Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010131872013 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./398/2013 THAKEN DAS S/O DEBEN DAS R/O VILL- BAMGAON, SILAPATHAR, P.S. DHEMAJI, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B SARMA, MR.D CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 03.11.2025 None appears for the petitioner on call. Heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 03.07.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, in Crl.A.No.35(4)/2012, dismissing the same and thereby upholding the Judgment dated 13.09.2012, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji, in G.R. Case No.568/2011(DMJ), convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 324/34 IPC, and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2(two) years along with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand). 3. The prosecution case in brief is that, one Ganesh Chandra Das, had lodged an FIR on 20.07.2011, against the petitioner, herein, along with Upen Das and Someswar Das, inter alia, alleging therein, that on the night of 19.07.2011, at about 9.30 p.m, the accused persons wrongly restrained his son, Chipendra Das and caused grievous injury on his person by assaulting him with sharp weapon. It was stated in the FIR that on receipt of the information of the incident from one Khageswar Das, the informant had rushed to the place of occurrence and had found his son lying on the road and thereafter had taken his son on a ‘Thela’ Page No.# 3/9 (hand cart) to the Civil Hospital, Dhemaji, for treatment. The police on receipt of the said FIR registered the same as Dhemaji P.S. Case No.220/2011, under Sections 341/324/34 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation in the matter, police laid charge- sheet against the accused persons, including the petitioner, herein, under Sections 341/324/34 IPC. The learned Trial Court on appearance of the accused persons before it, framed a charge against the accused persons including the petitioner, herein, under Sections 341/324/34 IPC, and the same on being read over and explained to the accused persons, they having pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried, a Trial ensued in the matter. During the Trial, the prosecution examined 7(seven) witnesses in support of their case, and thereafter, the accused persons, including the petitioner, herein, were examined under Section 313 CrPC. On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court on appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide Judgment dated 13.09.2012, to convict the accused persons including the petitioner, herein, under Sections 324/34 IPC. The accused persons, including the petitioner, herein, were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2(two) years along with payment of fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) each, in default to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 6(six) months. The convicted accused including the petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by their conviction by the learned Trial Court, assailed the Judgment Page No.# 4/9 dated 13.09.2012, by way of instituting an appeal being Crl.A.No.35(4)/2012, before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji. The Appellate Court, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide Judgment dated 03.07.2013, to uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 324 IPC, however the learned Appellate Court proceeded to acquit the co-accused Upen Das and Someswar Das, from the charge framed against them under Section 324 IPC. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and also perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned Trial Court upon considering the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions; “From perusal and above discussion the PW-4 while he meet all the accused persons and the victim amongst them took hot altercation and he intervened the matter of their dispute and thereafter he left the place. After 20 minutes he saw that the victim (PW-2) rushed from the spot towards the residence of Lila Das and he fell down. Thereafter the matter was informed to the father of PW-4. The PW-5 also saw that the victim was sustained injury over his body by the acts of the accused persons. The evidence of the prosecution side corroborated each other. The evidence of PW-6 corroborated the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4. The other PWs who saw that fresh blood was flowing from the head and ear of the victim and PW-3 and PW-5 took the victim for medical treatment along with the PW-1 i.e. father of the victim The PW-1 got information from the PW-3 about the incident. From the evidence it appeared that there is a Page No.# 5/9 dispute took place in between them which saw the PW-4 and thereafter quarrel took place and as a result, the PW-2 got several injury by the accused persons. The evidence of PW-6 confirmed that fresh blood was seen at the time of examination of the victim i.e. PW-2. Wherein the PW-7 also found that the sufficient evidence at the time of investigating of this case. In regards the alleged charge against the accused U/S-341 of IPC there is no ingredient found that the victim was obstructed by the accused persons while he was returning towards his home. Rather, it is found that all of them took hot altercation in the road which was proved by the PW-4 and the PW-4 intervened the matter while they are doing hot altercation. So, wrongful restrained of the victim does not arise out. To punish upon the section 341/334 of IPC there is no specific evidence and no ingredient to prove by the prosecution side. So U/S-341/34 of IPC accused persons could not be convicted and punished. Regarding section 324/34 of IPC there is sufficient evidence which was proved by the prosecution and corroborated the prosecution evidence. The prosecution side able to prove that there is a incident took place amongst them and the accused Thaken Das assaulted with a sharp weapon towards the victim Chipendra Das and which also corroborated the evidence of PW-6. The prosecution side is able to prove that by the instigation of other two accused persons namely, Shri Upen Das and Shri Someswar Das and with their furtherance intention the accused Thaken Das committed the offence U/S- 324 of IPC along with two others persons who instigate Thaken Das for committing such type of crime. Hence, I found that all the accused persons are committing the offence U/s-324/34 of IPC. The prosecution side is able to prove the fact U/S-324/34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, all the accused persons are convicted U/S 324 IPC.” Basing on the said conclusion, the learned Trial Court sentenced the accused persons including the petitioner, herein, as noticed, hereinabove. Page No.# 6/9 6. The Appeal being instituted before it, the learned Appellate Court, on appreciating the evidences coming on record, drew the following conclusions; “15. On close and careful scrutiny of the evidence on record of the prosecution, it appears that the alleged occurrence took place at night at about 9.30 P.M. and that too under cover of darkness. The accused persons are known to the injured-Chipendra Das. It is evident from the evidence on record of PW2 that all the accused persons waylaid him while he was returning from the house of Khageswar Das doing electrical works and all the accused persons in a pre-arranged plan first assaulted on his person by the accused-Thaken Das on his left side of his head and then by accused-Upen Das. The evidence of PW2 as regards the injury sustained by him' has been supported in the medical evidence of PW6. It is not disputed the fact of sustaining injury by the injured-Chipendra Das. It appears from cross-examination of PW2 by the defence that the alleged injury received by the injured-Chipendra Das was caused by falling. But no evidence has been adduced by the defence to show that the injury sustained by the injured- Chipendra Das was received by falling or dashing against any substance, It appears from the evidence on records of PW-4 and 5 that ultimately after the occurrence the injured-Chipendra Das took shelter in the house of PW5 in an injured condition and disclosed to them stating that the injuries sustained by him were caused by the accused persons. PW4 arrived at the place of occurrence preceding the incident and found while the accused persons were altercating with Chipendra Das and he left the place of occurrence separating the parties and after about 20 minutes Chipendra Das took shelter in the house of PW5 sustaining injury who disclosed to them stating that the accused persons had assaulted on his person. According to PW2 getting information about the occurrence from PW3, Page No.# 7/9 he went to the place of occurrence and found the injured- Chipendra Das sustaining injury on his person. The injured was removed to Hospital for treatment and the injured disclosed to him stating that all the accused persons took part in the occurrence and out of the accused persons, the accused Thaken Das caused him hurt. Accordingly, he lodged the ejahar marked as Ext-1. It is in the evidence of PW3 that hearing alarm of Chipendra Das, he came out from his house and saw some persons were fleeing away from the place of occurrence and found Chipendra Das was lying down sustaining injury on his ear who disclosed to him stating that accused-Thakendra Das, Upen Das and Someswar Das caused him hurt inflicting injuries. It appears to me that PW1,2,3,4 and 5 have put forward a cogent; intact and convincing piece of evidence on the material particulars of the case as regards the fact of involvement of the accused-Thaken Das in causing the injury to the person of Chipendra Das (PW2) by means of sharp cutting weapon or instrument. But the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as regards the fact of participation of accused Upen Das and Someswar Das in causing hurt to the person of Chipendra Das in furtherance of common intention of all in a pre-arranged plan is found discrepance in their evidence on records. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and its totality, I find no ground to discard the testimony of PW2 about causing him hurt over the left side of the ear inflicting a blow by means of any sharp cutting weapon or instrument by the accused-Thaken Das. But participation of other 2 accused namely- Upen Das and Someswar Das in causing hurt to the person of the injured-Chipendra Das cast a doubt. I do not agree with the finding of the learned Court below in convicting the accused Upen Das and Someswar Das u/s 324 of I.P.C.” Basing on the said conclusions, while the petitioner, herein, was convicted under Section 324 IPC, the co-accused Upen Das and Someswar Das were acquitted Page No.# 8/9 from the charge framed against them under Section 324 IPC and their conviction was set aside. 7. This Court has meticulously 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 so drawn basing on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record. The acquittal of the co- accused by the learned Appellate Court also found to be supported by the evidences coming on record. No infirmity has been found by this Court with the conclusions drawn by the Appellate Court in the matter. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 324 IPC by the Appellate Court would not mandate any interference. 9. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court finds that the offence committed by the petitioner, was so committed by him on 19.07.2011. More than 14(fourteen) years have passed since the commission of the offence by the petitioner. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein, and also noticing that the petitioner, herein, has been litigating in the matter for the last about 14(fourteen) years, initially before the Trial Court, thereafter before the Appellate Court and presently before this Court in the present Criminal Revision Petition, this Court is of the considered view that the sentencing of the petitioner, herein, would mandate a modification. 10. In this connection, this Court has perused the provision of Section 324 IPC. The provision of Section 324 IPC, being relevant, the same is extracted hereinbelow:- “324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. —Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for Page No.# 9/9 shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 11. Provision of Section 324 IPC having provided for imposition of alternative punishment, i.e., imprisonment of either description, or with fine, or with both, this Court is of the considered view that considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein, ends of justice would be met by modifying the punishment imposed upon the petitioner to that of only payment of fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court, along with the provision that in default of payment of fine, the petitioner would be required to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6(six) months. Accordingly, the petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court within a period of 2 (months) from today to deposit the fine amount. 12. With the above modification of the sentencing of the petitioner, the present Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. 13. Registry to 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