Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1018 (GAU)

SORU KALITA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2017-08-01

MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Ms. S Roy, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. S Jahan, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. This revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment and order dated 05-12-2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge upholding the judgment and order dated 05-12-2001 in GR Case No.714/1995 passed by learned CJM, Kamrup, whereby the revision petitioner was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for 2 (two) years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. 3. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on 21-02-1995 at about 4.30 pm, when Lalit Kalita, Pw-1, was proceeding through Dharapur road, the accused arrived there by driving his vehicle. The accused stopped the vehicle and dealt a blow to Pw-1, the victim, with a khukuri. When Pw-1 tried to ward off the blow by raising his hand, the blow fell on his hand and his thumb was cut. Immediately he was shifted to the hospital. The FIR was lodged on 23-02-1995 by Pw-2, the elder brother of Pw-1, on the basis of which, police registered a case and on completion of investigation laid charge-sheet against the revision petitioner under Section 326 IPC. 4. In course of trial, the prosecution examined 6 (six) witnesses including the doctor and the I.O and on appreciation of evidence, learned Trial Court convicted the revision petitioner under Section 326 IPC and awarded sentenced as indicated above. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned CJM, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused/revision petitioner concurring with the findings of the Trial Court. It is against the said judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, the revision petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, praying for setting aside the conviction and sentence and or quash the proceeding. 6. Out of the 6 witnesses examined by the prosecution, Pw-5 was the Doctor and Pw-6 was the I.O. Except the victim Pw-1, there was no other ocular witness of the occurrence. According to Pw-3, on hearing hue and cry he came to the place of occurrence and found PW-1, the victim with injury on his hand and on being asked by him, Pw-1 told that the accused inflicted the injury. According to Pw-3, on hearing hue and cry he came to the place of occurrence and found PW-1, the victim with injury on his hand and on being asked by him, Pw-1 told that the accused inflicted the injury. According to PW-4, he came to know about the occurrence later on and Pw-2 also came to know about the occurrence from PW-1. 7. It is now settled position of law that there is no impediment in basing conviction on the testimony of the lone eye witness, provided such witnesses is fully reliable inasmuch as, it is the quality of the evidence not quantity which matters. Pw-1, being the injured and the lone eye witness has categorically stated in his evidence that the accused assaulted him with sharp weapon causing grievous injury and the testimony of Pw-1 to the extent of sustaining injury has been supported by the doctor, Pw-5. Although Pw-1 was subjected to cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited to create any dent in the testimony of Pw-1. There is also no material on record suggesting false implication. I have also gone through the previous statement of Pw-1 recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Having taken note of such previous statement of the Pw-1, I find that this witness has been consistent in all stages of the proceeding. Since the lone eye witness being the injured himself is found to be fully reliable and worthy of placing reliance and his testimony also finds support from the medical evidence, there is no difficulty in basing conviction on the sole testimony of Pw-1. In the above facts and circumstances, the learned Trial Court as well as the learned appellate court are found to have rightly, based the conviction on the testimony of Pw-1 and therefore, I do not find any perversity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court as well as the appellate Court in convicting and sentencing the accused/revision petitioner. 8. It is trite, that the scope of scrutiny by these revisional Court is circumscribed, inasmuch as, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or replace the view of the Trial Court or the first appellate Court by its own view on the findings of facts or the appreciation of evidence. 8. It is trite, that the scope of scrutiny by these revisional Court is circumscribed, inasmuch as, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or replace the view of the Trial Court or the first appellate Court by its own view on the findings of facts or the appreciation of evidence. Since the evidence of Pw-1 is found to be worthy of credence and reliable which is supported by the medical evidence, I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction of the accused/revision petitioner in the instant case. 9. The occurrence took place in the year 1995 and since then 22 years have passed. Having considered the long period of protracted trial and the facts and circumstances of the case, the substantive sentenced awarded by the learned Trial Court is reduced to 1 (one) year for ends of justice. However, the sentence of fine and imprisonment in default awarded by the Trial Court is maintained. With this modification in the sentence, the revision petition is disposed of. 10. It appears from the record that the revision petitioner is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within 2 (two) months to serve out the sentence. 11. Appreciating the evidence rendered by Ms. Sanchita Roy, learned Amicus Curiae, I hereby provide that she will be entitled to fees, as Legal Aid Counsel as per the norms fixed by the Legal Services Authority Regulation. Upon production of a copy of this judgment, Guwahati High Court Legal Services Committee, shall pay the fee to Ms. Roy. 12. Send back the LCR.