MD LUKMAN UDDIN and ORS. vs THE STATE OF ASSAM

1.Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Ms. S Jahan, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimganj in Criminal

Appeal No.6(3)/2008. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioners against the judgment of

conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj in GR Case No.319/2004 and confirmed the conviction of the

revision petitioners under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for 6 (six) months.

As per the prosecution case, on 15.04.2004 the revision petitioners obstructed the informant on his way and mounted assault on him and thereby

caused injuries. They also threatened the injured with dire consequences, if complaint is lodged before the police. Being scared of the

accused/petitioners, the complainant could not lodge the FIR on the same day. However, on the next day an FIR was lodged by the informant (PW-1),

on the basis of which, police registered a case. After usual investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the revision petitioners under Section

341/323 IPC and eventually the revision petitioners stood trial before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj.

In course of trial, learned CJM, Karimganj framed charges under Section 341/323 IPC against the petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty. 5

(five) witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charge and on appreciation of evidence, learned CJM convicted the revision

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

Aggrieved, the revision petitioners preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge partly allowing the appeal acquitted the petitioners of the

charge under Section 341 IPC and confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC.

Aggrieved by the said appellate judgment, the present revision petitioners preferred the instant revision.

From the evidence, it appears that the prosecution examined 3 (three) ocular witnesses being the informant himself, his mother and his wife as well

as the official witness being the Doctor and the Investigating Officer. PW-1, the injured stated categorically in his evidence that initially he was

assaulted by Lokman with the blunt side of a dao and immediately the other petitioners also arrived there and assaulted him. Hearing alarm raised by

him, his mother and wife came out and witnessed the occurrence. During cross-examination, it is stated that the petitioners also filed a case against

him which was registered as GR Case No.335/2004. The mother and wife of PW-1 were examined as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively, also supported

the oral testimony of PW-1. The doctor who was examined as PW-4 found bruises on the body of PW-1 and all the injuries were simple and

superficial, as deposed by the doctor.

The scrutiny of the oral testimony brought on record shows, that the evidence of PW-1, the injured has been supported by PW-2 & PW-3 and the

prosecution case as deposed by PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 was further reinforced by the medical evidence and the learned trial Court appreciating the

above evidence convicted the petitioners. It is the settled position of law that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is not that wide as in case of

appeal and the High court is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence and facts, unless the finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and against

the evidence brought on record or the impugned judgment suffers from any serious illegality or irregularity.

In the present case, the evidence as discussed herein above makes it appear that the impugned judgment has not suffered from any manifest error

of law or facts. Therefore, in my considered view, so far the conviction of the accused/petitioners is concerned, warrants no interference by this

revisional Court.

It appears from the evidence that there were enmity between the parties as admittedly for the same occurrence, the petitioners also filed a case

which was also pending. Having considered the trivial nature of injury sustained by the informant and the facts and circumstances of the case, under

which the occurrence took place, I am of the view that this is a fit case where the petitioners should be given the benefit of the Probation of

Offenders Act.

Being of the above view, it is directed that the petitioners shall appear before the learned CJM, Karimganj on 25th May, 2018 and the learned

CJM, Karimganj shall release them after due admonition.

The criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

Send back the LCR.