Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1512 (GAU)

Mahadev Sarma v. State of Assam

2015-12-10

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2015
ORDER : 1. This revision petition is preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2006, whereby conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 323 I.P.C., passed in S.L. Case No. 4/2001 dated 30.06.2005 has been affirmed. 2. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- by the learned Trial Court below and affirming the order of conviction, the learned Appellate below reduced the amount of fine to Rs. 400/-. The petitioner still being aggrieved has preferred the instant revision petition. 3. The prosecution in nutshell is that a written ejahar was filed by one Shri Prabin Kumar Sarma on 13.07.2001 alleging that at about 8:00 a.m. while he is working in the paddy field, the accused petitioner suddenly called him and started assaulting him with a lathi, resulting injury on his person and while the family members of the said Prabin Kumar Sarma tried to interfere into the matter, then the accused threatened to kill them also. 4. On receipt of the ejahar, the case was registered at Rangia Police Station and after due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused petitioner under Section 323 I.P.C. 5. In course of trial, the accused faced the trial before the Court below and denied the charge under Section 323 I.P.C. so framed by the Court below. The prosecution examined 3 witnesses in support of the case and at the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused petitioner as has been mentioned above. 6. On appeal being preferred, the same was dismissed and while maintaining conviction, sentence, fine was reduced to Rs. 400/- only, against which, the present revision petition has been preferred. 7. Today, none appears for and on behalf of the petitioner though the case was listed for hearing. The matter of revision being old pending of 2006, it is taken up by this Court for disposal on merit, even in absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. To appreciate the matter, I have carefully gone through the entire evidence of the records as well as impugned orders so passed by both the learned Courts below. The matter of revision being old pending of 2006, it is taken up by this Court for disposal on merit, even in absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. To appreciate the matter, I have carefully gone through the entire evidence of the records as well as impugned orders so passed by both the learned Courts below. It is found that the informant, Prabin Kumar Sarma examined himself as PW – 1 and his two sisters, namely, Rumishree Sarma as PW – 2 and Sabita Devi as PW – 3. All of them given same set of evidence that on the day of occurrence in the morning at 8:00 a.m. while PW – 1 was working in the paddy field, the accused petitioner call him and began to assault him with a lathi on his wrist and legs severally resulting injury on his person on the allegation that cow of PW – 1 has destroyed the paddy of accused persons. Evidence of PW – 1 is brief, without any elaboration but the evidences of PW – 2 and PW – 3, who happened to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence has given detail evidence that on the fateful day, on hearing the hue and cry of PW – 1, both of them arrived at the place of occurrence, as they were staying nearby and saw that accused person was assaulting PW – 1 with a lathi. Both of them took their brother/PW – 1 to the hospital for treatment. 9. Both the witnesses, i.e., PW – 2 and PW – 3 have fully supported the evidence of PW – 1 and there is no any material contradiction, etc. They being resident of nearby the place of occurrence arrived at place of occurrence at the first instance, so their evidences are found to be not at all a doubtful only. Only because of the fact that they are related to the informant cannot be a ground to reject their evidences. No any material contradiction for omission, etc. has been proved. The defence except plea of denial could not rebut the evidence so adduced by these witnesses. 10. In the circumstances, non-examination of Investigating Officer is not fatal. Similarly, non-examination of Medical Officer in the case under Section 323 I.P.C. will not cause any prejudice to the accused petitioner, in view of direct ocular evidence against the accused petitioner. The defence except plea of denial could not rebut the evidence so adduced by these witnesses. 10. In the circumstances, non-examination of Investigating Officer is not fatal. Similarly, non-examination of Medical Officer in the case under Section 323 I.P.C. will not cause any prejudice to the accused petitioner, in view of direct ocular evidence against the accused petitioner. Medical evidence is required only to corroborate the evidence on record and not otherwise. Here the evidence of the informant is clear enough to implicate the accused and he had no enmity with the accused person for false implication. 11. In my considered opinion, the learned Trial Court below has rightly convicted the accused petitioner after proper appreciation of the matter and there appears no any illegality and irregularity while appreciating the evidence. 12. In the result, order of conviction and sentence so passed by the learned Appellate Court is hereby upheld. It is also noted that the learned Court below has very leniently dealt with the matter by imposing a fine of Rs. 400/- only without any other substantive sentence. 13. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to deposit the fine before the learned Court below within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of this order. Failing which, the learned Court below will be at liberty to realize the amount as imposed. 14. Send back the case records.