Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 21 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010171352009
2025:GAU-AS:6351
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./331/2009
BISHU MUKHERJEE and ORS.
2: SRI GOPAL MUKHERJEE
3: SRI ASHOK MUKHERJEE
ALL SONS OF LT. NIRMAL MUKHERJEE
RESIDING AT OLD RAILWAY COLONY
BONGAIGAON
P.O. and DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
2:MRS. PALLABI MUKHERJEE
W/O BISHU MUKHERJEE
D/O BARUN KR CHOUDHURY
R/O RLY QTR NO-F/347/B
NEAR RLY HOSPITAL COLONY
PS-DHALIGAON
PO-NEW BONGAIGAON
DIST-BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-783380
PRESENT ADDRESS
PALLABI MUKHERJEE
D/O BARUN KR CHOUDHURY
R/O VILL NATUNPARA
PO AND PS -BONGAIGAON
DIST - BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
PIN-78338
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.G M PAUL, MR.S BHUYAN,MR.A S
BHATTACHARJEE,MR.C PHUKAN,MR.K R PATGIRI,MR.B BARMAN,MS.C DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. B SARMA, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2), PP, ASSAM,,,,,
:: PRESENT ::
HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTISAIKIA
For the Petitioners : Mr. K.R. Patgiri,
Advocate.
For the Respondent
No.1 : Mr. B. Sarma,
Addl. P.P., Assam.
For the Respondent
No.2 : Ms. B. Sarma,
Amicus Curiae.
Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025.
Date of Judgment : 21.05.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard
Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing Respondent
No.1 as well as Mr. Ms. B. Sarma, the learned Amicus Curiae representing Respondent
No.2.
2. This is an application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
challenging the judgment dated 31.03.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bongaigaon in G.R. Case No.291/2000 affirmed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon in Criminal Appeal No.13(2)/2007.
3. On 30.08.2000, Smti. Pallabi Mukherjee had lodged an ejaher before police
alleging that the petitioner Bishu Mukherjee, being her husband, and the other
petitioners being her relatives, physically and mentally harassed her without any
reason and excused. While she was pregnant for three months, her husband Bishu
Page No.# 3/4
Mukherjee assaulted her severely, for which she had to be admitted to the hospital for
medical treatment.
4. It is alleged by the complainant Smti. Pallabi Mukherjee that at the time of her
marriage, her husband Bishu Mukherjee had taken cash amount of ₹14,000/-, gold
ornaments and utensils on demand as dowry. His family members allegedly demanded
more money after her marriage.
5. The complainant Pallabi Mukherjee has further alleged that at one point of time,
she and her husband Bishu Mukherjee stayed together separately in a rented house.
At that time also, she was beaten by her husband for non-payment of money. On
14.04.2000, she was severely assaulted by her husband for which she again had to be
admitted in a hospital and since then she has been staying with her father.
6. Police registered the case, being Dhaligaon P.S. Case No.59 of 2000 under
Sections 498-A/448/325/354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of
investigation, police field the charge sheet under Sections 498-A/448/323/354 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code.
7. During the trial, the prosecution side has examined 10 witnesses. On the basis of
the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the petitioners.
8. They preferred an appeal and the learned appellate court also affirmed the
judgment of the trial court.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
10. Normally, a revisional court does not go through the evidence if it is not shown
that there is something serious the way the trial court interpreted the evidence. In the
case in hand, the petitioners failed to show any reason compelling this Court to go
through the evidence. There is no jurisdictional or legal error in the judgments passed
by the courts below.
11. The case originally in the year 2000. Twenty-five years have already passed
Page No.# 4/4
away. For the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners
were sentenced to undergo 6(six) months of impoundment and to pay fine of ₹500/-
each. For the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, they were
sentenced to pay fine of ₹100/- on each. Similarly, for the offence under Section 323
of the IPC the petitioners sentenced to undergo 1 month of imprisonment each.
12. The leaned trial court had refused to grant benefit of Section 360 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure or the Probation of Offenders Act. The reason was that the
offences had impacted the society and all married women.
13. I have already held hereinbefore that after the occurrence, 25 years have gone
by. A lot of water had already flown through the river Brahmaputra. Everything has
changed since the year 2000. At this stage, this Court is of the opinion that for the
said offences, the petitioners do not deserve to be detained in custody for any period
of time. This Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising of powers
under the Probation of Offenders Act.
14. This Court hereby holds that so far as convictions of the petitioners are
concerned, the learned trial court as well as the appellate court had correctly arrived
at their findings. But this Court has decided that in this case the provisions of the
Probation of Offenders Act are to be applied for the ends of justice. The part of the
impugned trial court's judgment where the petitioners were sentence to undergo
imprisonment and to pay fine, is set aside. The petitioners are released on admonition
under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.
15. In this way, the Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
