Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010012222013 2025:GAU-AS:12967 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./416/2013 UMA CHUTIA S/O LT. JAGANATH CHUTIA R/O VILL- SARU ABHOYT PURIA, P.S. TENGAKHAT, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A K GUPTA, MR.P J SAIKIA,MR.R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, , Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 17.09.2025 Heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceedings has assailed the Judgment dated 18-09-2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Criminal Appeal No.67(4)/12, upholding the Judgment and Order dated 06-11-2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dibrugarh, in G.R. Case No.2103/06, convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 326 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year with fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand), in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 3(three) months. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one, Pramila Chamua, as informant had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Tengakhat Police Station on 19-12-2006, inter alia, stating therein, that on 18-12- 2006, at about 9.00 p.m, she along with others were sitting near the fire when the petitioner, herein, came their house and called Atul Chamua and took him to the road. It was alleged that thereafter, the petitioner, herein, had assaulted the victim Atul Chamua , by means of a sharp cutting ‘Dao’ and had caused injury on various parts of his body. It was alleged that the petitioner, herein, thereafter fled away. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered Tengakhat Police Station Case No.93/2006, under Section 326 IPC. Page No.# 3/7 On conclusion of the investigation, the police laid a charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Section 326 IPC. The Trial Court on framing a charge under Section 326 IPC against the petitioner, herein, and the same being read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, a Trial ensued. 4. During the Trial prosecution examined 7(seven) witnesses. Thereafter, the petitioner, herein, was examined under Section 313 CrPC. On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court upon considering the evidences coming on record proceeded to convict the petitioner under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him as noticed, hereinabove. The petitioner being aggrieved by his conviction by the Trial Court assailed the same before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, by way of instituting an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.67(4)/12. The appellate Court on appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide Judgment dated 18.09.2013, to dismiss the said appeal, upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present revision petition. 5. I have heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State Respondents. 6. This Court has carefully perused the evidences coming on record during the Trial and thereafter has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court. 7. The conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow ; “15. From the evidence of the witnesses it is clear that on 18/12/06 accused Uma Chutia called victim to the road at the time the informant and other witnesses Page No.# 4/7 have noticed it. After few minutes they heard voice of Atul that the accused inflicted him cut injuries. On their visit to the place of occurrence they found victim in an injured condition. Victim reported the P.W.-2 that Uma caused him injuries. The Victim identified that it was the accused person who gave several blows upon him by means of a 'dao' and caused grievous injuries to him. The doctor found cut injuries and doctor opined that injuries are grievous injuries. All the witness of the prosecution has supported the case of the prosecution that the accused caused injuries to Atul Chamua by giving several blows by means of a 'dao". The evidence the prosecution witnesses corroborative, believable and trustworthy which inspire the court to hold that it was the accused person who voluntarily caused grievous injuries to Atul Chamua by means of a sharp cutting weapon knowing fully that giving blows by of are means of a sharp cutting 'dao would cause grievous injuries and accused did it. 16. During the course of argument the counsel appearing for the accused person has submitted that the matter had settled between the parties amicably and to this effect a joint petition was filed which is numbered as 2181 dated 27/09/12. The said petition was rejected by this court. During the argument learned counsel for the accused person has also submitted that in the event of found accused guilty. Lenient view may be taken. The learned counsel has referred judgment reported in 2010 CRLJ (NOC) 158 (GAU) in case of Smti. Bakul Rani Das Vs- State of Tripura. But in my considered view this, judgment is Page No.# 5/7 not applicable in our case in hand as the ingredients of offence U/S.326 IPC available.” 8. Basing on the said conclusion, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 326 IPC. On perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that the same is based on due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record in the Trial. This Court finds that the offences under Section 326 IPC stood established against the petitioner, herein. This Court does not find infirmity with the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court in the matter. Accordingly the conviction of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court would not mandate any interference from this Court. This Court has also perused the Judgment dated 18.09.2013, passed by the Appellate Court and on perusal, finds that the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court also does not suffer from any infirmity and the same is based on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record. Accordingly, the Judgment dated 18.09.2013, passed by the learned Appellate Court would also not mandate any interference. 9. Having upheld the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court for the purpose of sentencing the petitioner herein, had considered the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, but have refused to extend the benefits, thereof, to the petitioner, herein, by only considering the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner. 10. It is a settled position of law that while exercising the discretionary power under the Act, 1958, the Courts are to consider the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the character of offender. It is also settled that while considering the nature of the offence, the Court is to take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the Page No.# 6/7 offence had on the victim. It is also to be noted that the discretionary power under the provision of the Act of 1958, is also permissible to be exercised by the Court even at the appellate or the revisional stage and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the backdrop of the above settled position of law, this Court finds that the offence in the matter was committed on 18.12.2006, long 19(nineteen) years have lapsed since the date of commission of offence by the petitioner, herein. The materials brought on record does not reveal that the petitioner was involved in a similar offence prior to the one so committed by him on 18.12.2006, and/or that he had thereafter committed offence of a similar nature. 12. The petitioner is found to have been litigating the matter since the last 19(nineteen) years initially before the Trial Court, thereafter before the Appellate Court and presently in the proceedings of the instant revision petition, before this Court. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the present is a fit case, wherein, the petitioner is entitled to be extended with the benefit of the provision of the Act of 1958. 13. Accordingly, for the reasons noticed, hereinabove, it is directed that the petitioner be given the benefits of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and accordingly, the sentence is modified to that effect, and it is provided that instead of sending the petitioner to jail, he be extended the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, the fine as imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Trial Court and in default of payment of the same, the direction to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3(three) months is, however, not interfered with. 14. In view of the above discussions, it is directed that the petitioner, Page No.# 7/7 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 i.e. the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dibrugarh, and undertake, to the effect that the petitioner 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 petitioner within a period of 1(one) month from today, along with the deposit of the fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 6.11.2012. 15. With the above observations and directions, the present Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. 16. 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