Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 8115 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam on 29 October, 2025

                                                                       Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010008912014




                                                                 2025:GAU-AS:14493

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

                                Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./172/2014

            MD. ANOWAR HUSSAIN and 2 ORS.
            S/O MD SAMIRDDIN LASKAR

            2: MD JAMMALUDDIN BARBHUIYA
             S/O MD ELIAS ALI BARBHUYA

            3: MD HILLALUDDIN LASKAR
             S/O MD SIKANDAR ALI LASKAR ALL ARE R/O VILL- KARICHERA
             P.S. KATLICHERA DIST. HAILAKANDI
            ASSAM

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM




Advocate for the Petitioner   : MRJ C BORAH, MRN M HAZARIKA

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A B T HAQUE, MRH I CHOUDHURY,MR.G UDDIN,PP,
ASSAM
                                                                           Page No.# 2/7



                                 BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

                                        ORDER

Date : 29.10.2025

None appears for the petitioners on call.

Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, appears for the State and Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel, appears for the respondent no.2/informant.

2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 13.11.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Criminal Appeal No. No.43/2012, dismissing the same and thereby upholding the Judgment dated 09.08.2012, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, in G. R. Case No.63/2006, convicting the petitioners, herein, under Sections 447/323/34 IPC, and sentencing them accordingly.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that Md. Hasanraja Choudhury, had on 01.02.2006, lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Katlicherra Police Station, inter alia, alleging therein, that the present petitioners had come to his house and attacked his son Alauddin, injuring him in his ear with a "Bhujali". It was further alleged that the petitioner no.1 had assaulted his son with a stick and injured him in various parts of his body. It was also alleged that the neighbours on objecting to the act of the petitioners, herein, in assaulting his son, they had threatened the neighbours also.

On receipt of the said FIR, the same was registered as Page No.# 3/7

Katlicherra Police Station Case No.10/2006, under Sections 147/149/447/325/326/34 IPC.

On conclusion of the investigation police laid a charge against the present petitioners under Sections 447/323/34 IPC.

The learned Trial Court on appreciating the materials coming on record had also framed a charge against the present petitioners under Sections 447/323/34 IPC.

The charge on being read over and explained to the petitioners, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a Trial ensued.

During the Trial the prosecution had examined 5(five) witnesses and thereafter the petitioners, herein, were examined under Section 313 CrPC.

On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide Judgment dated 09.08.2012, to convict the present petitioners under Sections 447/323/34 IPC, and sentenced them accordingly.

The petitioners being aggrieved by their conviction by the learned Trial Court, assailed the Judgment dated 09.08.2012 before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, by way of instituting an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 43/2012.

The Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide Judgment dated 13.11.2013, to dismiss the same, thereby upholding the conviction of the petitioners, herein.

Being aggrieved the petitioners have instituted the present Criminal Revision Petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

Page No.# 4/7

5. A perusal of the evidences coming on record during the Trial reveals that the victim PW-4 is the only eye witness and he had during his deposition implicated the present petitioners. He had clearly described the assault as committed upon him by the present petitioners.

The PW-3 who is the wife of the informant although had not seen the accused assaulting her son but she had seen the presence of the petitioners in their house at the relevant point of time.

The evidence adduced by the PW-4/victim finds corroboration from the deposition of the Medical Officer who had deposed as PW-1.

Basing on the evidences coming on record, the learned Trial Court had drawn the following conclusions ;

"Let us, therefore, scrutinize the testimony of the P.W.4 carefully and determine whether it suffers from any infirmities or embellishment. In his examination- in-chief the P.W.4 clearly stated that the accused persons came to his house and beat him up and that the accused Anowar assaulted him on his ear with a 'bhujali" causing injuries on his right ear and head and the fact that he was injured in his ear was also not challenged during his cross-examination. On the other hand, the testimony of the P.W.1, the M/O as well as his medical report supports the fact that the victim was injured on the right side of his ear, which was also found to be fresh, simple and caused by a blunt object soon after the occurrence. Apart from that the ejahar, the Ext.-2 was also filed promptly after the occurrence which makes the very foundation of the prosecution case even stronger. The cross- examination of the P.W.4 reveals that there is nothing to create any doubt with respect to the fact that the Page No.# 5/7

accused persons came to the house of the PW.4 and assaulted him and from all the above facts and circumstances it is apparent that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused persons u/s 447/323/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent evidence.

Accordingly, all the accused persons, viz., Anowar Hussain Laskar, Jamal Uddin Barbhuiya and Hilal Uddin Laskar are found guilty u/s 447/323/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and as such, they required to be convicted and sentenced accordingly."

6. On drawing the said conclusions and convicting the petitioners, herein, the learned Trial Court sentence the petitioners, herein, as follows ;

"Considering all aspects, a lenient view is taken for the ends of justice and the above named accused persons are hereby convicted u/s 447/34 IPC and sentenced to suffer S.I. for 1 (one) month and they are also convicted u/s 323/34 IPC and sentenced to suffer S.I. for 3(three) months. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The period of detention in jail hazot, if any, shall be set off accordingly."

7. The Appellate Court on the appeal being instituted before it, had upon appreciating the evidences brought on record found no infirmity with the conclusions reached in the matter by the learned Trial Court and accordingly vide Judgment dated 13.11.2013, the learned Appellate Court concluded that petitioners, herein, sharing a common intention had Page No.# 6/7

assaulted the victim, after committing trespass into the homestay of the informant, with a view to assault the victim.

8. This Court has carefully perused the conclusions drawn in the matter both by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

On a perusal of the conclusions so drawn, this Court is of the considered view that the same has been drawn on a due and proper examination of the evidences coming on record in the Trial and no infirmity is found therein, by this Court.

Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners, herein, under Sections 447/323/34 IPC would not mandate any interference.

9. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court finds that the offence committed by the petitioners, herein, were so committed on 01.02.2006, and around 19(nineteen) years have lapsed since the date of the commission of the offence. The petitioners, herein, have been also found to be litigating in the matter for the last 19(nineteen) years, initially before the learned Trial Court, thereafter before the learned Appellate Court, and presently before this Court in the present criminal revision petition. The petitioners, herein, have also not been shown to have been involved in commission of a offence of similar nature either prior to the commission of the offence involved in the present proceeding or thereafter.

10. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, herein, would be entitled to be extended with the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act of 1958.

Page No.# 7/7

11. Accordingly, for the reasons noticed, hereinabove, it is directed that the petitioners be given the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and accordingly, the sentence is modified to that effect, and it is provided that instead of sending the petitioners to jail, they be extended the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

12. In view of the above discussions, it is directed that the petitioners, herein, will file 2(two) sureties to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand)each, along with a personal bond before the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, and undertake, to the effect that the petitioners shall maintain peace and good behavior during the period of 1(one) year from the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the petitioners within a period of 2(two) months from today.

13. With the above observations and directions, the present Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of.

14. Send down the records of the case to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant