Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/2 vs The State Of Assam on 13 May, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                         Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010097172025




                                                                  undefined

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

                             Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./169/2025

             MD ABED ALI AND ANR
             S/O- LT.HAMED ALI,RESIDENT OF VILL-RAHA GAON, P.S.-SORBHOG, DIST-
             BARPETA, ASSAM. PIN-781317.

             2: MD DIMPLE ALI ALIAS DIMPOL ALI
              RESIDENT OF VILL-RAHA GAON
              P.S.-SORBHOG
              DIST-BARPETA
             ASSAM. PIN-781317

             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM


Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G PATHAK, MR. S K SINGHA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,



                                     :: BEFORE ::
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA



                                     O R D E R

13.05.2025

Heard G. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

Page No.# 2/2

2. This is an application under Section 442 read with Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the judgment dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta in PRC No.1224/2024, affirmed by the judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Criminal Appeal No.16/2024.

3. On the day of occurrence, the two petitioners assaulted the informant, causing fracture of his right ulna.

4. I have gone through the evidence of the victim as well as the doctor who proved the medical certificate.

5. Mr. Pathak submits that there are no other eye witnesses to support the evidence of the informant.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

7. For entertaining a revision petition, there has to be some jurisdictional error, which is not available in the present case.

8. The learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a correct finding. The learned appellate court has also correctly affirmed the said judgment.

In view of the above, the present Criminal Revision Petition has not merit and stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant