Hatal Das And 2 Ors. vs State Of Assam

Heard Mr. R Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K Konwar, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Criminal Appeal

No.05/2008. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal upheld the judgment and order dated 25.03.2008 passed by the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Barpeta whereby the petitioners were convicted under Section 341/323 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for 1

month with fine of Rs.200/- under Section 341 IPC and imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 IPC.

As per the prosecution case, on 24.05.2002 at about 8.30 am, when Raju Das and Jayanta Das were going to the civil hospital accompanying the

father of Jayanta Das, the accused persons, namely, Hatal Das, Tatu Das, Jitu Das and Manoj Das assaulted Jayanta Das and also snatched away his

belongings. An FIR was lodged by Raju Das, on the basis of which police registered a case and after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet and

eventually all the petitioners stood trial before the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge.

In the course of trial, learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charge against the petitioners under Sections 307/379/325/323/341 read with Section

34 IPC, to which the petitioners pleaded not guilty. 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the charges. On appreciation of

evidence, learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted all the petitioners of the charge under Sections 379/307/325 IPC, however, convicted them under

Sections 323/341 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge partly

allowing the appeal reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 6 months to 3 months and the amount of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.400/- under Section

323 IPC. Against the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners preferred the instant revision petition.

From the record it appears that the prosecution case hinges on the oral testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and medical evidence of PW-4.

PW-1 stated that while he was going to hospital with PW-2 and his father, in front of the house of one Ganesh Das, the petitioners assaulted him

with stick and he sustained injuries. When Raju Das tried to intervene, they also threatened Raju Das.

Close on the hill of the evidence of PW-1, Raju Das the PW-2 stated that while they were proceeding to hospital, the petitioners assaulted Jitu Das

with lathi causing injury on his face, nose etc. He also stated that Jitu Das ran into the house of Ganesh Das and all the petitioners dragged him from

the house of Ganesh Das and pushed him into the drain.

PW-3, the mother of the injured stated corroborating the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, that having come to know about the occurrence she rushed

to the place of occurrence and found the accused assaulting PW-1.

PW-4 the doctor who examined PW-2 stated to have found bleeding from both nostrils and contusion on the right maxiliary region. In the opinion

of the doctor, the injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapon. Thus, the evidence of the doctor (PW-4) is found to have reinforced the

prosecution case as deposed by PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3.

The oral testimony of PW-1, Pw-2 and PW-.3 supported by the medical evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that hurt was caused to

PW-1 by the petitioners. However, from the evidence of all the three witnesses, it transpires that there was no material to prove any charge under

Section 341 IPC, as no one stated about wrongful restrainment of PW-1. Therefore, the conviction of the accused/petitioners under Section 341 IPC

appears to be illegal as no evidence was brought on record to substantiate the charge under Section 341 IPC. The oral testimony supported by the

medical evidence having established the charge under Section 323 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt, there is no scope for interference with the impugned

judgment so far the conviction of the accused petitioners under Section 323 IPC is concerned. Since the charge under Section 341 IPC was not

proved against any of the accused persons, the petitioners are acquitted of the charge under Section 341 IPC.

Having considered the nature of offence, I am of the view that the sentence of fine would meet the ends of justice and therefore, the sentence

awarded by the learned Appellate court under Section 323 IPC is modified and reduced to fine only.

With the above modification in the conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC, the revision petition is partly allowed. The petitioners are

directed to surrender before the learned trial Court and pay the fine of Rs.400 each as imposed by the learned Appellate Court under Section 323 IPC

or to serve out the sentence in default.

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

Send back the LCR.