Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs State Of Assam on 5 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010219262012
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./228/2012
ADITYA DAS
S/O LT. SANATAN DAS R/O VILL- RAKSHASMARI, P.S. DHEKIAJULI, DIST.
SONITPUR, ASSAM,
2: SRI SASHI MOHAN DAS
S/O SHRI ADITYA DAS R/O VILL- RAKSHASMARI P.S. DHEKIAJULI
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM.
3: SHRI MANU DAS
S/O SHRI ADITYA DAS R/O VILL- RAKSHASMARI
P.S. DHEKIAJULI
DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM
4: SRI RATAN DAS
S/O SHRI ADITYA DAS R/O VILL- RAKSHASMARI
P.S. DHEKIAJULI
DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM
For the Petitioners : Mr. T.H. Hazarika, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. D. Das, Additional Public
Prosecutor, Assam.
Date of Hearing & Judgment & Order : 5th May, 2022.
Page No.# 2/4
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.
D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the
respondent.
2. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the revisionists
challenging the judgment & order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC), Sonitpur at Tezpur in Criminal Appeal No.15(S-2)/2007.
The revisionist No.1 is the father and the revisionist Nos.2, 3 & 4 are his sons.
The incident relates to as far back as 24.07.2005 when an FIR was lodged
before the Officer-in-Charge of Rakshasmari Police Out Post stating that on that
day, i.e. 24.07.2005, at about 6:00 AM in the morning when the informant's
younger brother, namely, Bimal Das, was working in the paddy field, the present
revisionists attacked him with sticks and hoe and caused grievous injuries to
him. The names of the eye witnesses to the incident have also been mentioned
in the FIR, who were Sri Mamani Das, Md. Nizam Ali and Sri Sani Das.
3. Pursuant to lodging of the aforesaid FIR, the revisionists were arrested
and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against
all the accused persons under Sections 341/325/34 IPC.
4. During trial, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. There
were eye witnesses to the incident, who clearly deposed that such an assault
occurred in front of them. Consequently, by the judgment & order dated
26.03.2007, the trial Court convicted the revisionist No.1 under Section 325 IPC
Page No.# 3/4
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay
a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
The revisionist Nos.2, 3 & 4 were also convicted under Sections 323/34 IPC and
were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a
fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
5. The matter was taken in appeal. Both the conviction and sentence were
upheld by the appellate Court vide judgment & order dated 28.02.2011.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment & order of the appellate Court, the
revisionists have filed the present revision.
6. As far as the incident is concerned, the veracity of the incident had
been duly corroborated by each of the eye witnesses and the fact that such an
incident happened is not in doubt. The conviction of revisionists Nos.2, 3 & 4
under Section 323/34 IPC is again based on sound, cogent and clear evidence
against them. The only question is whether the revisionist No.1, namely, Shri
Aditya Das, who is the father of the remaining revisionists, was also liable to be
convicted under Section 325 IPC. In other words whether the injury he inflicted
upon the injured, Bimal Das, was grievous in nature.
7. It is true that the doctor, who testified before the Court as PW-6, stated
in clear terms that injury No.1, which is a "lacerated cut injury" on the back of
the skull is grievous in nature. However, the fact remains that the x-ray report
shows that there was no fracture. Moreover, it cannot also be called to be a case
of disfigurement as defined under Section 320 IPC. Section 320 IPC defines
what is grievous hurt. The injury which is "lacerated cut injury" has been held to
be a grievous in nature. This Court, however, defers with this opinion inasmuch
as it does not come under any of the illustrations as given under Section 320
Page No.# 4/4
IPC. In the opinion of this Court, considering the nature of the injury and the
place of the injury, it cannot be considered as a disfigurement of head or face.
In any case, there is no evidence on record to show that there was any kind of
disfigurement. There is nothing to show that the injury endangered the life of
the victim or he had to suffer for more than 20 days in severe bodily pain for
the said injury.
8. Consequently, the conviction under Section 325 IPC is converted to that
of 323 IPC, i.e. from grievous hurt to that of hurt, in respect of the present
revisionist No.1. This Court has been informed that the accused/revisionist No.1
has already remained in jail for fifteen days and is presently on bail. Considering
the nature of the case and the fact that the present revisionist No.1 is now 80
years of age, the sentence in respect of the revisionist No.1 is also reduced from
six months to the period he has already undergone in custody.
9. The remaining three accused/revisionists, namely, Sri Manu Das, Shri
Sashi Mohan Das and Shri Ratan Das had been convicted under Section 323 IPC
read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for two months. They had already remained in police custody in connection with
the crime for twelve days. Therefore, their sentence is also reduced to the
period they have already undergone in custody. All the revisionists are on bail.
Their bail bond stands discharged.
10. The revision petition is partly allowed to the extent stated above.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
