Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010064152026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./188/2026 AITU BAHADUR SON OF LATE HARKA BAHADUR RESIDENT OF AMBARI SEGUNBARI PAHAR NIZARAPUR P.O. P.S. FATASIL AMBARI GUWAHATI - 781025 DISTRICT - KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PAUL, MR. J PAUL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 20.04.2026 Heard Mr. J. Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati in G.R. Case No.8948/2012, which was affirmed by the judgment dated 27.02.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Kmarup (M) at Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No.45/2024. 3. The petitioner Aitu Bahadur was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 6(six) months only. 4. I have gone through both the judgments. 5. The petitioner allegedly threw stones at the house of the informant. When the informant confronted the petitioner challenging his acts, he attacked her with a dao. When the husband of the informant came to the place of occurrence, he was also attacked with a dao. The informant lady sustained a 7 cm. long cut injury on her forehead. However, her husband sustained only lacerated injuries. The doctor opined that the injury sustained by the informant lady was a simple injury. 6. The petitioner had already spent some days in judicial custody. The trial court had set off the period and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of 6(six) months. 7. Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes maximum punishment of 3(three) years imprisonment or fine. 8. After carefully going through the impugned judgment, this Court will refrain from expressing any opinion about the merit of the judgment. Even then, this Court is of the opinion that justice will be done if the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine only instead of sending him to suffer imprisonment. 9. Therefore, the part of the impugned judgment dated 15.03.2024 whereby the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 6 (six) months is set aside. The petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of ₹3,000/- only and in default of the payment of Page No.# 3/3 fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of 30 days. The fine shall be paid to the trial court, within next 30 days from today. With the aforesaid direction, the revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant