Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010006492014 2025:GAU-AS:13774 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./71/2014 BIJU MAHANTA S/O LT. LOHIT MAHANTA, R/O BALUGADA, BIKASHPUR, P.S. and DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM - Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R S MISHRA, MR.K BARUAH,MR.A K GUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 13/10/2025 Heard Mr. A K Gupta, 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 assailing the judgment and order Page No.# 2/6 dated 20.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Crl. A. No. 28(2)/2013, affirming the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 323 IPC by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2013, however, modifying the sentencing to that of Simple Imprisonment for 2 (two) months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand), in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 1 (one) month. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Smti. Moni Borah lodged an FIR before the Officer- in-Charge of Tinsukia Police Station, inter-alia, alleging, therein, that on 28.11.2009, her husband Sunil Borah had gone to the house of one Salim for Eid Feast. It was alleged that on that day at around 8:00 PM, when her husband had gone to the house of Salim for the Eid Feast, she was informed that her husband was grieviously injured by one Biju Mahanta on his head and face and was lying in Civil Hospital, Tinsukia. It was further stated that when she had gone to the hospital, she found her husband in an injured condition. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case being Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 782/2009 under Section 325 IPC. On completion of the investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet in the matter under Section 323 IPC. The accused petitioner on entering appearance before the Court, a charge under Section 323 IPC came to be framed against him and the same on being explained and read over to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued. During the trial, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses. 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 its judgment dated 31.05.2013 to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 323 IPC. On his conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) for the offence, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 1 (one) month. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court, assailed the judgment dated 31.05.2013 before the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. A. No. 28(2)/2013. The Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment dated 20.01.2014 to uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 323 IPC. However, the sentencing of the petitioner, herein, was modified and he was Page No.# 3/6 directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 (two) months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for further 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 323 IPC. 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, on considering the allegations leveled against the petitioner, herein, had framed an issue as to whether the petitioner, herein, on 28.11.2009 had at about 8:00 P.M. voluntarily caused hurt to the husband of the informant, Sunil Borah, as alleged. The learned Trial Court, thereafter, on examining the evidences coming on record, proceeded to draw the following conclusions:- “11. After careful scrutiny of the entire evidences on record, it has come to surface that 28.11.2009, at about 8.00 P.M., the informant/victim went to the house of one Salim along with his friend Sukamal Das to eat ‘Idd’. In the said house, the accused person and his two other friend were there. Out of enmity and rivalry with the brother of the victim, the accused reprimanding him which resulted the occurrence. Initially, the accused caught his shirt out of anger then his other associates were trying to prevent them from quarrel. A moment later, the accused hit on his head drom behind with a bottle and thereby, caused injuries. From the head injury caused by the accused there was profuse bleeding and the victim became unconscious. Subsequently, he regain his consciousness in the Civil Hospital where three numbers of stitching were done by the doctor. As per the advice of the doctor, C.T. Scanning of the victim was done in Aditya Diagnosis Centre at Tinsukia. This fact has been corroborated by the informant as well as the victim. To the extent of injury, the medical testimony unambiguously revealed that the victim, Sunil Bora had injuries : 1/ Selling over scalp left front of parietal region 2/ Laceration over scalp right parietal region. The said injuries were simple, fresh and caused by blunt weapon. There is no inconsistency or distortion of the facts as emerged out in the evidences on record and thus I find the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses is trustworthy and reliable in absence of impeachment on the credibility’s of the prosecution witnesses. Though the Ld. Defence counsel agitated that there is glaring contractions in the evidences on record but I found absolutely nothing which could be assessed as material discrepancies to vitiate the prosecution case. Page No.# 4/6 12. It is pertinent to mention that to constitute the offence under Section 323 IPC, the following ingredients are required to be proved: (1) The accused actually caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant, (2) The accused did so with the intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that hurt was likely to be caused. The term ‘voluntarily’ means when someone causes by means whereby, he intended to cause it, or by means by which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. In the present case, the medical testimonies reveals that the victim sustained injuries of swelling and laceration over scalp right parietal region. Prior to the occurrence, the accused abusing and reprimanding the brother of the victim establishes the criminal intention i.e., mens-reas. Though the occurrence took place at the hit of moment, the accused knew and had knowledge that hurt was likely to be caused and he did so by assaulted with a bottle on the head of victim. There is no iota of doubt or impeachment on the credibility’s of the prosecution witnesses which I find trustworthy and reliable. The defence counsel had failed to shake the credibility’s of prosecution witness. Thus, this Court find no escape to conclude that the accused persons on 28.11.2009 at about 8.00 p.m. voluntarily caused hurt to the husband of the informant, Sri Sunil Bora. 6. Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for further 1 (one) month. 7. The Appellate Court vide its judgment and order dated 20.01.2014, upon re-appreciating the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions:- 7. On the basis of the evidence on record, specially the evidence of PW1 and PW3, I am of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in law and facts in coming to finding of guilty of the appellant u/s 323 IPC. The testimony of PW1 and PW3 is consistent and reliable. At this stage, I may refer to the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the testimony of an injured eye witness has considerable evidentiary value and can be relied upon for basing a conviction, if such evidence is found to be otherwise trustworthy. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has not considered the question of the probation. However, upon perusal of Paragraph-13 of the Page No.# 5/6 judgment, I find that the learned Trial Court has held that this was not a fit case to grant a benefit of probation as the appellant has assaulted the victim in a dangerous manner. 8. Basing on the said conclusions, the Appellate Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner, herein. However, the sentencing was reduced as noticed hereinabove. 9. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds that the evidence adduced by the victim, Sunil Borah as PW3 finds corroboration from the evidence adduced by the Doctor as PW1. The fact that the petitioner, herein, had assaulted the victim voluntarily stands established and the ingredients of Section 323 IPC was established by the prosecution against the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court would not mandate any interference. 10. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court finds that the Appellate Court had considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and on a proper and due examination of the evidences coming on record, had proceeded to uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, imposed by the learned Trial Court. This Court on perusal of the conclusions so drawn by the learned Appellate Court does not find any infirmity therein. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Court would not mandate any interference. 11. Having drawn the above conclusions, also considering the fact that the incident involved in the present proceeding had so occasioned on 28.11.2009, this Court is of the opinion that a lenient view with regard to the sentencing of the accused petitioner, herein, is required to be taken. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 323 IPC, this Court on a perusal of the provisions of Section 323 IPC, having noticed that the punishment as prescribed therein being imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 1 (one) year, or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both, is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the sentencing of the petitioner, herein, is modified and limited to that of payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 323 IPC. 12. Accordingly, the sentencing of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Appellate Court stands modified and the petitioner is sentenced for the offence under Section 323 IPC to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month. 13. With the above modification with regard to the sentencing of the petitioner, herein, the Page No.# 6/6 present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 14. Registry to send down the records to the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant