Lorakon Idul Choudhury vs State Of Assam

 [1] The fact leading to the case is that on 04.11.2016, at about 12:00 noon, the husband of the informant, Musstt Sunu Begum was proceeding

towards the mosque at Kathani gaon. The accused-appellant, Lorakon @ Idul Chaudhury wrongfully retrained him, caused injuries to his person with

a scissor for which he was immediately shifted to the AJ Hospital, Nagaon for treatment.

[2] On receipt of the FIR, on the above facts, the Nagaon Police Station registered a case under Sections 341/326/307/34 of the IPC, investigated into

it, collected evidence, and on completion of evidence, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Sections 341/307/34 of the IPC.

[3] On appearance of the accused-appellant before the learned trial court of the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Nagaon, a formal charge against

the accused-appellant was framed under Sections 341/307 of the IPC after exhausting the required legal formalities. The accused-appellant pleaded

innocence, and therefore, the trial commenced.

[4] I have heard Mr. U Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the accused-appellant as well as Mr. TK Mishra, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent No. 2.

[5] I have perused the impugned judgment as well as the evidence of the witnesses as available in the record of the learned trial court.

[6] The evidence of the PW2/victim is that the accused-appellant restrained him while he was proceeding towards the mosque and caused injuries to

his person with a scissor in his stomach. Thereafter, immediately he was shifted to the nearby AJ Nursing Home, Nagaon where he received medical

treatment.

[7] The PW3, the Doctor, in his evidence, referred to the Ext-2, the medical report of injuries. It appears from his evidence as well as from the

medical report of the injuries, Ext-2, that the injured sustained cut injury of 2.5 cm X 2 inch on his abdomen. The opinion of the Doctor is that the

injuries, found in the person of the victim/PW2 were simple in nature but caused by sharp weapon.

[8] The evidence of PW2 appears to have subscribed to the evidence of the PW2/victim. The evidence of PW2 also makes it appear that he has seen

the occurrence. The other witnesses are not eye witnesses but were told by the informant. As against the claim of the complainant/wife of the injured

that she had seen the occurrence, there is no corroborative evidence to show that she appeared at the place of occurrence at any point of time, during

the course of occurrence.

[9] Whatever it may be, the fact remains that the victim/PW2 sustained injuries which is corroborated by the medical evidence. The evidence of PW2

is that he was injured by the present accused-appellant. Such evidence of the PW2 could not be discredited, in cross-examination, to such an extent

that his evidence cannot be acted upon.

[10] Therefore, on the basis of the evidence on record, the findings recorded by the learned trial court holding the accused-appellant guilty of the

offence under Sections 341/324 of the IPC appears to be correct requiring no interference. However, the sentence imposed upon the accused-

appellant is, considering the nature and gravity of the injuries, and the circumstance leading to the occurrence, etc, this Court is of the view that simple

imprisonment for 1 (one) month under Section 341 of the IPC is found to be correct and sentence of 2 (two) years under Sections 324 of the IPC as

imposed by the learned trial court is in the higher side. Therefore, this Court is of the view that simple imprisonment of 1½ years for offence under

Section 324 of the IPC would have met the ends of justice.

[11] Accordingly, the sentence is modified to simple imprisonment for 1½ years under Section 324 of the IPC. The sentence under Section 341 of

the IPC is retained. The sentences are to run concurrently. The period of detention of the accused-appellant in custody, during investigation, trial and

after the judgment, be set off against the said sentence.

[12] The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed.

[13] Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.

[14] This Court appreciates the legal assistance rendered by Mr. U Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae and directs payment of remuneration of Rs.

7,000/- to him.