MD SAMSUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY judgment and order, dated 17-03-2001, passed, in GR Case No. 725 of 1998, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Goalpara, the accused-petitioner was convicted under Sections 341, 323 and 379 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months on each count with further direction that the sentences, so passed, shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences passed against him, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal. By judgment and order, dated 13-02-2004, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2001, by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, while the conviction of the accused-petitioner under Sections 341 and 379 IPC was set aside and the accused-petitioner was acquitted of the charges framed against him under the said penal provisions of law, his conviction, under Section 323 IPC was upheld with the consequential sentence passed against him by the learned trial Court directing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, notwithstanding the fact that the accused-petitioner's appeal was, thus, allowed in part. The accused- petitioner, still feeling aggrieved, has impugned, in this revision, his conviction and sentence passed by the learned appellate Court.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: On 11-10-199, when PW2 was returning home, on his bicycle, from market after selling Bidi, which PW2 had carried to the market, the accused-petitioner sat on the carrier of the said bicycle. While PW2 was so proceeding towards his house, the accused-petitioner caught hold of the neck of PW2 and pushed him down to the ground. The accused-petitioner, then, sat on the chest of PW2 and gave him several blows and also throttled him until the time PW2 fell unconscious. When PW2 regained his senses, he found himself lying in a jungle and the sum of Rs. 4255/-, which he was carrying with him and also his wrist watch, had disappeared. PW2 restarted his journey to his house on foot. Witnessing PW2 staggering, while walking towards his house, PW3 took PW2 to the house of PW2. On arriving at his house, PW2 narrated the occurrence, as regards what the accused-petitioner had done to him(PW2), to his(PW2's) father (PW1) and also PW3, whereupon PW1 lodged a written Ejahar at Lakhipur Police Station. Treating the said Ejahar as First Information Report, a case was registered against the accused-petitioner under Sections 341/323/379 IPC and, on completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner.

(3.) THE learned trial Court, having found the accused-petitioner guilty of the offences charged with, convicted him accordingly and passed sentences against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences passed against him, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal, which, as indicated above, was partly allowed in the sense that the learned appellate Court, while acquitting the accused of the charges framed against him under Sections 341 and 379 IPC, maintained his conviction under Section 323 IPC and also the sentence, passed against him by the learned trial Court, to the effect that the accused- petitioner shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. As the appeal has not yielded and the desired result, the accused-petitioner is, now, before this Court with this revision.