Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1343 (GAU)

Md. Azad Ali, S/o Sahad Ali v. State of Assam

2025-08-12

SHAMIMA JAHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Judgment dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Dhubri in G.R. No. 182/2004 by which the petitioner is convicted under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment (S.I) for two (2) years. The petitioner had also challenged the Judgment dated 19.09.2012 passed by the learned Court of Session Judge, Dhubri in Criminal Appeal No. 8(2)/2009 by which the learned Sessions Court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. Against the Judgment & Order, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition challenging the same. FACTS 2. An FIR was lodged on 22.08.2004 by the PW-1 stating inter alia that on 21.08.2004 at around 12 noon when the voting was going on for election of the Managing Committee of Charbari L.P. School, the accused persons named in the FIR including the petitioner altercated with the people present there and that they brought deadly weapons and started to assault others and further, that the petitioner assaulted one Sohidur thereby causing serious injuries on him. The police on receipt of the FIR registered the same as Mankachar Police Case No. 182/2004 and started the investigation. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against six (6) accused persons including the petitioner. Subsequently, after completion of the necessary formalities, the Court below framed charged under Section 147/148/448/324 IPC which was read over, to which the petitioner as well as other accused persons pleaded not guilty and the trial was initiated. During the trial, 8 prosecution witnesses were examined and thereafter, upon examining the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the Court below had convicted the petitioner and acquitted the five (5) other persons. The petitioner thereafter was sentenced for 2 years S.I under Section 324 IPC. 3. PW-1 is the informant of the case and he stated that when the voting was going on, the petitioner and others started altercating with the people who had come to vote and that later, they brought weapon and started to assault the people, gathered there. He thereafter specifically stated that the petitioner assaulted PW-2 namely, Sohidur and injured his left arm. 4. PW-2 is the injured witness and he supported the evidence of PW-1 i.e., the informant. He thereafter specifically stated that the petitioner assaulted PW-2 namely, Sohidur and injured his left arm. 4. PW-2 is the injured witness and he supported the evidence of PW-1 i.e., the informant. PW-2 specifically stated that it was the petitioner who had brought the weapon unlike the statement made by PW-1 who stated that all the accused persons including the petitioner had brought the weapons. He stated before the Trial Court that on 21.08.2004 when voting was going on for the said election and when he was looking at the voting process standing on the road, the altercation took place and that the petitioner asked him why he was present during the said altercation and that thereafter, the petitioner hit him with a dagger on his left arm. He thereafter stated that he was taken to the hospital for treatment first to the Public Health Center and then to the Dhubri Hospital and he was administered 14/15 stitches. 5. PW-3 was also an eyewitness and he stated that when the voting was going on, there was an altercation between the petitioner and the injured witness and the petitioner hit the injured witness by a dagger on his left arm. 6. PW-4 is a hear say witness. 7. PW-5 stated in his examination-in-chief that he saw the petitioner hitting the injured witness but during the cross-examination, he stated that he saw only people running and does not know who hit whom. 8. PW-6 and PW-7 are the Doctors and PW-7 is the first doctor to treat the patient in the Public Health Center and he stated that he found an open injury which is simple in nature on the left arm of the victim. PW-6 is the subsequent doctor who treated the patient in the Dhubri Civil Hospital and stated that he found a simple stitched wound on the left arm of the victim. 9. PW-8 is the Investigating Officer who had investigated the case by complying with all the necessary requirements and submitted the charge sheet. Thereafter, during the examination of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.PC, the petitioner had denied the allegation made against him. 10. 9. PW-8 is the Investigating Officer who had investigated the case by complying with all the necessary requirements and submitted the charge sheet. Thereafter, during the examination of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.PC, the petitioner had denied the allegation made against him. 10. The Trial Court in view of the depositions made by the injured witness as well as other ocular witnesses convicted the petitioner under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to two (2) years S.I. Before the Trial Court, a submission was made by the defence that there is discrepancy in the medical evidence of the case but the Trial Court by considering the law that when there are ocular evidence and the medical opinion is not irreconcilable, the ocular evidence is relied upon and the conviction can be granted. 11. Against the said Judgment & Order dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Dhubri an appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge vide Judgment & Order dated 19.09.2012 upheld the Judgment & Order of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by maintaining the sentence inflicted on the petitioner. Against the said Judgment & Order, the present criminal revision petition is field by the petitioner before this Court. Submissions 12. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that incident happened in a spur of the moment and it was not premeditated by the petitioner even considering the fact that the offence has been committed by the petitioner. He submits that the injured witness has stated that the petitioner asked him as to why he was there during the altercation and that at the spur of the moment, the petitioner hit him on his left arm without any intention whatsoever. He also stated that the incident had taken place in the year 2004 and that more than 20 years have elapsed from the date of the incident. As such, he prays that the petitioner may be dealt with leniency. 13. Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the present case rests on the evidence of ocular witnesses who had seen the incident and who had specifically stated that the petitioner had hit the victim on his left arm. As such, he prays that the petitioner may be dealt with leniency. 13. Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the present case rests on the evidence of ocular witnesses who had seen the incident and who had specifically stated that the petitioner had hit the victim on his left arm. However, in his usual fairness, he had placed the statement of PW-2 who had stated that he went to stop the altercation and that in the process, the petitioner asked him as to what he was doing and at that juncture the petitioner hit the victim on his left arm. This statement clearly shows that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to hit the victim. 14. I have heard the counsels for both the parties. In view of the said submissions and the facts mentioned above, this Court is now called upon to adjudicate upon the conviction and punishment inflicted upon the petitioner. Findings 15. It is noticed in the instant case that there are three (3) eyewitnesses including the injured witness who is examined as PW-2. PW-1 who is the informant as well as the eyewitness had stated that they saw the petitioner inflicting the injury by a dagger on the left arm of the victim. PW-2 who is the eyewitness has also stated in details that while he was inspecting the voting in an usual manner, he saw an altercation breaking out between the parties and at that moment, the petitioner came and asked him as to what he was looking for and at that juncture, the petitioner hit him on his left arm. 16. PW-3 is also an eyewitness who saw the petitioner inuring the victim. The sequence of the incident clearly shows that the petitioner had no prior intention to hit the victim. The voting was going on for election of the Managing Committee of Charbari L.P School where many people were present and were voting and suddenly an altercation took place at the said School and the victim was just looking at it and at that point of time, when the altercation was going on and in the midst of the heated argument between the parties, the petitioner came and hit him with a dagger after asking him as to why he was there. Everything happened in a spur of the moment. Everything happened in a spur of the moment. It is also not a case where the petitioner or the other accused persons had come armed with weapon to the School. It is stated by the witnesses that there was altercation and then the accused person brought weapons and that the petitioner had also brought the weapon. It is also in the evidence that the weapons were collected from two houses. However, the occupants of those houses were not examined in order to prove the said fact and further, even the weapons were not seized. The medical evidence also shows that the injury was simple on the victim and that it was a single injury. 17. As such, the petitioner has to be dealt with leniency and since under Section 324 IPC, punishments can be given in terms of incarceration or fine or with both, the petitioner was sentenced for a period of 2 years Simple Imprisonment. However, seeing the nature of the incident, it is directed that the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 324 IPC which would be deposited in the Assam Legal Aid Services Authority within a period of two (2) months from the date of the Order and in default of the same, he may undergo S.I for one (1) month. Thereafter, the petitioner be released unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case. Thereafter, bail bonds to be discharged. 18. Petition is disposed of. Send back the TCR.