Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1532 (GAU)

Padma Deori v. State of Assam

2015-12-15

C.R.SARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P. Assam, for the State respondent. 2. By filing this revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401/482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is a convict in connection with G.R. Case No. 152/2002 of the Court of the learned CJM, Dhemaji, has challenged the judgment and order, dated 2.6.2003, passed by the learned Addl. CJM, Under Section 341/326/324/325/323 IPC and the judgment and order, dated 18.12.2003, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, in Criminal appeal No. 16(2)/2003, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, while upholding the conviction, modified the sentence of imprisonment requiring the convicted person i.e. the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 326 and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 326/325 IPC, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months each. 3. By the judgment and order dated 2.6.2003 passed in the said G.R. Case, the learned Addl. CJM, while convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341/326/325/324/323 IPC sentenced him to suffer, R.I. for one month and pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default suffer S.I. for another period of 7 days for his conviction under Section 341 IPC, R.I. for 4 years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default suffer S.I. for 6 months for his conviction under Section 326 IPC, R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default suffer S.I. for 3 months for his conviction under Section 325 IPC, R.I. for 6 months and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default suffer S.I. for 2 months for his conviction under Section 324 IPC, R.I. for 3 months and pay fine of Rs. 300/- in default suffer S.I. for 1 month for his conviction under Section 323 IPC. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, dated 18.12.20103, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the convicted person as petitioner has come up with this revision petition. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows:- On 24.04.2002, at about 8 p.m., the accused person, being armed with lathi and a 'Khukri' i.e. a dagger (sharp cutting weapon) attacked Sri Dasharath Deori, Sri Lankeswar Deori, Sri Baliram Deori, Sri Dimbeswar Deori and Sri Viguram Deori and caused injuries to their persons. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows:- On 24.04.2002, at about 8 p.m., the accused person, being armed with lathi and a 'Khukri' i.e. a dagger (sharp cutting weapon) attacked Sri Dasharath Deori, Sri Lankeswar Deori, Sri Baliram Deori, Sri Dimbeswar Deori and Sri Viguram Deori and caused injuries to their persons. The injured persons were taken to hospital for treatment. The informant (PW 1), was the son of one of the victims, namely, Sri Lankeswar Deori (PW 2), who lodged the FIR with the police. On receipt of the FIR, police registered a case and during the investigation, police collected the injury report, seized the khukri and a charged light from the possession of the appellant and recorded the statement of the witnesses. 6. At the close of the investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet, against the petitioner, for the offences under Section 341/326 IPC and forwarded the accused persons to stand trial. The learned Addl. CJM framed charges under Section 341/326/325/324/323 against the accused persons. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, to which he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses including the medical officer (PW 12), who examined the injured persons and the Investigating officer (PW 10), who investigated into the matter. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Addl. CJM held the accused petitioner guilty of the offences charged against him and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, dated 18.12.2003, re-appreciated the evidence on record and came to the findings that, the learned Trial Judge, rightly convicted the petitioner. 7. In view of above, the learned Sessions Judge, while maintaining the conviction recorded by the learned Addl. CJM, modified the sentence of 4 years imprisonment under Section 326 IPC and reduced the same to R.I. for two years. The sentence of imprisonment awarded in respect of other panel provisions were left undisturbed. However, the sentence of fine amount recorded under Section 326 and 325 IPC was reduced to Rs. 2,000/-, in default S.I. for 3 months. The sentence of fine in respect of other panel provisions was not disturbed. With the above modification, the appeal was dismissed. 8. Mr. However, the sentence of fine amount recorded under Section 326 and 325 IPC was reduced to Rs. 2,000/-, in default S.I. for 3 months. The sentence of fine in respect of other panel provisions was not disturbed. With the above modification, the appeal was dismissed. 8. Mr. M. Khan, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that except the injured persons, there is no eye witnesses and that the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below cannot be maintained for want of sufficient convincing evidence. It is also submitted that none from the neighbourhood or from the place of occurrence was examined and as such non-examination of the neighbouring people, who used to reside near the place of the occurrence is fatal for the prosecution. In view of above, it is submitted that the impugned conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. 9. Refuting the said argument, advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P. supporting the impugned judgment and orders aforesaid, has submitted that there are sufficient convincing and reliable evidence and that no contradiction has been proved in respect of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, the injured persons and as such the impugned judgment and orders do not suffer from any gross illegality or perversity, requiring interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is also submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that, in view of concurrent findings given by both the Courts below, no interference can be made in respect of the impugned conviction and sentence. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, I have carefully perused the impugned judgment and orders, passed by the courts below. In order to examine the correctness of the judgment and orders, I have perused the evidence, on record. 11. In the FIR, lodged by PW 1, who is the son of one of the injured person, namely, Sri Lankeswar Deori (PW 2) it has been clearly stated that, on the fateful evening at about 8 p.m., the petitioner being armed with a Khukri and a lathi had assaulted the injured person causing injury to their persons. Deposing as PW 1, he stated that he arrived in the place of occurrence and found the injured persons in the place of occurrence. Deposing as PW 1, he stated that he arrived in the place of occurrence and found the injured persons in the place of occurrence. He also stated that he along with others had taken the injured persons to the hospital for treatment. Though this witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defence, no material contradiction could be elicited to render his evidence dis-believable. Sri Lankeswar Deori who was one of the injured persons, deposing as PW 2 stated that when he, along with other injured persons, was coming out from the house of Sri Bali Deori (one of the injured persons), the accused person had assaulted them on various parts of their body and that they sustained injuries. Sri Dasharath Deori who was also one of the injured persons, deposing as PW 4, supporting the evidence given by PW 2, stated that the appellant had attacked him and other injured persons and that they sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioner/ accused person. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defence, but his evidence, on material point remained un-demolished. Sri Baliram Deori, who was also one of the injured persons deposed as PW 8. He, supporting the evidence of PW 2 and 4, stated that the accused person had attacked them with khukri (sharp cutting weapon) as a result of which they sustained injuries. Sri Jogen Deori PW 5, who arrived at the place of occurrence after the incident stated that the said injured persons had sustained injuries. PW 3, Sri Gagan Deori, who was the witness to the seizure of the Khukri, stated that a khukri was seized by police from the house of the petitioner. Sri Jogen Deori also supported the seizure of a khukri and a charge light from the house of the accused person. PW 4, Sri Dasharath Deori, in his cross-examination stated that the petitioner had snatched away a three battery torch light from him (PW 4) and gave a cut blow on his hand with the khukri. Sri Bhigu Ram Deori, PW 6 and Sri Diumbeswar Deori, PW 7, who were present along with the injured persons at the time of the occurrence, supporting the evidence given by the injured persons aforesaid stated that the petitioner had assaulted them causing injuries to their persons. Sri Bhigu Ram Deori, PW 6 and Sri Diumbeswar Deori, PW 7, who were present along with the injured persons at the time of the occurrence, supporting the evidence given by the injured persons aforesaid stated that the petitioner had assaulted them causing injuries to their persons. Sri Bitupan Deori, PW 9, who was at his residence situated nearby the place of occurrence, stated that hearing hue and cry near the gate of Sri Baliram Deori (PW 8), he went there and found Sri Lankeswar Deori, Sri Dasharath Deori and Sri Bali Deori in injured condition. He also stated that, he along with Sri Jayanta Deori, Sri Dimbeswar Deori and Sri Biju Deori, had taken the injured persons to hospital in an auto-rikshaw. Smti. Arati Deori, wife of the accused petitioner, deposing as PW 10, supported the prosecution version stating that an incident had taken place at the place of occurrence. She also stated that she came to know that a fight had taken place between Sri Dasharath Deori, Sri Lankeswar Deori and Sri Baliram Deori and that they took her husband inside the house. She also supported the seizure of a three battery torch light and a khukri from their house. Therefore, from the evidence of PW 10, it has been established that an occurrence, involving the injured persons and her husband had taken place. Though the above mentioned prosecution witnesses, including the inured persons, were cross-examined on behalf of defence, no contradiction could be elicited to render their evidence dis-believable. Their evidence remained un-demolished. The Medical Officer, who examined the injured person, deposed as PW 12. He exhibited the injury report. From the evidence of PW 12, it appears that the injured persons aforesaid had sustained injuries. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW 13. He stated that, during the investigation, he had seized one khukri and one three battery torch light from the house of the accused petitioner. 12. In view of above, it appears that there is sufficient evidence, on record, to show that the accused petitioner, on the night of 24.04.2002, had attacked the injured persons, namely, Lankeswar Deori, Sri Dasharath Deori and Sri Baliram Deori with a khukri. 13. Perusing the impugned judgment and orders aforesaid, I find that both the Courts below properly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the conviction on the basis of the evidence on record. 13. Perusing the impugned judgment and orders aforesaid, I find that both the Courts below properly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the conviction on the basis of the evidence on record. There is no material to show that the courts below had committed any gross illegality or perversity, in recording the conviction and sentence as indicated above. 14. Therefore, considering entire aspect of the matter, I find no sufficient merit in this Criminal Revision Petition requiring interference with the concurrent findings given by both the Courts below. Hence, I find no merit in this revision petition. 15. It is ordered that the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner shall be treated as set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 16. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within two months from this date to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. 17. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. 18. Before parting with the judgment, I acknowledge, with appreciation, the services rendered by Mr. M. Khan, learned Amicus Curiae and order that an amount of Rs. 7,500/- be paid to Mr. Khan as his remuneration by the State Legal Services Authority. Return the LCR.