Gauhati High Court
Crl.Rev.P./523/2014 on 12 November, 2025
GAHC010020212014
2025:GAU-AS:15318
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CRL.REV.P. NO. 523 OF 2014
Sri Tapan Deb
S/o: Late Gopal Deb
Naliapool, Dibrugarh Town,
P.O. & P.S. Dibrugarh
District: Dibrugarh, Assam.
.......Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Smt. Sandhya Chaudhury
W/o: Late Sunil Chaudhury
Naliapool, Dibrugarh Town,
P.O. & P.S. Dibrugarh
District: Dibrugarh, Assam.
2. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Public Prosecutor.
....... Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. S. Mushahary, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. P. Dutta, Advocate for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. M.P. Goswami, Addl. P.P. for
respondent No. 2.
Page 1 of 9
Date on which judgment
is reserved : N/A
Date of pronouncement
of judgment : 12.11.2025
Whether the pronouncement
is of the operative part
of the judgment ? : No.
Whether the full judgment
has been pronounced : Yes.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Ms. S. Mushahary, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.P. Dutta,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr.
M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the State respondent.
2] The present criminal revision petition is filed under
Section 397 & 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Cr.P.C"), challenging the judgment & order dated 10.11.2014
passed by the learned Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC),
Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as the "appellate court"), in
Criminal Appeal No. 7 (1) of 2014, affirming the conviction of
the accused/petitioner passed by the learned Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as the
"trial court"), in G.R. Case No. 1220/09, under Section
448/325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred
to as the "IPC"), whereby the accused/petitioner was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month
for commission of offence u/s 448 of the IPC and simple
imprisonment for 6 (six) months and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in
default simple imprisonment for 10 (ten) days for commission
of offence under Section 325 of the IPC. Both the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
3] The prosecution case in brief is that on 03.07.2009
at about 9.00 pm the accused/petitioner pelted stones on her
house and thereafter came to her house and asked her to
open the door, and when she opened the door, the
accused/petitioner beat her on her face, thereby causing
injuries to her.
4] Accordingly, a case was registered as Dibrugarh P.S.
Case No. 348 dated 12.07.2009, under Section 336/448/325
of the IPC. After completion of the investigation, a charge-
sheet was submitted under the aforesaid sections. Thereafter,
the accused/petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. The trial court then framed charges under Section
448/325 of the IPC and accordingly commenced the trial.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 6 (six) witnesses:
the informant as PW-1, the son of the informant as PW-2, the
brother-in-law of the informant as PW-3, the sister of the
informant as PW-4, the doctor who examined the informant
as PW-5, and the Investigating Officer as PW-6. After closure
of prosecution evidence, the statement of the
accused/petitioner was also recorded under Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C., wherein he merely denied all the incriminating
materials that were put to him.
5] PW-1 deposed that on 3-07-2009 the accused used
filthy words against her, entered into her house at about 7.30
p.m., and gave her a fist blow on her face, resulting in the
falling out of four teeth with grievous injuries. After the
incident, she called her sister over the telephone, who came
to her house at night, and after informing the matter to the
Gabhorupathar Out Post, she took her for treatment along
with the police. After taking treatment, she returned to her
house, and thereafter she lodged a written F.I.R. in the police
station. The PW-1 also deposed that on the said day before
the incident, the accused person also pelted stones on her
house, and the said stones were seized by the police during
the investigation of the case. PW-2, the son of the informant,
in his deposition stated that on that day at the time of
occurrence of the said incident at about 7.30/8 p.m., he was
present at home. According to him, the accused person
misbehaved with his mother and gave her a fist blow, for
which blood oozed out from the mouth of his mother and she
became senseless. Thereafter, he informed his aunt over the
telephone, who came to their house and took his mother to
the police station and for her treatment. PW-3, the brother-in-
law of the informant, deposed to the effect that on 3-07-2009
at about 9.30 p.m. the son of the informant called him over
the telephone and informed him that the accused person had
assaulted his mother. After hearing about the said incident,
he, along with his wife, went to the house of the informant,
where they saw blood oozing out from the mouth of the
informant. On being asked, the informant stated that the
accused person assaulted her. Thereafter, they took the
informant to the Gabharupathar Out Post and to the medical
for her treatment. PW-4, the sister of the informant,
reiterated the same story as stated by the PW-3. The doctor
who examined the informant after the said incident was
examined as PW-5, who in his evidence deposed that the
informant lost her two teeth with mild swelling over the cheek
due to the alleged incident, and the age of the injury was
found to be 6 to 12 hours. The investigating officer, Sri
Khargeswar Bora, was examined as PW-6 by the prosecution,
who deposed that the complaint was lodged by the informant
on 12-07-2009, and he started the investigation of the case
on 13-03-2009 and seized 4/5 nos. of stones from the place
of occurrence. The trial court, upon appreciation of the
evidence of the informant/PW-1, the Medical Officer, PW-5,
and other witnesses, i.e., PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4, has found
the prosecution version to be established beyond reasonable
doubt and accordingly convicted the accused/petitioner under
Section 325/448 of the IPC.
6] The appellate court, upon being satisfied with the
ocular and medical evidence sufficiently corroborating each
other, upheld the said conviction passed by the trial court
under Section 325/448 of the IPC.
7] Ms. S. Mushahary, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the evidence on record in its proper
perspective has not been appreciated by the trial court and
the appellate court, and hence there is abuse of process
apparent on the face of the records, and the conviction
having been arrived at is unsustainable in view of the same,
and as such the accused/petitioner is entitled to acquittal. She
further submits that there is a perceptible contradiction in the
evidence adduced by the informant, who deposed as PW-1
against her own statement recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C., as well as in the F.I.R. The informant in her evidence
deposed that the accused/appellant used filthy words against
her before entering into her house at about 7:30 pm, whereas
there was no whisper of using filthy words by the
accused/petitioner in the FIR as well as in the statement of
the informant recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.;
rather the statement recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C., presents a completely different story, and the incident
took place at 9 pm, and the accused/petitioner entered into
the house of the informant without even making any noise,
not to speak of using any filthy words. She further submits
that the trial court as well as the appellate court failed to
appreciate the fact that the informant's initial deposition
before the police officer as well as her statement in the F.I.R.
is at variance with her deposition in the court. She further
submits that the informant in her cross-examination admitted
that she had enmity with the accused/petitioner for a long
time prior to the incident. She further submits that the
conviction having been based solely on the basis of the
informant is not sufficient to bring home the offence against
the accused/petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt.
8] Per contra, Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent, while
supporting the impugned judgment, submits that the
informant's witness is cogent and trustworthy, duly supported
by medical evidence, and that both the courts have
concurrently recorded well-reasoned findings based on
evidence.
9] Likewise, Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing
for the informant, by supporting the impugned judgment,
submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court has
not committed any manifest error and/or illegality warranting
any interference from the instant revisional court.
10] I have given my prudent consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsels for all the
parties and have perused the material available on record.
11] It appears from the testimony of the informant/PW-1
that while she was in her house, the accused/petitioner, after
pelting stones, came inside the house and called her and
asked her to open the door, and after she opened the door,
started abusing her with filthy language and also gave her a
fist blow on her face, for which she lost about 2 teeth. It
appears that the Medical Officer fully corroborates the injuries
alleged to have been inflicted by the accused/petitioner. It
further appears that the Medical Officer has also deposed that
the nature of the injury is grievous. It further appears that her
son, i.e., PW-2, who was inside the house at the time of the
occurrence, upon coming out, saw his mother unconscious. It
also appears that her sister, whom she had immediately
informed about the occurrence, has also deposed that she
was informed that it was the accused/appellant, who had
beaten her sister. The testimony of the informant is found
realistic and corroborated by medical evidence.
12] That apart, the other witnesses, though not
eyewitnesses to the assault, have corroborated the immediate
aftermath and presence of both the parties at the place of
occurrence, lending assurance to the prosecution case. It is
pertinent that the accused/appellant, after closure of the
prosecution evidence, has not offered any explanation during
his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., when all the
incriminating circumstances were put to him.
13] It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under
Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., is limited. This court
cannot reappreciate evidence as a third court of fact, unless
there is manifest illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of
justice. Upon perusal of the records, no such infirmity or
illegality is found in the concurrent findings of conviction
recorded by the trial court as well as the appellate court.
14] As regards the sentence, the accused/petitioner has
been sentenced to undergo 6 (six) months of simple
imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC,
which prescribes a maximum punishment of 7 (seven) years.
Considering the nature of the injury and the circumstances of
the occurrence, the sentence imposed cannot be said to be
excessive or disproportionate. For the foregoing reasons, this
court finds no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the
impugned judgments warranting interference in revisional
jurisdiction.
15] The criminal revision petition accordingly, stands
dismissed.
16] The conviction and sentence of the
accused/petitioner under Section 448/325 of the IPC as
recorded by the trial court on 17.02.2014 in G.R. Case
No.1220/09 and affirmed by the appellate court on
10.11.2024 in Crl. Appeal No. 7 (1) of 2014 are hereby
affirmed.
17] The accused/petitioner shall surrender to serve the
remaining sentence, if any.
18] Return the trial court record (TCR).
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
