Case Brief 2

GAHC010205382012
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./258/2012
UPEN BORA @ UPENDRA NATH BORA
S/O LT. GOLAP CHANDRA BORA R/O VILL- LUKMAIGAON, UNDER

DERGAON P.S. IN THE DIST. OF GOLAGHAT, ASSAM,
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
-B E F O R E-
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA
09.12.2021
Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the revisionist.

Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
Assam for the respondent State.
This is a criminal revision filed by the revisionist who has

been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 326/341 IPC
and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month
u/s 326 IPC. The revisionist has also been sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer
simple imprisoment for fifteen days under Section 341 IPC.
The brief facts of the case are that an ejahar was lodged
before the in-charge of Sumanigaon Police Out Post, District
Golaghat by one Amar Borah stating inter alia that on the
interveing night of 16.2.2000 and 17.2.2000 his brother Ripun
Borah was returning home from the house of one Bogai Borah
and when he reached near the house of Ganesh Tamuli, accused
Upen Borah assaulted him with a “dao”1 which caused severe
injuries on the body of Ripun Borah. On receipt of the ejahar,
Dergaon P.S. Case No. 26/2000 u/s 341/326 IPC was registered
and the police after investigation filed the chargesheet before
the concerned Magistrate under Section 326 and 341 IPC.
During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined as

many as eight witnesses. Apart from that, other relevant
documents such as the medical report etc. were also placed
before the Court by the prosecution. The Trial Court ultimately
came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt as there was at least
one eye witness and the statement of the injured witness (PW-
2), statement of the doctor (PW-6) and the medical report which
corroborates with the incident. Accordingly, the Trial Court
1
Machete
convicted and sentenced the accused/revisionist u/s 326 and u/s
341 IPC.
The matter was taken in appeal. The learned Sessions

Judge on appreciation of the entire evidence, came to the
conclusiion that there is no scope for interfering with the
conviction and sentence as far as Section 326 IPC is concerned,
which was upheld. However, the learned Sessions Judge was of
the view that no case was made out under Section 341 IPC and,
therefore, the accused/revisionist was acquitted of the charge
under Section 341 IPC. To that extent, the appeal was partly
allowed. Aggrieved, the revisionist has filed this revision before
this Court.
In the present case, the assault took place between 2 to 3

a.m. on 17.2.2000 when Ripun Borah along with Sagar Borah
and Jiten Borah were returning home. When they reached near
the house of Ganesh Tamuli, accused Upen Borah came from
behind and gave blows to Ripun Borah from the ‘dao’, which he
was holding, as a result of which, Ripun Borah sustained cut
injuries on his right hand and fell down. Thereafter, the accused
Upen Borah gave another blow on the left leg of the injured
Ripun Borah. Injured Ripun Borah was immediately taken to K.K.
Civil Hospital, Golaghat for treatment. The admitted fact is that
the injured was hospitalised for about 15 days.
The evidence of the prosecution is as follows:
PW-1, Amar Borah is the informant and elder brother of

the injured. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the
incident took place on 17.2.2000 at about 3-30 a.m. while he
along with Sagar Borah, Jiten Borah and his younger brother
Ripun Borah were on their way to their house and when they
reached near the house of Ganesh Tamuli, accused Upen Borah
came from behind and gave ‘dao’ blows to his younger brother
Ripun Borah, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his
right hand. The injured fell on the ground and then the accused
gave another blow on the left leg of the injured. Thereafter, the
injured was taken to Golaghat Civil Hospital for treatment and
the ejahar was lodged.
This witness was cross-examined by the defence but

nothing has come out which may create doubt as regarding the
credibility of this witness.
PW-2, Ripun Borah is the injured himself. He says that at

about 2 a.m. on 17.2.2000 they were returning from the house
of Bogai Borah and when they reached near the house of
Ganesh Tamuli at Lukumai village, accused Upen Borah without
any waring started giving ‘dao’ blows to him, as a result of
which, he fell on the ground. On hearing hue and cry, Ganesh
Tamuli also arrived at the place of occurrence and asked the
accused as to why he was attacking PW-2. This witness was
cross-examined by the defence but that has not diluted the
testimony of the injured witness.
PW-3, Nandeswar Borah @ Bhaity is another witness who

came to the place of occurrence hearing hue and cry and by the
time he reached the place Ripun Borah was already lying in an
injured condition. Thereafter, according to this witness, he and
Sagar Borah took the injured to his house. He did not find the
accused at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time.
This witness says that at the relevant point of time he did not
find anybody at the place of occurrence except the injured as it
was dark.
PW-4, Sagar Borah is another witness who has been

declared hostile and nothing much has come out in his
statement.
PW-6, Dri A.C. Baruah is another important witness who

examined the injured witness Ripun Borah on 17.2.2000 at K.K.
Civil Hospital, Golaghat. He found the following injuries on the
body of injured Ripun Borah:-
i) One sharp cut injury through the outer side of the

left foot. Lateral malleolus of left foot is fractured.
ii) Two sharp cut injuries, irregular sizes through the
posterior aspect of mid leg upto the bone, left side.
iii) Linear sharp cut injury oever the right dorsal of
forearm exteding upto the bone and radius.
In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were grievous in

nature and caused by sharp weapon.
It may also be necessary to state that the injury No.1 was

a sharp cut injury with fracture on the left foot of the injured
witness. The other two injuries are incised wounds by a sharp
edged weapon. At least injury No.1 comes under the definition
of injury as defined u/s 320 IPC, which reads as under:
“320. Grievous hurt.—The following kinds of hurt only are designated as

“grievous”:—
First — Emasculation.
Secondly — Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly — Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
Fourthly — Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly — Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any
member or joint.
Sixthly — Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly — Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly — Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer
to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain,
or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.”
The statement of the doctor clearly corroborates the

statement of the injured witness (PW-2) and the injury report.
Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, there
is absolutely no scope for interference in the matter. The
prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt against the revisionist as far as Section 326
IPC is concerned. In any case, the revisionist has been given
punishment of only six months rigorous imprisonment, though
the maximum punishment is for life imprisonment or
imprisonment upto 10 years. Therefore, there is no scope for
interfering with the quantum of sentence as well.
The revision has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
The revisionist is on bail. He shall surrender before the

concerned Court within 45 days from today i.e. on or before
24.01.2022.
The Registrar (Judicial) is hereby directed to apprise the
concerned Court about this order.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant

Case Brief 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Brief 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Brief 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GAHC010205382012

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./258/2012

UPEN BORA @ UPENDRA NATH BORA

S/O LT. GOLAP CHANDRA BORA R/O VILL- LUKMAIGAON, UNDER

THE STATE OF ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the revisionist.

This is a criminal revision filed by the revisionist who has

During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined as

The matter was taken in appeal. The learned Sessions

In the present case, the assault took place between 2 to 3

The evidence of the prosecution is as follows:

PW-1, Amar Borah is the informant and elder brother of

This witness was cross-examined by the defence but

PW-2, Ripun Borah is the injured himself. He says that at

PW-3, Nandeswar Borah @ Bhaity is another witness who

PW-4, Sagar Borah is another witness who has been

PW-6, Dri A.C. Baruah is another important witness who

i) One sharp cut injury through the outer side of the

In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were grievous in

It may also be necessary to state that the injury No.1 was

“320. Grievous hurt.—The following kinds of hurt only are designated as

The statement of the doctor clearly corroborates the

The revision has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

The revisionist is on bail. He shall surrender before the

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.