Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 277 (GAU)

Kachu Seikh v. State of Assam

2019-03-01

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. PP, Assam. None appears for the petitioners. 2. Present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.08.08 passed by the learned Addl. CJM, Dhubri where present accused petitioners were convicted u/s 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 3 (three) months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- each i/d S.I for 15 days. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that one Md. Nazrul Islam lodged FIR on 14.03.06 at Golakganj PS at 09.30 am, alleging that his brother Md. Jahirul Islam went to see the china paddy cultivation over his land and then he found two accused persons namely Kachu Sekih and Manik Ali throwing out the earth to his paddy cultivation and when Jahirul protested, the accused persons, abused and assaulted him with an iron bucket causing grievous injury on his nose and other parts of his body. Other persons working in nearby land, came and rescued Jahirul. Thereafter, Jahirul filed an FIR and on the basis of FIR Gauripur PS Case No. 58/06 u/s 447/294/325/506/34 of IPC was registered and after due completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against said two accused persons u/s 447/342/325/34 of IPC. 4. Both the accused persons faced the trial and denied the charge leveled against them u/s 447/325 of IPC. 5. The prosecution examined 7 (seven) witnesses in support of the case and defence examined none. Plea of defence is of total denial. Statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and at the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted both the accused persons u/s 325 of IPC. 6. On appeal being preferred same was also dismissed by referring the judgment and order passed by the Court below. 7. Challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court, present revision petition has been preferred but however, none appears for the petitioners to press the matter despite the name of the counsel is shown in the cause list. The matter being old pending of 2011 before this Court is taken up for hearing accordingly. 8. The matter being old pending of 2011 before this Court is taken up for hearing accordingly. 8. Learned counsel for State/respondent has put forward his argument that there is no illegality and irregularity in the decision of both the forums on appreciation of the matter which may call for interference. It has been contended that the evidence of injured person is fully supported by the medical officer as well as other witnesses who arrived at the place of occurrence immediately and found the accused persons also at the place of occurrence and they took the injured to hospital. There being no inconsistency, omission or contradiction of any of the witnesses, the evidence adduced by the prosecution has rightly been accepted by the Court while arriving at the guilt of the accused persons. 9. Being a revisional Court, this Court has a limited power to appreciate the matters of lower Court, as that of appellate Court but has to appreciate whether the Court below has committed any illegality or irregularity in appreciating the evidence on record or there is any perversity which may cause prejudice to the litigants or cause injustice. Bearing in mind the above principle, this Court examined the evidence on record to appreciate the above aspect. It is to be noted that PW-2 is the victim who has stated that on the day of occurrence i.e. 14.03.06 at 9:30 PM, while he went to the see the paddy field of his own, which is adjacent to the land of accused persons, he saw the accused persons were throwing the earth from their paddy cultivation intentionally and on being protested, accused persons not only rebuked him but also assaulted him. Accused Kachu caught his hand and Manik Ali assaulted him with an iron bucket, resulting sever injury on his nose and he also sustained other injury on his person. Then nearby people rushed to the place and rescued him and took him to the hospital. 10. There is also evidence of PW-2 who witnessed the occurrence and supported the case of the informant that hearing commotion he saw the injured and then he found both the accused persons assaulted PW-2 in the paddy filed. He has also stated that both the accused persons gave fist blow to PW-2 and Manik assaulted him with an iron bucket on his nose. He has also stated that both the accused persons gave fist blow to PW-2 and Manik assaulted him with an iron bucket on his nose. Similar is the version of PW-4 and PW-5 on hearing the hue and cry at the place of occurrence, they went to the place and found that PW-2 with injury on his nose with bleeding apart from other injury on his body. It is also evident from their evidence, that accused persons caused injury to PW-2 and their evidence in cross-examination also remains un-rebutted as no material of omission or commission is made out to disprove their evidence. 10. On the next, medical officer (PW-6) Dr. Tafizur Rahman, who happened to examine the PW-2 on the day of occurrence found dispersion of dorsum of nose with bleeding on the person of the Jahirul and there was a fracture on nasal bone which was detected by x-ray and C.T. scan. According to him, injury on the nose is grievous and is caused by blunt object. 11. The evidence of PW-7/IO has stated that there is no contradiction or omission of any witness is proved. 12. It is discernible that in view of such cogent corroborating and convincing evidence on record, the learned court below has rightly come to a findings of guilt of the accused persons. The learned trial court also observed that conviction can be based only on the basis of injured witness without corroboration but in the present case the evidence of injured witness was corroborated by other witnesses including the medical officer. That being so, there appears no illegality or irregularity in the judgment so passed by the learned trial Court and same is rightly affirmed by the learned appellate court. The sentence awarded is also in not on a higher side. 13. Taking into account all above, it appears that nothing survives to interfere into the impugned order and judgment by way the revisional Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The petitioners will now serve the sentence as directed by the Court below. Return the LCR.