Gauhati High Court
Md. Azad Ali vs The State Of Assam on 12 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010123042012
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./576/2012
MD. AZAD ALI
S/O SAHAD ALI R/O VILL- CHARBARI P.S.MANKACHAR, DIST. DHUBRI,
ASSAM,
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B BORA, MR.N I CHOWDHURY,MS.P
BHATTACHARYA,MR.T J MAHANTA
Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
JUDGMENT
12.08.2025
This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Judgment dated 30.03.2009 passed by
the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Dhubri in G.R. No.
Page No.# 2/8
182/2004 by which the petitioner is convicted under Section 324 IPC and was
sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment (S.I) for two (2) years. The petitioner
had also challenged the Judgment dated 19.09.2012 passed by the learned Court
of Session Judge, Dhubri in Criminal Appeal No. 8(2)/2009 by which the learned
Sessions Court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial
Court. Against the Judgment & Order, the petitioner has preferred this criminal
revision petition challenging the same.
FACTS
2. An FIR was lodged on 22.08.2004 by the PW-1 stating inter alia that on
21.08.2004 at around 12 noon when the voting was going on for election of the
Managing Committee of Charbari L.P. School, the accused persons named in the
FIR including the petitioner altercated with the people present there and that they
brought deadly weapons and started to assault others and further, that the
petitioner assaulted one Sohidur thereby causing serious injuries on him. The
police on receipt of the FIR registered the same as Mankachar Police Case No.
182/2004 and started the investigation. On completion of the investigation, the
police submitted charge sheet against six (6) accused persons including the
petitioner. Subsequently, after completion of the necessary formalities, the Court
below framed charged under Section 147/148/448/324 IPC which was read over, to
which the petitioner as well as other accused persons pleaded not guilty and the
Page No.# 3/8
trial was initiated. During the trial, 8 prosecution witnesses were examined and
thereafter, upon examining the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.PC,
the Court below had convicted the petitioner and acquitted the five (5) other
persons. The petitioner thereafter was sentenced for 2 years S.I under Section 324
IPC.
3. PW-1 is the informant of the case and he stated that when the voting was
going on, the petitioner and others started altercating with the people who had
come to vote and that later, they brought weapon and started to assault the
people, gathered there. He thereafter specifically stated that the petitioner
assaulted PW-2 namely, Sohidur and injured his left arm.
4. PW-2 is the injured witness and he supported the evidence of PW-1 i.e., the
informant. PW-2 specifically stated that it was the petitioner who had brought the
weapon unlike the statement made by PW-1 who stated that all the accused
persons including the petitioner had brought the weapons. He stated before the
Trial Court that on 21.08.2004 when voting was going on for the said election and
when he was looking at the voting process standing on the road, the altercation
took place and that the petitioner asked him why he was present during the said
altercation and that thereafter, the petitioner hit him with a dagger on his left arm.
He thereafter stated that he was taken to the hospital for treatment first to the
Public Health Center and then to the Dhubri Hospital and he was administered
Page No.# 4/8
14/15 stitches.
5. PW-3 was also an eyewitness and he stated that when the voting was going
on, there was an altercation between the petitioner and the injured witness and
the petitioner hit the injured witness by a dagger on his left arm.
6. PW-4 is a hear say witness.
7. PW-5 stated in his examination-in-chief that he saw the petitioner hitting the
injured witness but during the cross-examination, he stated that he saw only
people running and does not know who hit whom.
8. PW-6 and PW-7 are the Doctors and PW-7 is the first doctor to treat the
patient in the Public Health Center and he stated that he found an open injury
which is simple in nature on the left arm of the victim. PW-6 is the subsequent
doctor who treated the patient in the Dhubri Civil Hospital and stated that he found
a simple stitched wound on the left arm of the victim.
9. PW-8 is the Investigating Officer who had investigated the case by complying
with all the necessary requirements and submitted the charge sheet. Thereafter,
during the examination of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.PC, the petitioner
had denied the allegation made against him.
10. The Trial Court in view of the depositions made by the injured witness as
Page No.# 5/8
well as other ocular witnesses convicted the petitioner under Section 324 IPC and
sentenced him to two (2) years S.I. Before the Trial Court, a submission was made
by the defence that there is discrepancy in the medical evidence of the case but
the Trial Court by considering the law that when there are ocular evidence and the
medical opinion is not irreconcilable, the ocular evidence is relied upon and the
conviction can be granted.
11. Against the said Judgment & Order dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Dhubri an appeal was preferred before the
Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge vide Judgment & Order dated 19.09.2012
upheld the Judgment & Order of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal
by maintaining the sentence inflicted on the petitioner. Against the said Judgment
& Order, the present criminal revision petition is field by the petitioner before this
Court.
Submissions
12. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
incident happened in a spur of the moment and it was not premeditated by the
petitioner even considering the fact that the offence has been committed by the
petitioner. He submits that the injured witness has stated that the petitioner asked
him as to why he was there during the altercation and that at the spur of the
Page No.# 6/8
moment, the petitioner hit him on his left arm without any intention whatsoever.
He also stated that the incident had taken place in the year 2004 and that more
than 20 years have elapsed from the date of the incident. As such, he prays that
the petitioner may be dealt with leniency.
13. Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State submits that
the present case rests on the evidence of ocular witnesses who had seen the
incident and who had specifically stated that the petitioner had hit the victim on his
left arm. However, in his usual fairness, he had placed the statement of PW-2 who
had stated that he went to stop the altercation and that in the process, the
petitioner asked him as to what he was doing and at that juncture the petitioner hit
the victim on his left arm. This statement clearly shows that there was no intention
on the part of the petitioner to hit the victim.
14. I have heard the counsels for both the parties. In view of the said
submissions and the facts mentioned above, this Court is now called upon to
adjudicate upon the conviction and punishment inflicted upon the petitioner.
Findings
15. It is noticed in the instant case that there are three (3) eyewitnesses
including the injured witness who is examined as PW-2. PW-1 who is the informant
as well as the eyewitness had stated that they saw the petitioner inflicting the
Page No.# 7/8
injury by a dagger on the left arm of the victim. PW-2 who is the eyewitness has
also stated in details that while he was inspecting the voting in an usual manner,
he saw an altercation breaking out between the parties and at that moment, the
petitioner came and asked him as to what he was looking for and at that juncture,
the petitioner hit him on his left arm.
16. PW-3 is also an eyewitness who saw the petitioner inuring the victim. The
sequence of the incident clearly shows that the petitioner had no prior intention to
hit the victim. The voting was going on for election of the Managing Committee of
Charbari L.P School where many people were present and were voting and
suddenly an altercation took place at the said School and the victim was just
looking at it and at that point of time, when the altercation was going on and in
the midst of the heated argument between the parties, the petitioner came and hit
him with a dagger after asking him as to why he was there. Everything happened
in a spur of the moment. It is also not a case where the petitioner or the other
accused persons had come armed with weapon to the School. It is stated by the
witnesses that there was altercation and then the accused person brought
weapons and that the petitioner had also brought the weapon. It is also in the
evidence that the weapons were collected from two houses. However, the
occupants of those houses were not examined in order to prove the said fact and
further, even the weapons were not seized. The medical evidence also shows that
Page No.# 8/8
the injury was simple on the victim and that it was a single injury.
17. As such, the petitioner has to be dealt with leniency and since under Section
324 IPC, punishments can be given in terms of incarceration or fine or with both,
the petitioner was sentenced for a period of 2 years Simple Imprisonment.
However, seeing the nature of the incident, the period of incarceration already
undergone by the petitioner would be sufficient. The petitioner be released
forthwith unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other
case. Bail bonds to be discharged.
18. Petition is disposed of. Send back the TCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant