Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/12 vs The State Of Assam on 17 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010192682013
2025:GAU-AS:12741
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./189/2013
AYAZ ALI LASKAR and ANR
2: SAMSUL HAQUE LASKAR
BOTH ARE SONS OF LT. FATHIR ALI LASKAR R/O LAKHINAGAR PT-II
P.S. LALA
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J LASKAR, MR.B BANERJEE
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Date : 17-09-2025
1. Heard Mr. J. Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.
R.R. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the State respondent.
Page No.# 2/12
2. This is an application u/s 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2012 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 54/2011 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi
dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment & order dated
08.09.2011 passed by the learned CJM, Hailakandi in G.R. Case No. 846/2025
convicting and sentencing the accused/petitioners to undergo S.I for 1 year and
also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default S.I. for another 2 months for the
offence convicted u/s 324/34 IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant lodged an FIR with the
allegation that on 07.12.2005 at about 7:30 AM the petitioners blocked the path
used by the informant and when the informant protested, the
accused/petitioners assaulted him causing grievous injuries on his person and
on the basis of the said FIR, a case has been registered u/s 447/326 IPC.
4. After registering a case the I/O started investigation and after completion
of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioners
u/s 447/324/34 IPC. On their appearance, the charge was accordingly framed
by the learned CJM, Hailakandi u/s 447/324/34 IPC, which was also read over
and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In order to bring home the charges leveled against the petitioners, the
prosecution has examined as many as 6 nos. of witnesses including the I/O, MO
and the victim of this case.
5. The accused/petitioners did not adduce any evidence in support of their
case and they pleaded not guilty while recording their statement u/s 313 Cr.PC.
6. After hearing the arguments put forward by learned counsel for both sides,
the judgment & order was passed by the learned CJM, Hailakandi convicting the
Page No.# 3/12
accused/appellants u/s 324/34 IPC and thereby sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1
year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
7. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied over the judgment & order passed by
the learned CJM, the petitioners have preferred an Crl. Appeal No. 54/2011,
challenging the order of conviction. But, after hearing the submissions made by
learned counsel for both sides, the appeal was dismissed and the order of
conviction is upheld by the learned Sessions Judge with a direction to the
petitioners to appear before the Court of learned CJM, Hailakandi within 1
month to serve out the sentence.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the learned Court below have erred in both law and facts while convicting the
accused/petitioners. The learned Trial Court below as well as the Appellate
Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective and thus
arrived at a wrong decision, which caused prejudice to the present petitioners
and hence the judgment & order of the appellate Court as well as the Court of
learned CJM is liable to be set aside and quashed. The PW-2 & PW-4 are the
mother as well as the uncle of the victim and thus these witnesses are the
interested witnesses being closely related with the victim. But, the learned Trial
Court did not consider these aspects of the case and only considering the
testimonies of the PWs, passed the order of conviction. The evidence of the
doctor also did not support the case of the persecution and in his cross evidence
it is admitted by him that such kind of injury may be sustained by pulling the
splited bamboos which were available at the place of occurrence. Further, there
was no evidence that the act was committed by both the petitioners in
furtherance of common intention to convict them with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
More so, the learned Court below also did not consider the fact that the
Page No.# 4/12
petitioners are the first offender and there is no criminal antecedent against the
petitioners for which also they are entitled to release u/s 360 Cr.PC or u/s 3 & 4
of the Provisions of Offenders Act.
9. Mr. Laskar submitted that though it is alleged that the victim was assaulted
with a sharp weapon like dao but, from the evidence of PW-6 it is seen that he
did not seize the dao during the investigation which is considered to be the
weapon of assault. More so, from the cross evidence of the PW-4 it also reveals
that he has not seen any weapon in the hands of the petitioners though he
claims himself to be the eye-witness of the prosecution.
10. Mr. Laskar further submitted that the case is filed only with the previous
grudge or enmity and with the intention to harass the petitioners. Accordingly, it
is submitted by Mr. Laskar that the interference of this Court is necessary and
the order of conviction passed by both the learned Court of CJM as well as the
learned appellate Court is liable to be set aside.
11. Mr. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this
regard that the evidence of the PW-1/victim is believable and trustworthy and
there is no such contradictory statement to disbelieve the evidence of the
victim/PW-1. The mother of the victim as well as the Medical Officer also
supported the prosecution version. He further submitted that only for non-
recovery of weapon may not be fatal for the prosecution case when there is
direct evidence of the victim and the evidence of the victim/injured is always
considered to be in higher pedestral and their evidence cannot be disbelieved
unless there is any major contradiction creating doubt in the veracity of the
prosecution case.
12. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I find it
Page No.# 5/12
necessary to scrutinize the evidence on record adduced by the PWs.
13. PW-5 is the Medical Officer/Doctor who examined the victim soon after the
occurrence on police requisition and found the injuries on his upper arm and left
leg, which is mentioned in detail in his Medical Report.
As per the Injury Report the victim sustained -
1. Incise wound on left upper arm of dorsal aspect just above the elbow.
2. Incise wound on left foot dorsal aspect
Both the injuries are opined as a fresh simple caused by sharp object.
14. Thus from the medical evidence and the Injury Report it is seen that the victim
sustained sharp cut injuries on his person. However, at the time of cross evidence it is
stated by the Doctor that such kind of injury may also caused by pulling up of split
bamboo.
15. Now coming to the evidence of PW-1, the victim of this case, it is seen that
he sustained injury on his left hand and left leg for the assault by these two
petitioners. He deposed that on the day of incident both the accused-persons
assaulted him with dao, causing injuries on his person, mainly, on his left leg
and left hand. Thus, the evidence of the PW-1 is fully supported by the medical
evidence of PW-5 and as per the medical report also he sustained injuries on
both left leg and left hand which is considered to be simple and caused by sharp
object. But, from the cross evidence of PW-1 it also reveals that the father of
the accused also filed a criminal case against him prior to the occurrence and
thus it is apparent that the relationship between the informant victim as well as
the accused-persons are not cordial.
16. PW-2 is the mother of the victim and she deposed that she saw the
Page No.# 6/12
occurrence when her son was assaulted by the petitioners and according to her,
both the accused/petitioners assaulted her son with dao causing injuries on his
left leg and left hand.
17. PW-4 was declared as a hostile by the prosecution as he did not support
the case of prosecution. Thus, the evidence of the PW-3 has not supported the
case of the prosecution.
18. PW-4 is also considered to be one of the eye-witnesses and as per him the
accused Ayaz Ali Laskar and the informant were fighting and thereafter he saw
bleeding injuries on PW-1 and as per him he also intervened into the matter.
But, from his cross evidence it is seen that he did not see any weapon in the
hands of the accused-persons. However, his evidence to the extent that he saw
the fighting between the accused-persons and the victim could not be rebutted
as well as injuries prescribed by him also could not be rebutted by the defence.
19. PW-6 is the Police Officer who investigated the matter, recorded the
statement of the witnesses and after collecting the Injury Report etc. he filed
the charge-sheet against both the accused-petitioners. But, from his evidence it
is also seen that he did not seize the weapon of assault i.e. dao by which the
victim was allegedly assaulted by the petitioners.
20. So from the evidence of PWs, it is seen that the PW-2 and PW-4 are
claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the prosecution and PW-1 is the
victim/informant of this case who deposed that both the accused/appellants
assaulted him with a dao causing sharp cut injuries on his person, especially on
his left leg and left hand. The injury sustained by the victim also supported by
the medical evidence and the PW-5 also found the sharp cut injuries on his left
leg and left hand at the time of his examination. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-
Page No.# 7/12
4 also could not be rebutted by the defence and their presence in the place of
occurrence could not be rebutted by cross-examining those PWs and the
presence of the accused-persons are also not challenged at any point of time
rather their presence was indirectly admitted during the cross-examination of
PW-1. However, it is an admitted fact that the PW-4 did not notice any weapon
on the hands of the petitioners though he claimed himself to be the eye-
witness. But, in the same time it also cannot be denied that his evidence to the
extent that he saw the fighting between the petitioners and the victim as well as
the bleeding injuries sustained by the victim could not be rebutted by cross-
examining him or by adducing any defence evidence. The presence of both PW-
2 and PW-4 also could not be rebutted by cross-examining them and only
because of their relationship with the victim, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4
cannot be disbelieved. The evidence of the related witness cannot be out rightly
rejected or disbelieved only on the ground of their relationship and also it
cannot be considered as an interested witness unless there is any major
contradictory statement which creates any reasonable doubt in the veracity of
the evidence of any related witness.
21. From the evidence of the PW-6, it is seen that he did not seize any dao or
the weapon of assault, though it is stated by the PW-1 that he was assaulted by
both the accused/petitioners with a dao for which he sustained sharp cut
injuries on his person. But, in absence of the seizure cannot by itself destroy the
entire prosecution case particularly when the prosecution story is corroborated
with the victim as well as the eye-witnesses, when there was no major
contradiction to disbelief the evidences of PWs.
22. From the evidence of the PW-1, it reveals that the father of the accused
had filed a criminal case against him prior to the occurrence which otherwise
Page No.# 8/12
reveals that relationship between both the accused/petitioners and the victim
were not cordial. But, apart from the said statement there is no evidence
brought by the defence to hold that a false case is instituted by the
informant/victim only for the previous enmity/grudge. The previous enmity is a
double edged sword and if for the previous enmity a false case can be
instituted, in the same time for the previous enmity the accused also may
commit any criminal offence.
23. It is further the claim of the defence at the time of argument before the
learned Court below that the accused himself uprooted the bamboo fencing by
which he sustained injury. But, to substantiate the said plea the
accused/petitioners did not adduce any defence evidence. However, while cross-
examining the Medical Officer it is admitted by the MO that such nature of injury
also may sustain with the splited bamboos. But, there is no evidence at all from
the defence that he sustained the injuries only while uprooting the bamboos of
the fencing. Even for the argument sake it is admitted that he got injuries only
while uprooting the bamboo but, in that circumstances also one can not sustain
injury on hands and legs at the same time.
24. It also reveals that while recording the statement of the
accused/petitioners u/s 313 Cr.PC, they did not take any proper defence except
the denial nor they preferred to adduce any evidence to substantiate the plea of
previous enmity as well as to substantiate the fact that the victim sustained
injuries while he was uprooting the bamboo fencing from the disputed land.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has held that the
evidences of injured witnesses have greater evidentiary value and unless
compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. In that
context, a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, which was reported in (2003) 10
Page No.# 9/12
SCC 414 (State of M.P. Vs. Mansingh & Ors.), can be relied on, wherein in
paragraph Nos. 9 & 12 of the judgment, it has been held as under:
"9. The evidence of injured witnesses have greater evidentiary value and unless compelling
reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Merely because there was no
mention of a knife in the first information report. That does not wash away the effect of
evidence tendered by the injured witnesses PWs 4 and 7. Minor discrepancies do not corrode
credibility of otherwise acceptable evidence. The circumstances highlighted by the High Court
to attach vulnerability to evidence of the injured witnesses are clearly inconsequential. Though,
it is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the accused that though mere non-mention of the
assailant's names in the requisition memo of injury is not sufficient to discard the prosecution
version in entirety, according to him it is a doubtful circumstance and forms a vital link to
determine whether prosecution version is credible. It is a settled position in law that omission
to mention the name of the assailants in the requisition memo perforce does not render
prosecution version brittle.
12. Even if it is accepted that there were deficiencies in investigation as pointed out by the High
Court, that cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution version which is authentic, credible
and cogent. Non-examination of Hira Lal is also not a factor to cast doubt on the prosecution
version. He was not an eye-witness, and according to the version of PW 8 he arrived after PW
8. When PW 8 has been examined, the non-examination of Hira Lal is of no consequence."
26. In another judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.
1243 of 2007, Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2008 & Criminal Appeals
No. 1363 of 2010, which was reported in (2010) 10 SCC 259 (Abdul
Sayeed & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), also expressed the same
view in paragraph Nos. 28, 29 & 30 of the judgment, which reads as under:
"28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself
injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a
witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a
witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in
guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual
assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit
an injured witness". (Vide Ramlagan Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar,5 AIR 1972 SC 2593;
Malkhan Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh,6 AIR 1975 SC 12; Machhi Singh & Ors. v.
State of Punjab,7 AIR 1983 SC 957; Appabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, 8 AIR 1988 SC 696;
Bonkya alias Bharat Shivaji Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra,9 (1995) 6 SCC 447; Bhag
Page No.# 10/12
Singh & Ors. (supra); Mohar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh,10 (2002) 7 SCC 606; Dinesh
Kumar v. State of Rajasthan,11 (2008) 8 SCC 270; Vishnu & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan,12 (2009) 10 SCC 477; Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh,13 AIR 2009 SC 2261; Balraje alias Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra,14 (2010) 6 SCC
673).
29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in, Jarnail Singh v. State of
Punjab,15 (2009) 9 SCC 719, where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status
accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as
under:-
"28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by
the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details
of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the
tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (3) SCC
235, this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied
upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of
major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene
stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said
incident.
29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629, a similar view has been
reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance
and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of
occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence.
In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross- examination and nothing
can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State
of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that
evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below."
30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured
witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to
the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the
witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a
third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should
be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of
major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
27. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed
(supra), had expressed the view that the testimony of the injured witness is
accorded a special status in law and because these witnesses will not want to
let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for
Page No.# 11/12
the commission of the offence."
28. Thus from the above discussions it is seen that the prosecution could
establish the fact that the victim sustained sharp cut injuries on his person due
to assault by the accused/petitioners and thus the learned Trial Court below as
well as the learned Appellate Court committed no error or mistake while
convicting and affirming the conviction u/s 324 IPC.
29. The learned CJM also made elaborate discussion in regards to Section 447
IPC wherein it is observed that from the evidence on record as well as from the
FIR it reveals that the accused/persons were erecting a bamboo fencing over
the path and there was no other evidence of any criminal trespass to convict the
accused/appellant u/s 447 IPC, which is discussed in the judgment and order
passed by the learned CJM, Hailakandi and the relevant para is as follows:-
"However, from the testimony of the PW1 it is found that the accused persons were erecting
fencing over the road where the occurrence had taken place and the testimony of the PW-2
also shows that the accused persons were erecting fencing over the path and as such the
ingredients of Section 447 is found to be rather lacking in the instant case as there is no
concrete evidence to show that the accused persons criminally trespassed into the land of
the informant."
30. Further it is seen that the learned CJM also made a detailed discussion
while applying the provision of Section 360 Cr.PC and the reasons/grounds
which have been discussed in the judgment, I find that there is no need of any
interference in the order of conviction passed by the learned CJM as well as the
learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi. However, considering all the aspects of the
case and nature of injuries sustained by the victim, I find that slight interference
in the sentence part may be justified.
31. Accordingly, the sentence part is hereby modified to the extent that the
Page No.# 12/12
accused/petitioners shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months along with
a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for 1
month with a further order to set off the period already undergone in the jail
hajot.
32. In view of this the appeal is partly allowed only to the extent of sentence
part, which is modified as referred above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
