Crl.Rev.P. 293/2006. Gauhati High Court

Case Number:Crl.Rev.P. 293/2006
Judgement Date:February 23, 2021
Court:Gauhati High Court

I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT

( THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MI ZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Crl. Revision 293/ 2006

Sri Kan Saikia,

S/ o Budheswar Saikia,

R/ o Vill – Moidomia,

P.O.- Moidomia,

District- Lakhimpur, Assam.

………Petitioner

- Ver su s-

The State of Assam

…….Opp. Party

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN

Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. S. Katakey & Mr. A.J. Das

Advocates for the Respondent

/ Opp. Party : Mr. N.K. Kalita, Addl. P.P.

Dates of hearing : 23.02.2017

Date of judgment : 23.02.2017

JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( ORAL)

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.05.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur in Crl. Appeal No. 21(3)/ 2004 affirming the judgment and order dated 05.08.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, in GR Case No. 152/ 1999 convicting the accused petitioner under section 326/ 323 of the I ndian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - (Rupees one thousand) with a default clause.

  1. Heard Mr. S. Katakey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

  2. I t is contended inter alia by the accused petitioner that another case at the instance of the present accused petitioner was registered vide G.R Case No. 149/ 1999 under section 447/ 323 of the I PC and in that case charge sheet was filed and the accused was acquitted by the court in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The present case was also sought to be compounded but since the offence under section 326 of the I PC is a noncompoundable offence compromise could not be given effect to.

  3. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel submits that the evidence on record was not properly appreciated by the courts below and the omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses were not considered. I t is further submitted that although the injured and the accused filed a joint compromise petition before the trial court but that was rejected as the offence was not compoundable. They have again filed a joint compromise petition before this court stating therein that they are the members of the same family and they have settled the matter amicably and the injured is not interested to proceed further with the case. He strenuously contends that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties the proceedings be quashed in exercise of the power under...

To continue reading

Request your trial