Lulu Medhi vs State Of Assam

None appears for the revision petitioner. Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. B.B. Gogoi, for the State respondent.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.7.2010, passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Nagaon, in Criminal

Appeal No.21 (N) 2007. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge, dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner, upheld the judgment and order

dated 20.6.2007, whereby the petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 324 of the IPC and he was sentenced

to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for another three months.

As per prosecution case, on 27.10.2004, the ducks belonging to the accused/petitionerdamaged the paddy field of the informant and when the

informant asked the petitioner Lulu Medhi, as to why he let loose the ducks to cause damage to the crops, there was altercation between them. As the

husband of the informant arrived there noticing the petitioner altercating with his wife, the petitioner hit him with a dao, on the backside of his neck and

consequently, he sustained severe injury.

An FIR was lodged by Bina Tamuli, wife of the injured, on the basis of which the Policeregistered a case and after usual investigation, submitted

charge sheet against the petitioner.

Eventually the petitioner stood trial for offence under Section 326 IPC.

In course of trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses to establish the charge and onappreciation of evidence, the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 324 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an Appeal, which stooddismissed. Aggrieved by the appellate judgment and

order, the petitioner preferred the instant Appeal.

Out of the eight witnesses examined by the prosecution, the PW.2, PW.4, PW.6 and PW.7 werenot eye witness of the occurrence and they came

to know later on, about the occurrence. PW.8 was the investigating officer and therefore the prosecution case primarily hinges on the oral testimony

of PW.1 and PW.3, as well as the medical evidence of the PW.5.

PW.1 deposed that when she asked the petitioner about his duck causing damage to the crops,the petitioner picked up altercation with him. At that

point of time, her husband arrived there and the petitioner assaulted her husband (PW.3), with a dao causing serious injury on the backside of his neck.

Close on the heel on the evidence of PW.1, the injured (PW.3) also deposed that having seen the accused/petitioner engaged in altercation with his

wife, on the matter of his duck causing damage to the crops, he arrived there and the accused/petitioner delt him a blow with a dao, inflicting injury on

the back of his neck.

PW.5, the Doctor who attended the injured (PW.3) immediately after the occurrence found one deep incised wound on the left side of the back of

the neck with profuse bleeding.

The above medical evidence with regard to injury found on the backside of the neck of PW.3re-inforced the prosecution case, as deposed by

PW.1 and PW.3. Appreciating the above evidence, the learned Trial Court recorded the conviction of the accused/petitioner, under Section 324 IPC,

which was later on affirmed in Appeal by the learned Sessions Judge.

Though the power of the Revisional Court is wide, even then that cannot be equated with theAppeal. It is the settled position of law, that unless

the concurrent findings of facts of the Court’s below suffered from gross illegality, causing miscarriage of justice or the findings suffers from

perversity, the Revisional Court is not supposed to interfere with the findings of the Court’s below, even if two views are possible. Be that as it

may, from the evidence discussed here-in-above, it is abundantly clear that there is no scope at all to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial

Court, holding the accused/petitioner guilty under Section 324 IPC, in as much as, the oral testimony of the injured was fully corroborated by the eye

witness PW.1 and also the medical evidence of PW.5. This being the position, the conviction of the accused/petitioner, under Section 324 IPC,

warrants no interference by this Court.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case under which the offence wascommitted, the quantum of sentence awarded by the

learned Trial Court and for that matter, affirmed by the Court of Sessions, appears to be a bit harsh and not commensurating with the offence. In this

case, the accused/petitioner was not a hardened criminal and the occurrence took place at the spar of moment in course of quarrel between the

parties on trivial matter. Taking into account the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that sentence of fine alone would meet the ends of

justice. Accordingly, the sentence is modified to fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousands) and in default to pay the same, the petitioner shall undergo

simple imprisonment for three months.

With the above modification of the sentence, the Revision Petition is partly allowed.

Send back the LCR.  Â