Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2924 Gua

                                                                         Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010003962012




                               THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./152/2012


            SRI BISWAJIT BORAH
            S/O LT. KANTHI RAM BORAH R/O BALI CHAPORI MAJGAON, P.S. JORHAT,
            DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM,

            2: SRI MOHAN BORAH
             S/O LT. RAMESWAR BORAH R/O BALI CHAPORI MAJGAON
             P.S. JORHAT
             DIST. JORHAT
            ASSA

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR


Advocate for the Petitioner    : MR. P. K. GOSWAMI, MS.P BHATTACHARYA, ADVOCATE

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. S. JAHAN, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM




                                       BEFORE
                              HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

                                           ORDER

Date : 17-11-2021

Heard Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

Page No.# 2/4

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.11.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, in G.R. Case No. 1160/2007 as well as the order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Criminal Appeal No. 43/2010.

3. The material facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged at Jorhat Police Station on 22.09.2007 against the present revisionist with the allegation of trespass and physical assault on the informant and his wife. Consequently, a case, being Jorhat Police Station Case No. 583/2007 (G.R. Case No. 1160/2007) under section 448/326/323 was registered. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under section 448/326/323 IPC was filed. On completion of trial, by an order dated 25.11.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, in G.R. Case No. 1160/2007 the accused/revisionist was convicted under section 448/323 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 448 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 323 IPC. Apart from the aforesaid sentences, the trial court, by invoking the powers under section 357 Cr.P.C., awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to be paid by the revisionist to the victim/informant. Thereafter, the matter was taken to the appellate court and the appeal preferred by the revisionist was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 43/2010. The appellate court, i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat, came to the conclusion that since the accused was a government servant and it was his first offence, the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of the Offender Act, 1958, could be given to the accused. Accordingly, vide judgment and order dated 16.01.2012, the appellate court partly allowed the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the sentence imposed by the trial court under section Page No.# 3/4

448 and 323 IPC and modified the award by reducing the compensation amount from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The relevant portion of the order passed by the appellate court reads as under:

"For the facts and circumstances as emerged in this case, this court is of the opinion that the accused is entitled to get the salutary benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, setting aside the sentences as imposed by the learned trial court under section 448 IPC and 323 IPC, it is hereby directed that the accused appellant be released on probation for a period of one year on his executing and furnishing a bond before the learned trial court binding himself with condition that he will be of good conduct and keep peace and shall appear before the court to receive sentence on the event of breach of those conditions as and when called for."

4. Aggrieved, the accused/revisionist is before this court.

5. I have gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court. I have also perused the pleadings as well as the statements of the prosecution witnesses including their cross-examinations. This court is of the considered opinion that on the basis of the relevant materials as well as the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the charges against the accused/revisionist are well established and the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, there was absolutely no ground for interference by the appellate court with the order of the trial court as far as the convictions under sections 448 IPC and 323 IPC are concerned. However, as far as the sentences are concerned, the appellate court has already granted the accused/revisionist the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of the Offender Act.

Page No.# 4/4

6. This court finds no ground for interference with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant