Nur Islam Ali vs State Of Assam

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J

The informant Dilowara Khatun lodged an FIR in Hajo PS on 01.01.2005 stating the accused Md. Nur Islam Ali borrowed a sum of Rs 22,000/- promising to supply paddy in lieu of cash repayment and when he refused to supply the paddy her husband convened a meeting in their village LP School and as per decision of the people her husband went to the house of Manik Munchi to call him to the meeting and while he was returning accused Nur Isalm Ali, Sahjamal Ali, Hazarat Ali, Sahar Ali and Saifur Ali assaulted him by sharp and blunt weapon causing severe injuries to his person for which he was taken to Hajo Hospital from where he was referred to Gauhati medical College for further treatment.

On the basis of this ejahar the Officer-in-Charge, Hajo PS registered Case No. 1/05 U/S 143/341/325, IPC and it was endorsed to ASI Mr. A Haloi for investigation. In course of investigation accused Md. Nur Islam Ali, Md. Sahjamal Ali, Md. Sahar Ali and Md. Saifur Ali were arrested and on its completion all those four accused persons were sent up for trial u/s 143/341/323. On appearance of the accused persons the learned Magistrate explained the particulars of the offence under said section to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove this case prosecution examined altogether 9 (nine) witnesses. The accused persons in their statement u/s 313 CrPC declined to adduce defence evidence. After appreciating the evidence the learned Magistrate convicted accused Nur Islam Ali U/S 323 IPC and sentenced him to RI for 3 (three) months and acquitted other three accused persons.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of conviction the appeal was preferred by the accused which was dismissed.

As against the concurrent findings of the Court, the present revision has been preferred.

I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Addl. PP Mr. Dutta.

It has been contended that there is lack of consistency as about the place of occurrence and lack of corroboration among the witnesses in support of charge. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has urged before this Court that there is no discrepancy as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned trial Court has appreciated all the mattes in proper perspective of law and calls for no interference.

Pursuant to such submission, I have also gone through the evidence on record and the impugned judgment.

The victim Lalmia/PW-2 in his evidence has stated that on the day of occurrence i.e on 31.12.2004 at about 7.00 PM, he arranged the meeting in the house of Manik Munchi to decide the matter regarding the mortgage of land given by the accused person Nur Islam. As directed by the Gaonburah, he went to call Manik Munchi to preside over the meeting and the said Manik Munchi shown his inability to attend the meeting so he was returning from his house while he reached the gate, the present accused along with some other assaulted him from back side, as a result of which, he sustained injury on his head and fell down.

Hearing hue and cry, his wife/PW-1 reached the place of occurrence and found her husband/PW-2 lying on the courtyard of Manik Munchi with injury on his head. He told her about the matter of assault made by the accused and became senseless, he was taken to hospital.

The other witnesses PW-3 Abdul Rejak, PW-4 Jamiruddin and PW-5 Habibur Rehman, PW-6 Samsher Ali all of them have given similar evidence that on the day of occurrence hearing the hue and cry in the house of Manik Munchi (PW-7) they went to the place and found that Lalmia was lying with injury on the courtyard of Manik Munchi and his son and daughter were also present. Thereafter, they came to know that accused petitioner Nur Islam has assaulted Lalmia. Although, they are not present at the time of such assault but they immediately arrived at the place of occurrence hearing hue and cry and they were reported by the victim himself that he was assaulted by the accused Nur Islam.

The said Manik Munchi has given evidence as PW-7 has stated that occurrence took place near his house. It is stated that accused went to his house and returned and he does not know what happened thereafter. However, he heard that accused person has assaulted Lalmia resulting injury on his head and he has been referred to hospital.

The medical officer PW-8/Nabakanta Bhorali who examined injured Lalmia found one incised wound size 3"x ¼ x ¼ and one confused injury size 3" x 1/2 inch which is simple in nature.

The IO/PW-9 testified about the receipt of the FIR and also about course of investigation and filing of charge-sheet as such.

The learned trial Court as well as appellate Court have appreciated all the matters on record that the statement of the victim has been sufficiently corroborated by all the witnesses who immediately after the occurrence arrived at the place of occurrence and found that the victim lying with an injury on his head. The medical officer also found such type of injury on the head of the victim. There appears no scope for false implication of the accused petitioner on the part of the victim. It has also emerged that due to the money transaction between the accused and the victim there was some dispute between them and accused denied to have taken any transaction. The victim even went to settle the matter through village elderly but the accused did not respond the same and has assaulted the victim. In view of sufficient evidence on record as has been discussed above, the case cannot be discarded only for the fact that the said Manik Munchi has shown ignorance about the occurrence whereas he has also heard the same fact that the accused assaulted the victim. There appears no serious discrepancies while arriving at the guilt of the accused by the learned trial Court and this Court finds that no irregularity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order so passed by the Court below. However, considering that the matter relates to old pending of 2005 and the fact that accused petitioner is in a legal battle since long and the nature of injury is also simple, while maintaining the sentence, this Court is of opinion that it would met the ends of justice if the sentence is converted to a fine only.

Accordingly, accused petitioner is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand only), in default SI for 3 (three) months, to be deposited before the trial Court within 2 (two) months from today. Amount of fine, if recovered be given to the victim as a compensation. Return the LCR.