GUWAHATI, India, Oct. 25 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Sept. 25:

1. Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. The present petition has been instituted by the petitioner, herein assailing the judgment dated 13.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Crl.A. 46/2011, upholding the judgment and order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup in G.R. 1079/2003 thereby, convicting the petitioner, herein under Section 324/34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for a period of 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) in default, to suffer R.I. for another period of 2 (two) months.

3. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 10.02.2003 one Jehirul Islam had lodged an Ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Boko police station, inter alia, stating therein that on 05.01.2003, at about 8.30 P.M, the accused Fakaruddin, had called him to his house and had got him assaulted by the accused persons named in the ejahar, including the petitioner, herein, and he was attacked with dagger and dao. It was further stated that he somehow had saved his life and had gone to his house, wherein, he fell down unconscious. The police on receipt of the said FIR, registered the same as Boko Police Station Case No.19/2003 under Sections 147/326 IPC.

On conclusion of the investigation, the police laid a charge-sheet against the persons, including the petitioner, herein, under Section 147/326 IPC.

The learned Trial Court framed a charge under Section 326/147 IPC against the accused persons, including the petitioner, herein, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and accordingly, a trial is ensued.

Vide order dated 12.12.2007, the case against the accused Fakaruddin and Innas was filed, inasmuch as, they were absconding and the charge was framed against the present petitioner and one Paritan Nessa under Section 326/34 IPC.

The charge being read over and explained to the petitioner, herein, and the said Paritan Nessa. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and accordingly, a trial is ensued.

During the trial, the prosecution had examined 5 (five) witnesses and thereafter, the evidence of the accused persons, including the petitioner, herein, was recorded. The accused persons including the petitioner, herein, had examined 5 (five) witnesses on their behalf.

On conclusion of the trial, appreciating the evidences coming on record, the learned Trial Court was pleased vide the judgment dated 17.06.2011, to conclude that the charge framed against the petitioner under Section 326/34 was not proved. However, it was held that the materials brought on record had established a charge under Section 324/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 324/34. The co-accused tried along with the petitioner, was however, acquitted.

The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court, assailed the same by instituting an appeal being Crl.A. 46/2011, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati.

The Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record as well as considering the arguments advanced by the petitioner, herein, proceeded vide judgment dated 13.07.2012, to dismiss the said appeal and thereby, upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=LfKgAEL6K8Sqqfv6TysK%2BIavg1CwXfqQcnpNMqmgI20gk9kR9prMUghYSHZv%2FVuy&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./520/2012&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010009412012&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.