MD SAFARUDDIN vs THE STATE OF ASSAM

1.This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Crl. A. No. 7/2009. By

the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioner against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2009,

whereby, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for 6 months and

fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

As per prosecution case, on 08.02.2006, there was an altercation between the accused persons named in the FIR and Mannas Ali, the son of the

informant and all the accused persons named in the FIR being armed with dao, lathi, rod etc. assaulted the son of the informant while he was irrigating

his land. Hafizuddin and Safar Ali shown as accused No. 1 and 2 in the FIR assaulted Mannas Ali with rod. Hearing alarm raised by him, the

informant arrived at the place of occurrence and the accused persons left the place. The father of the injured (PW-1) lodged an FIR, on the basis of

which, police registered a case and after usual investigation submitted charge sheet against Hafizuddin and the present petitioner. Both the accused

persons stood trial before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon.

In course of trial, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge under Section 325 IPC R/W Section 34 against the present petitioner and

Hafizuddin, to which, they pleaded not guilty. Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charge. On completion of the

evidence of prosecution side, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they took the plea of innocence and examined

one witness in their defence. Learned Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, convicted the present petitioner under Section 325 IPC and awarded

sentence as indicate above. However, the co-accused was acquitted.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon and the

learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the appellate judgment confirming the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred the instant petition.

Out of the seven witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW 1 was the injured himself. He stated in his evidence, that while he was irrigating in his

land, Hafizuddin appeared there and threatened him not to come to the said land. At that time the petitioner Safaruddin suddenly appeared there with

an iron rod in his hand and hit him from backside. Consequently, he fell down. As a result of the assault, he sustained injury on his left hand. During

cross-examination, PW 1 stated that they have only six bighas of cultivable land out of which 3 bighas of land was sold to one Mannas Ali ( not the

injured) and remaining 3 bighas of land was sold to Hafizuddin and they had no cultivable land at the time of occurrence.

Close on the heels of the evidence of PW 1, the PW 2 stated, that he was working in the nearby field and noticed the petitioner assaulting PW 1

with an iron rod. As he came forward to the place of occurrence to save the PW 1, accused persons attempted to assault him also. PW 3, PW 4 and

PW 5, who were also working in the nearby field stated to have seen the accused Safaruddin assaulting PW 1, Mannas Ali with an iron rod. Thus, the

evidence of PW 1 that the petitioner Safaruddin assaulted him with an iron rod and caused injury on his hand was corroborated by the eye witnesses

PW2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5. The cross examination by the defence could not create any dent in the oral testimony of these five vital witnesses.

The doctor, who examined the injured, stated in his evidence, that the PW 1 had fractured injury on his left hand. In the opinion of the doctor, the

injury was caused by blunt weapon and was grievous in nature. Ex. 2, the injury report also shows, that on the basis of the report of X-ray, the doctor

recorded the finding as to the fracture of bone of the left hand of the victim. Thus, the medical evidence is also found to have reinforced the

prosecution case, as deposed by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 & PW 6.

The accused petitioner examined himself as DW 1 and his version was that there was quarrel and scuffle between him and Mannas Ali over the

dispute pertaining to land and in course of the scuffle both of them fell down. According to him, the injury might be caused due to fall. DW 1 though

denied his liability in causing the injury, the occurrence was not denied. On the basis of the above evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence,

learned trial court recorded conviction and sentence of the petitioner, which was confirmed by the learned appellate court in appeal and the impugned

judgment does not appear to have suffered from any illegality or irregularity justifying interference by the revisional court.

In fact, learned defence counsel has also not contested the conviction of the petitioner forcefully, rather prayed for showing leniency to the

petitioner in respect of sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the parties are closely related. Though the occurrence took

place suddenly due to land dispute, presently both parties are living peacefully and the accused petitioner is also well placed in the society. Considering

all these aspects and the fact that the occurrence took place long before in the year 2006, learned defence counsel urged for modifying the sentence.

Having considered the facts and circumstances under which the occurrence took place and that the parties are close relations as well as sufferings of

the petitioner for more than a decade because of the protracted trial, I find justification in the submission of the learned counsel, inasmuch as, sending

the petitioner to jail for six months after such long time is not likely to sub-serve any cause of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves some leniency so far the question of sentence is concerned.

Thus, having taken note of the totality of the matter, this Court is of the view that the sentence awarded by the learned trial court deserves to be

modified for ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period till rising of the court and the quantum of fine is raised

to Rs. 5,000/-

The accused petitioner shall surrender before the trial court within one month and learned trial court after completion of the period of

imprisonment, till rising of the court, release him on payment of the fine amount. On realization the fine amount shall be paid to the injured.

With the above modification of the sentence, the appeal is partly allowed.

Send back the LCR.