Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 842 (GAU)

Bishu Mukherjee v. State of Assam

2025-05-21

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

body2025
JUDGMENT : PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing Respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Ms. B. Sarma, the learned Amicus Curiae representing Respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) challenging the judgment dated 31.03.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon in G.R. Case No.291/2000 affirmed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon in Criminal Appeal No.13(2)/2007. 3. On 30.08.2000, Smti. Pallabi Mukherjee had lodged an ejaher before police alleging that the petitioner Bishu Mukherjee, being her husband, and the other petitioners being her relatives, physically and mentally harassed her without any reason and excused. While she was pregnant for three months, her husband Bishu Mukherjee assaulted her severely, for which she had to be admitted to the hospital for medical treatment. 4. It is alleged by the complainant Smti. Pallabi Mukherjee that at the time of her marriage, her husband Bishu Mukherjee had taken cash amount of Rs. 14,000/- gold ornaments and utensils on demand as dowry. His family members allegedly demanded more money after her marriage. 5. The complainant Pallabi Mukherjee has further alleged that at one point of time, she and her husband Bishu Mukherjee stayed together separately in a rented house. At that time also, she was beaten by her husband for non-payment of money. On 14.04.2000, she was severely assaulted by her husband for which she again had to be admitted in a hospital and since then she has been staying with her father. 6. Police registered the case, being Dhaligaon P.S. Case No.59 of 2000 under Sections 498-A/448/325/354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of investigation, police field the charge sheet under Sections 498-A/448/323/354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. During the trial, the prosecution side has examined 10 witnesses. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the petitioners. 8. They preferred an appeal and the learned appellate court also affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 10. Normally, a revisional court does not go through the evidence if it is not shown that there is something serious the way the trial court interpreted the evidence. They preferred an appeal and the learned appellate court also affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 10. Normally, a revisional court does not go through the evidence if it is not shown that there is something serious the way the trial court interpreted the evidence. In the case in hand, the petitioners failed to show any reason compelling this Court to go through the evidence. There is no jurisdictional or legal error in the judgments passed by the courts below. 11. The case originally in the year 2000. Twenty-five years have already passed away. For the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo 6(six) months of impoundment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each. For the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 100/- on each. Similarly, for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC the petitioners sentenced to undergo 1 month of imprisonment each. 12. The leaned trial court had refused to grant benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Probation of Offenders Act. The reason was that the offences had impacted the society and all married women. 13. I have already held hereinbefore that after the occurrence, 25 years have gone by. A lot of water had already flown through the river Brahmaputra. Everything has changed since the year 2000. At this stage, this Court is of the opinion that for the said offences, the petitioners do not deserve to be detained in custody for any period of time. This Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising of powers under the Probation of Offenders Act. 14. This Court hereby holds that so far as convictions of the petitioners are concerned, the learned trial court as well as the appellate court had correctly arrived at their findings. But this Court has decided that in this case the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act are to be applied for the ends of justice. The part of the impugned trial court’s judgment where the petitioners were sentence to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine, is set aside. The petitioners are released on admonition under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 15. The part of the impugned trial court’s judgment where the petitioners were sentence to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine, is set aside. The petitioners are released on admonition under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 15. In this way, the Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed.Send back the LCR.