Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1239 (GAU)

GURUPRASAD DAS v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-08-21

MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2018
JUDGMENT : MIR ALFAZ ALI, J. 1. Heard Mr. I.A Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Criminal Appeal No.32(4)/2007. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned SDJM (s), Karimganj in GR case No.642/2001, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days. 3. As per the prosecution case, both the injured PW-1 and the revision petitioner were brothers and they were living in the same house. On the date of occurrence, following an altercation between the accused/petitioner and PW-1, the informant, the petitioner inflicted injury to the PW-1 by dao. PW-1, Parimal Das lodged an FIR, on the basis of which, police registered a case and after usual investigation, submitted, charge-sheet against the present petitioner and his wife under section 324/447/34 IPC and eventually, both of them stood trial. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined 4 (four) witnesses to establish the charges and on appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court convicted the present petitioner under Section 324 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above. However, the co-accused/wife of the present petitioner was acquitted. 5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. From the impugned judgment and evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears that the prosecution case primarily hinges on the oral testimony of the PW1, alleged injured and the medical evidence. The Doctor who was examined as PW-3, deposed that PW-1 sustained cut injuries on the right parital area. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury was simple in nature caused by sharp objects. 7. Pw-1 Parimal Das deposed that he and the accused are brothers and they were living in the same house. He further deposed that the petitioner picked up altercation with him and dealt him a blow with dao causing injuries. 8. Pw-2, wife of the injured also stated that hearing alrecation between the two brothers, she came and found her husband lying with the injury. He further deposed that the petitioner picked up altercation with him and dealt him a blow with dao causing injuries. 8. Pw-2, wife of the injured also stated that hearing alrecation between the two brothers, she came and found her husband lying with the injury. The testimony of the injured, PW-1, that the petitioner inflicted cut injury to him has been reinforced by the medical evidence of PW-3. PW-2 who arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence and found the victim with injury also supported the prosecution case. Though during cross-examination it was elicited that there was civil case pending between the two brothers, the evidence of PW-1, that the accused inflicted injury to him could not be shaken. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 supported by the medical evidence as well as the oral testimony of PW-3 clearly establishes that the petitioner inflicted injury to the victim and on the basis of above evidence, learned trial Court recorded the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 324 IPC, which was also confirmed by the learned appellate Court. 9. In view of the evidence and materials as discussed herein above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for interference by this revisional Court, so far the conviction is concerned. 10. However, what is revealed from the record is that both the accused petitioner were own brothers and they were living under the same roof. It was also revealed, that there was quarrel between the two brothers for the land and in course of such quarrel, the petitioner hit the PW-1, causing injury. Evidently, the occurrence took place in the year 2001. Thus having considered the nature of injury inflicted to PW1 and the facts and circumstances of the case, under which the occurrence took place, I am of the view that this is a fit case, where the petitioner should have been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court and furnish a bond, in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and on furnishing such bond, the petitioner shall be released. 11. The revision petition is partly allowed and accordingly stands disposed of. 12. Send back the LCR.