Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010013272014 2026:GAU-AS:6118 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./342/2014 PARIJAT KAKOTY S/O- SRI DEOTI KAKOTY, R/O- KHEMDOI KAKOTI GAON, P.O. and P.S.- AMGURI, DIST.- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR 2:NARESH KAKOTI S/O- LT. GANDHIRAM KAKOTI R/O- KHEMDOI KAKOTI GAON P.O. and P.S.- AMGURI DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R S MISHRA, MR.A K GUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MRA HAWARI(R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 05.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. A. Hawari, learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent No.2. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition, preferred under Section 401 read with Page No.# 2/5 Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, calls in question the judgment dated 10.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 1(1)/2014. By the said judgment, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner and modified the sentence under Sections 323/341 IPC by reducing the term of rigorous imprisonment from 1½ years, as imposed by the learned Trial Court, to 6 (six) months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 323 IPC, with a default stipulation of 1 (one) month’s imprisonment; and by maintaining the fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 341 IPC, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant/respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR alleging, inter alia, that on 10.05.2008 at about 3:30 PM, while his nephew was proceeding on a bicycle to invite certain villagers, the accused petitioner wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him with a stone, resulting in grievous injuries. On the basis of the said ejahar, Amguri P.S. Case No. 32/2008, corresponding to GR Case No. 557/2008 under Sections 341/325 IPC, was registered. 4. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, returned a finding of guilt under Sections 341/325 IPC and sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 325 IPC, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month, and further imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 341 IPC, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days. 5. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction but interfered with the quantum of sentence by reducing the sentence under Page No.# 3/5 Section 323 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, while leaving the sentence under Section 341 IPC undisturbed. 6. At the stage of revision, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the complainant/respondent No. 2, submit that the dispute has been amicably resolved and a written compromise dated 14.09.2015 has been executed between the parties. 7. The compromise agreement having been placed on record and perused, it transpires that the parties have voluntarily settled their inter se disputes outside the Court and have unequivocally resolved to bring the pending litigation to a quietus. 8. It further emerges that the parties are presently coexisting peacefully and have undertaken to maintain cordial relations in future. The relevant extracts of the agreement dated 14.09.2015 are reproduced hereinbelow: “ i. That on 11/5/08 the complainant Sri NareshKakoty lodged an ejahar before the Officer In-Charge, Amguri Police Station alleging inter-alia that on 10/05/08 at about 3.30 PM while his nephew Sri NizarajyotiKakoty went on a bicycle to invite some villagers, the accused near the house of one Suresh Bora of KhemdoiKakaotygoan, by creating obstruction on road, assaulted his nephew by means of stone without any reason. As a result, his nephew suffered injury on his body. ii. That the police on the basis of said ejahar, registered the Amguri P.S. Case No.32/08 and took up the process of investigation. At the end of the investigation, the Police filed the Charge-sheet against the accused to face the trial in the Court. The said PS case was registered as CR Case No.557/08 in the Court of CJM, Sivasagar. iii. That the accused accordingly, entered appearance in the Court. He was furnished with the copies of the case. After hearing of the partite, the charge u/s Page No.# 4/5 341/325 IPC was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. iv. But after conclusion of trail, the learned court CJM, Sivasagar convicted the accused with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one and half years with fine of Rs.1000/- u/s 125 IPC in default one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- u/s 341 IPC in default 15 days simple imprisonment. v. That now both the parties amicably settled/ compromised the matter outside the Court and both the parties have decided to make an end of the legal litigation pending in between the parties. vi. That both the parties will not claim anything more against each other in respect of cost and other expenditure in respect of legal litigations or any kind of compensation from each other in the matter of the instant dispute. vii. That both the parties shall equally co-operate and shall take all steps to make an end of the litigations between them. Viii. That the complainant and victim have not intended to give conviction to the accused. ix. That both parties now have been living peacefully and friendly and they will live peacefully in the society.” 9. Section 320 Cr.P.C. delineates the offences under the IPC which are compoundable. Offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC fall within the ambit of compoundable offences. Sub-section (6) thereof expressly enables compounding even at the revisional stage with the leave of the Court. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory position, and upon due consideration of the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that the parties have entered into a genuine and voluntary settlement. The offence in question being compoundable in law, and no overriding public interest being demonstrably affected, this Court finds it appropriate to accord permission for Page No.# 5/5 compounding in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The offence shall, accordingly, stand compounded. 11. As a necessary corollary, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court, as modified by the Appellate Court, cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The compromise agreement dated 14.09.2015 is taken on record and marked as Exhibit ‘X’. 12. The Criminal Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner stands acquitted. The proceedings stand closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant