Page No.# 1/9 vs The State Of Assam on 11 February, 2026

                                                                Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010184632014




                                                         2026:GAU-AS:1851

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

                       Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./97/2014

         DILIP BORAH and 7 ORS
         S/O LT. DEBESWAR BORAH

         2: PRASHANTA BORAH
          S/O LT. JANAM BORAH

         3: AMAL HAZARIKA
          S/O LT. PUWAL HAZARIKA

         4: RAKHESWAR BORAH
          S/O KOTAI BORAH

         5: PRAFULLA BORAH
          S/O KHOHUWA BORAH

         6: MOHESWAR BORAH
          S/O NALIA BORAH

         7: PRAFULLA CHANDRA BORAH
          S/O LT. KANAK CHANDRA BORAH

         8: PRABHAT BORAH
          S/O LT. KOKHESWAR BORAH ALL ARE R/O KHONGIA VILLAGE
          P.S. PULIBOR
          DIST. JORHAT
         ASSAM

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM
                                                                            Page No.# 2/9

                                 BEFORE
           HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

     For the Petitioners                   : Mr. T. Gogoi, Adv.
     For the Respondent                    : Mr. B.P. Sinha, Sr. Adv.
                                           : Ms. B. Sinha, Adv.
                                           : Mr. K. Baishya, APP, Assam.

     Date on which judgment is reserved    : 05.02.2026
     Date of pronouncement of judgment     : 11.02.2026
     Whether the pronouncement is of the   : N/A
     operative part of the judgment ?
     Whether the full judgment has been    :Yes
     pronounced?




                        JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

     Heard Mr. T. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.P.
Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Sinha, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2.   The instant Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 401, read with
Section 397 of the Cr.PC assailing the Judgment & Order dated 16.03.2012
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jorhat in G.R. Case No.
1143/2008 convicting the accused/petitioners under Section 143/341/324 of the
IPC and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years
under Section 324 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 143 IPC
and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month and
to further pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each under Section 341 IPC and in default of
                                                                         Page No.# 3/9

payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for 7 (seven) days. The petitioners have
also challenged the Judgment & Order dated 11.02.2014 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 14/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat, by
which the appeal preferred by the petitioners were dismissed and the sentence
passed by the learned Trial Court was upheld.

FACTS

3. The brief facts of the instant case is that on 07.10.2008 at about 6:30 am, the informant's son went to his land to inspect the tea garden and there, the petitioners wrongfully restrained the informant's son and caused hurt to him by striking with sharp weapons on his head and hands. On getting the news, the husband of the informant went to the place of occurrence and the petitioners had also hurt him on his hands and legs. The Police on receipt of the FIR, registered the case as Pulibor P.S. Case No. 118/2008 and upon conclusion of the investigation, submitted Charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 341/143/326 of the IPC. Thereafter, on completion of the necessary requirements under the law, charges were framed against the petitioners under the said aforesaid Sections, which were read over and explained to the petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and stood trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses and the petitioners, i.e., the accused persons in their defence adduced 1 (one) witness. Thereafter, the petitioners were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.PC and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioners as mentioned above.

EVIDENCE

4. PW-1, i.e., the informant in her examination-in-chief has deposed that on Page No.# 4/9

07.10.2008 at about 6:30 am, she heard two women passing by shouting that some people are hacking some people and thereafter, her husband rushed to see their son, who was working in the nearby tea garden. She too rushed towards the garden and met her son on the way and she found her son in an injured stage with wounds on his head, hands and back. Upon asking, her son told all the names of the petitioners to have hurt him with rod, who also stated that the said petitioners have hurt his father too. The informant went ahead towards the place of occurrence and found her husband lying in an injured stage and stated that his right hand was severed from his body with number of other injuries.

5. PW-2 is the husband of the complainant and one of the injured witness. He deposed that on 07.10.2008 at about 6:30 am, he heard two women running outside shouting that some people are hacking people and when he went ahead to his tea garden, he found the petitioners surrounding his son holding spears, rod and knives. When he objected not to harm his son, the petitioners started assaulting him on different parts of his body including his hands and legs.

6. PW-3 is another important witness, who is also injured, i.e., the son of the informant. He too stated that the petitioners had caused hurt on his body. It is seen that PW-3 has corroborated the statement of PW-2 in all material particulars.

7. PW-4, who is the daughter of the informant, in her examination-in-chief had deposed that at the time of incident, she was at home and she heard some commotion and saw all the petitioners on the road holding spears and swords and one of the petitioners told her that they have caused hurt to her father. When she went ahead, she found the son of the informant, who told her that Page No.# 5/9

the petitioners caused hurt to him and his father, whose condition was stated to be serious. She then reached the place of occurrence and found her father lying with injuries.

8. PW-5 stated that she heard commotion and when she went ahead to enquire, found the son of the informant with injuries on his hands and head and upon asking, the son of the informant told her that members from the Samabay has injured him and cut his father and asked her to bring a vehicle.

9. PW-7 is the Doctor, who examined the son and husband of the informant. While examining the son of the informant, he found injuries such as lacerated wound on scalp measuring about 2x1 cm and lacerated wound in the right arm measuring about 3x1 cm. The Doctor had opined that injuries sustained by the son of the informant are simple in nature but caused by sharp objects. The Doctor upon examination of the husband of the informant, found injuries such as lacerated wound in left leg measuring about 10x1 cm, lacerated wound in the left leg measuring about 3x1 cm and lacerated wound in the right forearm measuring about 4x1 cm. The Doctor referred the husband of the informant to the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh and had opined that injuries sustained by him were fresh and caused with sharp objects.

10. PW-6 is the Medical Surgeon, who operated the husband of the informant and in examination-in-chief, he deposed that he found multiple cut injuries on his left leg, right hand which were deep in nature, cutting through bones nerves and tendons. The victim was operated for fracture and finally, the injured was discharged on 18.10.2008.

11. From the said evidences on record, the learned Trial Court was of the Page No.# 6/9

opinion that prosecution has succeeded in improving the charges under Sections 143/341 of the IPC and the prosecution has further succeeded in bringing enough evidences for proving the charge under Section 324 of the IPC and as such, the conviction was granted under Sections 143/341 as well as Section 324 of the IPC and the petitioners were sentenced as mentioned above.

APPEAL FILED

12. The petitioners had challenged the said Judgment & Order passed by the learned Trial Court by filing a Criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 14/2012. The Appellate Court, on meticulous examination of the Trial Court findings and the evidences on record held that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular evidence and fully supported the prosecution case and as such, opined that the impugned Judgment & Order did not require any interference and dismissed the appeal vide Order dated 11.02.2014.

SUBMISSIONS

13. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that the incident had occurred on 07.10.2008 and 18 years had elapsed and the petitioners had gone through a lot during these years. He further submits that the incident happened on thespur of the moment and there is nothing on record to show as to why they had beaten up the son of the informant and the husband of the informant. Although this is a case of ocular evidence, the same is not required, however, to see the real reason of attack by the petitioners, the same was not forthcoming. He further submits that the petitioners were convicted under Section 143 as well as under Section 341 of the IPC and were sentenced with payment of fine and in a similar manner under Section 324 of Page No.# 7/9

the IPC, the petitioners may be permitted to pay fine, moreso, it is provided under the law i.e. under Section 324 of the IPC that either imprisonment or fine can be imposed upon the convicted persons. The learned counsel for the petitioners thereby prays that the sentence imposed upon the petitioners under Section 324 of the IPC may be altered into a fine, instead of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years.

14. Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam submits that in the instant case, there are injured witnesses, who had stated in no unclear terms that the petitioners by giving their names had attacked them and injured them, because of which, one of the injured person had to undergo surgery for fracture and was in the hospital for long. He submitted that injured witness is given a higher pedestal compared to an eye witness and as such, there is nothing to disbelieve it and the prosecution case is well established.

15. Mr. B.P. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent by supporting the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam submits that both the son and the husband of the informant were injured by the petitioners by striking them with sharp weapons and the same is established by the prosecution, which had no doubt in the instant case. He further submits that the identifications of the petitioners are also without any doubt whatsoever.

16. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the records.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

17. It is noticed that the case occurred in the year 2008 and the Judgment by the learned Trial Court was delivered on 16.03.2012. Thereafter, the petitioners Page No.# 8/9

filed appeal in the year 2012 and the Judgment was delivered on 11.02.2014 and the present Revision Petition was filed on 06.03.2014 and 18 years have gone by from the date of offence. The conviction was made under Sections 143/341/324 of the IPC and sentence was imposed both under Section 143 IPC and Section 341 IPC to the tune of fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 300/- respectively. Only under Section 324 of the IPC, sentence was imposed to the tune of Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years.

18. Section 324 of the IPC is quoted below:-

"324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

It is provided for under the said Section that punishment can be given with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 (three) years, or with fine, or with both.

19. In the instant case, Rigorous Imprisonment is given for a term of 2 (two) years to the petitioners. It is no res-integra that punishment can be imposed within the said scale depending on the gravity of the offence. Although there are injured witnesses, who have taken the names of the petitioners to have injured them, but due to long period of time from the date of the offence, this Court finds it fit that instead of imprisonment, fine be imposed upon the petitioners for the ends of justice.

Page No.# 9/9

20. As such, it is directed that the petitioners to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, for committing the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) month. The other sentences are not interfered with.

21. The Criminal Revision Petition is as such partly allowed.

22. Send back the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant