Mantu Ali vs State Of Assam And Anr

This revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2012, passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Nalbari, rendered in Sessions Case No.149/2011, whereby the accused/petitioner was convicted u/s.341/326/307 IPC and sentenced the petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one month u/s.341 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years u/s.326 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and also sentenced u/s.307 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for further six months. The said award of conviction and sentence was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Crl. Appeal No.33.2012, by its order dated 29.04.2017.

I have heard Mr. K. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. BJ Dutta, learned Addl. P.P., Assam representing the State/respondent No.1. Also heard Ms. F. Begum, learned counsel appearing for the informant/respondent No.2.

I have also gone through the documents on record.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 07.08.2011, at about 8 P.M., Iyachin Ali, son of the informant Abdul Gani while returning home was attacked and assaulted by accused Mantu Ali with a dagger on his head, hand and back, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries on his person and he was taken for medical treatment. Due to the injuries so inflicted on his right hand, the injured had to ampute his right hand below the elbow.

On the facts, an ejahar was lodged by the father of the victim and accordingly the Ghagrapar P.S. Case No.126/2011, u/s.326/34 was registered and on completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet u/s.341/326/307/34 IPC, against accused Mantu Ali and Tafique Ali.

The accused persons contested the case and denied the charges that were framed against them under the aforesaid Sections of law.

In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and the defence examined none. The plea of the defence is of total denial.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused Mantu Ali and Tafique Ali, under the said sections of law and on the appeal so preferred, the Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence so far as regards accused Mantu Ali, however acquitted accused Tafique Ali from the charge.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision has been preferred on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective of law and facts. It is contended that there are several inconsistencies and contradictions between the two vital witnesses i.e. the informant and the victim and there being no any other eye witness to the occurrence to connect the accused with the offence, the awarding of conviction and sentence is bad in law.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State respondent has justified the order of conviction in view of the detail testimony of the victim and there is no earlier enmity between the parties for such false implication. It is contended that the injuries sustained by the victim is also supported by the medical evidence and the victim has been made permanently disabled for the rest of life, there cannot be any doubt about the complicity of the accused petitioner with the offence charged.

However the learned counsel for the informant, who has also entered appearance before this Court has submitted an affidavit along with a settlement deed that the parties being relatives, have settled the matter outside the Court and now living peacefully and they have no grievances against the accused person. In the affidavit so filed, it has been submitted that the accused/petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and has already delivered possession of 4 kathas of land to the victim towards his rehabilitation and he has occupied the land accordingly.

I have also gone through the aforesaid affidavit and the agreement submitted by the informant as well as the injured person. The learned counsel for the State respondent has submitted that in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, in the interest of justice, this Court may allow the petition, as the victim has already been compensated by the accused person and they are relatives and have no earlier enmity between them.

On due consideration of the impugned judgment and orders of the lower Courts, it is found that the victim as PW.5 has given a clear description of the incident that on the day of occurrence while he was returning to home, the accused Mantu Ali gave blows with dagger on his head and on his resistance by raising the hand, a blow fell on his right hand causing serious injuries, besides causing serious injuries on his right ear and on backside. In the hospital, his right hand was amputed below the wrist joint and now he is unable to pursue the normal works.

The Medical Officer (PW.6) also supported the case of the prosecution that the injured suffered crush injury on the right had distal forearm portion which includes wrist, hand and finger, apart from head injury and lacerated wound around right pina and the right hand of the victim was amputed at the distal forearm level. There is no any inconsistency appeared on the evidence of the injured so as to false implication of the accused person.

The informant, who is the father of the victim has arrived at the place of occurrence having heard the scream of his son (PW.5) that he has been stabbed. On his arrival, he found the PW.5 lying in a pool of blood, in front of the house of one Mamtaz Ali (PW.2) and it was about 8 P.M. and his son informed that the accused Mantu Ali and Tafique Ali inflicted him the cut injuries. He managed to take his son to the hospital.

The other witnesses namely the PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 are nearby residents, have arrived at the place of occurrence, hearing the sound on the road and found the PW.5 lying injured on the road side but they have no knowledge as to who assaulted the victim.

The other witnesses i.e. PW.7 and PW.8 are the investigation officers who have stated all about the investigation. Nothing material has emerges to discredit the evidence of the victim nor any serious contradiction and omission of the witnesses were found to raise doubt upon the authenticity to the prosecution case.

From the corollary of the discussion of the evidence it is found and held that the learned trial Court has rightly held the accused Mantu Ali guilty of the offence charged and the learned appellate Court has also rightly affirmed the judgment of conviction of the trial Court.

The evidence of the victim and the injury sustained is indicative of the fact that he sustained grievous injuries on his person and as there were attempt to dealt injuries on his head twice, so it can be safely hold and inferred that the accused person intended to cause death of the victim but because of his resistance, the victim could survive. Accordingly it is found and hold that the offences u/s. u/s.341/326/307 IPC has been made out as against the accused person. Resultantly the conviction that has been rendered by the Courts below is hereby affirmed.

Considered the submission rendered on behalf of the informant and the victim coupled with the fact that the parties have already buried their grievance and being the relatives, they have restored to the peaceful life, raising no grievance against each other at this moment and the accused has already compensated the victim by providing 4 kathas of land and also assured to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (which is not yet paid).

Also heard the submission of learned counsel for the State, who has urged that in view of such genuine settlement between the parties being relative, a lenient view can be taken by the Court. Taking not of all above, maintaining the conviction, the accused/petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone. But however the sentence of fine is raised to Rs.1,00,000/-, u/s.307 IPC and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, u/s.326 IPC, totaling Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only, in default rigorous imprisonment for five years. No separate sentence is imposed u/s.341 IPC.

The amount of fine be deposited before the learned trial Court within a period of one month from today and the amount of fine be given to the injured Iyachin Ali, as compensation.

This Court however does not interfere into the recommendation of the learned trial Court regarding the compensation, u/s.357-A of the CrPC.

With the above findings, the present petition stands disposed of.

Return the LCRs along with a copy of judgment immediately.