Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010008692013 2025:GAU-AS:12959 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./281/2013 MADAN TIWARI S/O SRI SHIV SHANKAR TIWARI VILL and P.O. BARISWAN, MOHALLA 3 PATTI, VIA- SHAHPUR PATTI DIST. BHOJPUR, BIHAR-802165. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A SATTAR, MR.Z MUKIT,MR.F SATTAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR.J K PARAJULI,MR.Z ALAM,MR.D M NATH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 17-09-2025 Heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel along with Ms. S. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. Assam, appearing for the State respondent, as well as Mr. Z. Alam, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2/ Informant. Page No.# 2/10 2. The present Revision Petition has been instituted under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C., assailing the Judgment dated 10-06-2013 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) in Crl. Appeal No. 07/2012, upholding the Judgment and Order dated 06-01-2012, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, in GR Case No. 3148/2007, convicting the accused/petitioner under Section 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 03 (three) months. 3. The prosecution case in brief is to the effect that on 28-08-2007, the Respondent No. 2, herein, as Informant had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Bharalumukh Police Station, alleging therein that on 17-08-2007 when he had gone to Machkhowa vegetable market, and parked his vehicle (Wagon R) near the market, where there were already two cars parked and there was no “No Parking” signboard, after sometime when he had returned back to his car, the petitioner, herein, who was a CRPF personnel accosted him and had charged him rudely and had asked him as to why he had parked his vehicle there. It was further projected in the FIR that the Respondent No. 2, had replied that as there were two cars already parked just ahead of him. The Respondent No. 2, herein, was required by the petitioner, to move his car away from the place and it was alleged that as the Respondent No. 2 got into his car to move the same, the petitioner, herein, had pulled him out of his car and started to beat him with a stick. It was alleged that due to the assault made on him, by the petitioner, herein, the Respondent No. 2, suffered injuries and blood was oozing out from his left arm. It was further stated that at the moment two Assistant Commandants of CRPF, had came there and had taken the Respondent No. 2, in their van to the Police Hospital, Panbazar, Page No.# 3/10 wherein the Respondent No. 2 was given first aid and taken to MMCH, Guwahati for a X-ray. The X-ray had revealed fracture of the left forearm of the Respondent No. 2. It is stated in the FIR that the Respondent No. 2 had taken treatment at the Base Hospital, CRPF from an Orthopaedic Surgeon. On receipt of the said FIR, Panbazar P.S. Case No. 309/2007, came to be registered under Section 341/325 IPC. It is to be noted that the said FIR was thereafter transferred to the Bharalumukh Police Station and Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 203/2007 came to be registered under Section 341/325 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, the police had laid the charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Section 341/324 IPC. On the petitioner appearing in the proceedings, a charge under Section 341/ 325 IPC came to be framed against him by the learned Trial Court and the charge on being read over and explained to the petitioner, he having pleaded not guilty and demanded to be tried, a trial ensued in the matter. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 07 (seven) prosecution witnesses, thereafter, the statement of the petitioner, herein, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court on appreciating the evidence coming on record, proceeded vide Judgment dated 06-01-2012 to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year along with fine of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand), in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further 03 (three) months. The petitioner being aggrieved by his conviction, assailed the judgment and order dated 06-01-2012, by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 07/2012, before the Page No.# 4/10 learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup. The case was thereafter transferred to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup(M) for disposal. The Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidence coming on record as well as the conclusions reached in the matter by the Trial Court was pleased vide Judgment dated 10-06-2013, to dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 06-01-2012. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for the appellant by taking this Court through the evidences coming on record, including the statement of the petitioner, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the learned Trial Court, submits that the evidence coming on record does not establish the offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 325 IPC. He submits that the independent witnesses who were examined in the matter had not disclosed of having seen the petitioner, herein, assaulting the Respondent No. 2. 5. Mr. Sattar, by referring to the deposition of the Respondent No. 2, as PW-1, during the trial has submitted that his deposition had brought on record that there were other material witnesses who were required to be examined in the matter by the prosecution. However, the prosecution had failed to examine the material witnesses, which had resulted in the case of the prosecution to be rendered unbelievable. Mr. Sattar has submitted that although the deposition of the Respondent No. 2 during the trial had brought on record the fact that at the relevant point of time he was accompanied by a house help and further that he was provided treatment at the Base Hospital, CRPF, the house help and the Doctors examining him in the said hospital, were not examined as witnesses during the trial by the prosecution and Page No.# 5/10 withholding the material witnesses, by the prosecution has the effect of casting an aspersion and doubt upon the case projected by the prosecution in the matter. 6. Mr. Sattar has submitted that the medical report (Exhibit-2) tendered in evidence by the PW-4 was devoid of any material particulars rendering the same unreliable. 7. Mr. Sattar has further submitted that the case was initially registered basing on the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2, herein, with the Panbazar Police Station, although the place of occurrence admittedly was beyond the jurisdiction of the said Police Station. He submits that although the case was thereafter, transferred to the Bharalumukh Police Station, no investigation was carried out by the Bharalumukh Police Station and the charge-sheet was filed in the matter basing on the materials brought on record initially by the Investigating Officer of Panbazar Police Station. However, he submits that the said matter although urged before the learned Trial Court as well as before the learned Appellate Court, the same was ignored by the learned courts and the impugned judgments came to be passed in the matter. 8. In the above premises, Mr. Sattar submits that the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court to be not maintainable and this Court would be pleased to interfere with the same. He also submits that the learned Appellate Court having not considered the issues urged before it, the decision of the learned Appellate Court would also mandate an interference by this Court. 9. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State has submitted that the evidence adduced in the matter by the Respondent No. 2 as PW-1 is reliable. He submits that the occasioning of the incident being corroborated by the other witnesses, more particularly, PWs- 2, 3 & 5 who were independent witnesses, the conviction of the petitioner, Page No.# 6/10 herein, by the learned Trial Court would not mandate an interference. 10. Mr. Baruah further submits that the Medical Officer PW-4 during his deposition had brought on record the injuries suffered by the Respondent No. 2, herein. He submits that the said evidence without any ambiguity reflects the injuries suffered by the Respondent No. 2 and non-examination of the other Doctors subsequently treating the petitioner, herein, is not fatal and reliance can be placed upon the evidence adduced in the matter by the PW-4. 11. He submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had appreciated the evidences coming on record in its proper prospective and thereafter had drawn its due conclusion in the matter. He submits that neither the judgment and order 06-01-2012 passed by the learned Trial Court nor the judgment and order dated 10-06-2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court would mandate an interference from this Court. 12. I have heard the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 13. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, had drawn the following conclusions: “11. I, therefore, find nothing for which the evidence of the Informant/ victim can be disbelieved. The only point raised by the defence is non-examination of the domestic help of the Informant/ victim and the CRPF Officers. Since the allegation is against a CRPF personal who took the law in his hand to punish the Informant, it is unnatural that the other Officials of the said force would adduce any evidence in this case. Reside I find that firstly the case was registered under Panbazar P.S. and a part of the investigation was done by the I/O of Fancy Bazar Police O.P. Subsequently the case was transferred to Bharalumukh P.S. since the place of occurrence falls under the jurisdiction of the said P.S. The I/O of Bharalumukh P.S. did not examine any other witness and on perusal of the evidence recorded by the 1/0 of Fancy Bazar Police O.P. he submitted the charge-sheet. Merely because, the I.O. failed to examine the domestic help of the victim as a witness, I do not find any reason why the entire prosecution case is to be disbelieved. There is also no abnormality in forgetting the name of that particular domestic help by the Informant/victim after long two/three Page No.# 7/10 years. What the law requires is that the evidence of the Informant/ victim is to be scrutinized properly. 12. Here in the present case in hand, the ocular testimony of the Informant/victim gets full corroboration from the testimony of Dr. S.N. Choudhury, P.W.4, who was the Deputy Superintendent of MMCH on 17.8.07 and on that day he examined the victim/ Informant at about 12.20 at noon and found the following injuries: (I) Multiple contusion on the left arm in its lateral aspect over an area of 10cm X 5cm. (II) Contusion on the left forearm in its lower third, size 5cm X 2cm long with a laceration of 1cm X .5cm X.5cm on the lower third of the forearm. He further added that the X-ray report of the left arm of the victim reveals fracture of both the bones of left forearm. According to the M/O, the injury No.(I) was simple and injury No.(II) was grievous and both the injures were caused by hard blunt object. It is evident from the testimony of the Informant/victim that he was taken to the said hospital by the two Asstt. Commandants of the CRPF. The report of the doctor (Ext.2), as well as, the evidence of the doctor also reveals the same fact. Hence I do not find any ground to discard or disbelieve his evidence, merely because he was not taken to the hospital by the I.O. The evidence of the doctor makes it abundantly clear that there was fracture of both the bones of the left arm of the victim. Section 320 of the IPC defines the kinds of hurt which can be designated as "grievous". Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth falls under the seventh category. I, therefore, have no hesitation in mind that the injury No (II) sustained by the Informant/victim was grievous. 13. In view of the evidence of the victim, duly corroborated by the Medical evidence, I find that there is no room for any doubt about the guilt of the accused person in causing grievous hurt to the victim/Informant. However, there is no evidence of any wrongful restrain.” 14. Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 325 IPC. On convicting the petitioner under Section 325 IPC, the learned Trial Court had considered the sentencing of the petitioner, herein, as follows; “15. The convict committed the offence while he was on duty and he was on uniform of C.R.P.F. personnel. Duty of a para military force is to protect the life and property of the citizen, not to take the law in his own hand. But in spite of that, the accused person let loose his power and by taking the law in his hand, he had beaten Page No.# 8/10 the victim brutally, causing grievous hurt to him. I, therefore, find that it is not a fit case where the convict can be considered for extending the benefit of the provisions of Probation of the Offenders Act or section 360 Cr.P.C. 16. Heard the convict on the point of sentence and his statement is recorded in separate sheets. The convict in his statement once again pleaded his innocence and also sought clemency. He submitted that he is a service man and if he is sentenced to imprisonment, he will lose his job and his family will suffer a lot. 17. While considering these mitigating circumstances, I am also to keep in view the aggravating circumstances. The way, the convict by using the opportunity of his uniform and the arms given to him as a member of C.R.P.F., took the law in his own hand to punish a civilian and inflicted grievous injuries to the said person, I do not find it a fit case where the convict can be shown complete leniency. The convict is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand), i/d, to R.I. for another 3 months. Set off the previous period of detention of the accused from the total period of conviction. Furnish free copy of judgement to the accused immediately.” 15. The Judgment dated 06-01-2012 on being assailed before the learned appellate court, the Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidence coming on record was placed to dismiss the appeal vide Judgment dated 10-06-2013. A perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court would go to reveal that no infirmity is found to exist, therein. The conclusions drawn by the Appellate Court is found to be based on a due and proper appreciation of evidences coming on record. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the Judgment dated 06-01-2012, passed by the learned Trial Court and the Judgment dated 10-06-2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court would not mandate any interference and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 325 IPC is maintained. 16. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court notices that the learned Trial Court vide Judgement dated 06-01-2012, while proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, had noticed the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as well as the provision under Section 360 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, noticing the nature of offence committed by the petitioner had refused to extend to him the benefit there-under. The learned Appellate Court vide its Page No.# 9/10 judgment dated 10-06-2013 had not considered the matter for extension of benefits under the Act of 1958 to the petitioner, herein. 17. The provisions of the Act of 1958 is mandatory and required to be considered by the court, however, the court may not extend the benefit to the accused in the given facts of the case. However, a due and proper consideration of the provision of the Act of 1958 is mandatory and required to be made. 18. This Court notices that the incident alleged against the petitioner, herein, had occasioned on 17-08-2007 and more than 18 years have lapsed since the date of incident. The materials brought on record does not reveal that the petitioner, herein, was also alleged to have been committed offences of similar nature prior to the commission of offence as involved in the present proceedings and/ or of having committed a similar offence during the pendency of the proceedings after the FIR in the matter was lodged against him by the Respondent No. 2. The learned Trial Court had refused to extend the benefit of the Act of 1958 by only considering the nature of offence alleged against the petitioner, herein. Considering the materials brought on record as well as the extenuating circumstances noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case, considering the long lapse of time since the occasioning of the incident as well as the fact that the petitioner, herein, was litigating in the matter before the courts initially during the trial, thereafter before the Appellate Court and presently in the present revision petition, the benefit of the Act of 1958 is required to be extended to the petitioner, herein. 19. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the petitioner, herein, is extended with the benefit under the Act of 1958 and the sentence is modified to the effect that instead Page No.# 10/10 of sending the petitioner to jail, he should be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958. However, the fine imposed upon the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court along with stipulation that in default in payment of fine, he would be liable to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 (three) months is, however, not disturbed. 20. As such, it is directed that the appellant, herein, will file 02 (two) sureties to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only, along with a personal bond before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati and an undertaking to the effect that the Appellant shall keep peace and good behaviour during the period of 06 months from the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond shall be filed by the appellant within a period of one month from today along with deposit of fine as awarded by the learned Trial Court. 21. With the above observations and directions, the present appeal stands disposed of. 22. Registry to send back the TCR forthwith to the Trial Court, along with a copy of the present order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant