty) U/S 143 IPC, in default simple imprisonment for one(1) month U/S 323 IPC and another fifteen (15) days U/S 143 IPC respectively.” 6. The learned Appellate Court on the appeal being instituted before it, on appreciation of the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide Judgment dated 10.10.2012, to draw the following conclusions; “37). On the other hand, the cogent and trustworthy evidence of all the injured, informant established the fact that accused Prabin who was also one of the assailant fell into the pond while tried to flee away after the occurrence and he was apprehended by informant and kept inside their house till arrival of police. The injury sustained by Prabin as disclosed by the defence witness regarding which the investigating officer also admitted is definitely due to the fall on the pond while he tried to flee away from the place of occurrence. This injury on the person of one of the accused namely Prabin Das is for the above probable reason due to the fall in the pond cannot negate the cogent and reliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 38). From the above discussion it appears that the prosecution has established that on 29-09-2004 at about 9 p.m. all the accused persons being armed with lethal weapon entered into the compound of the informant and then actively participated in causing assault upon Sri Bhola Das, Sri Bulen Das, Smt. Aruna Page No.# 6/8 Das, Smt. Madhukali Das and Sri Bulu Das by both sharp cutting and blunt weapon. From their appearance together at the night of occurrence with lethal weapon at the place of occurrence and their participation in causing the assault to the injured shows that they had the common object to cause hurt upon the injured person both by sharp cutting and blunt weapon and that they formed an unlawful assembly with that purpose. 39). The injured Smt. Aruna Das, Smt. Madhukali Das and Sri Bhola Das sustained simple, sharp cut injury on their person and injured Sri Bulen Das and Sri Bulu Das sustained simple injury by blunt object. Prosecution has well established a case u/Ss. 143/323/324 of IPC against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. I find nothing to interfere with the conviction recorded by the learned trial.” Basing on the said conclusions, the appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. 7. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court in the light of the evidences coming on record and this Court finds that the conclusions were drawn on a proper and due appreciation of the evidences coming on record and no infirmity has been found, therein. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the petitioners, herein, under Sections 143/323/324 IPC would not mandate any interference. 9. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court notices that the offence involved was committed by the petitioners, herein, on 29.09.2004, more than 21(twenty one) years have lapsed since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioners, herein. The materials brought on record does not disclose that the petitioners, herein, were involved in commission of offence Page No.# 7/8 of similar nature prior to 29.09.2004, and/or thereafter. This Court also notices that the petitioners, herein, have been litigating in the matter for the last 21(twenty one) years, initially before the learned Trial Court thereafter before the learned Appellate Court and presently before this Court in the present criminal revision petition. 10. The learned Trial Court while proceeding to convict the petitioners, herein, had noticed the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act of 1958, but the benefit, thereunder, was denied to be extended to the petitioners, herein, by noticing the nature of the offence committed by them in the matter, this Court in view of the long delay occasioning since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioners, herein, is of the considered view that they are entitled to be extended with the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 11. 11. Accordingly, for the reasons noticed, hereinabove, this Court while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners, herein, holds that it is a fit case wherein the petitioners, herein, are 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 petitioners to jail, they be given the benefit under Section 4 of the Act of 1958. This Court having only modified the sentencing with regard to imprisonment of the petitioners, herein, and the fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court, not having been interfered with, the petitioners, herein, would be liable to deposit the fine amount. Page No.# 8/8 12. In view of the above discussions, it is directed that the petitioners, 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 petitioners 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 petitioners within a period of 2(two) months from today, along with the deposit of the fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Jorhat, vide the Judgment dated 06.12.2005, in default of depositing the fine amount, the petitioners to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months. 13. With the above observations and directions, the present Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. 14. Send down the records of the case to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant