Crl.Rev.P. 197/2006. Gauhati High Court

Case NumberCrl.Rev.P. 197/2006
Judgement DateAugust 14, 2018
CourtGauhati High Court

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

CRL. REV. P NO.197 OF 2006

  1. SRI NOMAL BORA

    SON OF LATE ABHIRAM BORA

  2. SRI ANANTA BORA

    SON OF SRI NOMAL BORA

  3. SRI BASANTA BORA

    SON OF SRI NOMAL BORA

    - Versus -

    ……..pet it ion er s

    STATE OF ASSAM

    ….. opp osit e par t y

    B E F O R E

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

    For the petitioner : Ms. S Kanungoe (Amicus Curiae)

    For respondents : Mr. PS Lahkar (Addl. PP, Assam)

    Date of hearing : 14-08-2017

    Date of Judgment & Order : 14-08-2017

    JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

    Heard Ms. S Kanungoe, learned Amicus Curie and Mr. PS Lahkar, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

    Crl. Rev. P No.197/2005

    [ 2] The revision petitioners were convicted under Section 447/ 324/ 34 I PC in GR Case No.545/ 2003 by learned SDJM, Biswanath Chariali and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 (three) months under section 447 and imprisonment for 1 (one) year under Section 324 I PC.

    [ 3] The revision petitioners preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction. However, modified the sentence reducing the term of imprisonment to 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 447 I PC and imprisonment for 6 (six) months under Section 324 I PC.

    [ 4] Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence by the Court of Sessions, the revision petitioner has preferred the instant appeal.

    [ 5] Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the evidence brought on record did not constitute any offence under Section 324 I PC and therefore, conviction of the accused persons under Section 324 I PC was illegal and required to be set-aside. I t has also been contended by the learned Amicus Curiae, that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution were interested witness being relations of the injured and therefore, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of such witnesses. The learned Addl. PP contended that the evidence brought on record was sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused persons and therefore, conviction and sentence of the accused persons by the learned appellate Court requires no interference.

    [ 6] Section 324 I PC reads as under:

    3 2 4 . Volu n t ar ily cau sin g h u r t by dan ger ou s w eapon s or m ean s – W h oev er , ex cep t in t h e case pr ovid ed f or by Sect ion 3 3 4 , volu n t ar ily cau ses h u r t by m ean s of an y in st r u m en t f or sh oot in g, st ab bin g or cu t t in g or an y in st r u m en t w h ich , u sed as a w eapon of of f en ce, is lik ely t o cau se deat h , or by...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT