Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 868 (GAU)

Ismail Ali S/o of Abdul Aziz v. State of Assam

2012-07-23

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2012
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent State. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.4.2004 rendered by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, in Sessions Case No. 86(N)/2001 convicting the accused No. 1 u/s 148/326 IPC and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default R.I. for 3 months u/s 326 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default R.I. for 3 months, u/s 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default R.I. for 3 months, directing all the sentences to run together and also convicting the accused No. 2 u/s 148 IPC and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default R.I. for 3 months, u/s 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 1 year and pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default R.I. for 15 days, u/s 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for another three months and convicting the accused Nos. 3 to 9 u/s 148 IPC and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default R.I. for 3 months and u/s 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default R.I. for 1 month. 2. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the appellants, on instructions submits that he would not challenge the conviction awarded against the convict appellants and he would be satisfied if the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by the respective appellants and with fine that may be deemed fit and proper by this Court. 3. I have perused the records. The incident took place as far back as on 17.10.1998. From the evidence on record it appears that both the parties are co-villagers and they are simple living cultivators. The incident took place out of some misunderstandings regarding the land over which a Masjid is situated. It is stated at the bar that there is no more misunderstandings between the parties over the said land. 4. From the evidence on record it appears that both the parties are co-villagers and they are simple living cultivators. The incident took place out of some misunderstandings regarding the land over which a Masjid is situated. It is stated at the bar that there is no more misunderstandings between the parties over the said land. 4. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, the impugned order of conviction is upheld reducing the sentence to the period already undergone and also to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in case of appellants No. 1 and 2 and Rs.1,000/- in case of appellants No. 3 to 9. The fine amount is directed to be paid by the convict appellants within a period of 2(two) months from to-day in the court of the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar. In default of payment of fine, the accused appellants No. 1 and 2 shall have to undergo S.I. for two months and the appellants No. 3 to 9 S.I. for one month. 5. It is stated that the appellants are on bail. The appeal stands allowed with modification in the sentence as indicated above. The bail bond stands discharged. Return the LCR forthwith. Appeal allowed.