ASAN ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of the judgment and order, dated 29.7.1991, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Crl. Appeal No. 14(B-4) of 1990, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, while upholding the conviction of the Petitioner No. 1, namely, Latif Ali under Sections 447 and 336 IPC passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, vide his judgment and order, dated 13.9.1990, in G.R. Case No. 1436/88, acquitted him of the offence under Section 325 IPC, but maintained, at the same time, the conviction of the petitioner No. 2, namely, Asan Ali under Sections 447, 336 and 325 IPC and, while not interfering with the sentences passed against the petitioners by the learned trial Court directing each of them to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days for their conviction under Sections 447 and 336 IPC, reduced the sentence passed against the petitioner No. 2 to a period of 6 months for his conviction under Section 325 IPC and in default, to suffer Simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.

(2.) The case against the accused-petitioners, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows : Prosecution's case commenced with the lodging of written Ejahar (Ext. 1) on 17.10.1988, At Barpeta police station, by Smt. Azufa Begum, wife of Dilwar Hussain, aligning, inter-alia, that on 17.10.1988 at about 8 P.M., when the informant and her husband were present at their house, the two accused- petitioners, who are neighbours of the informant, pelted stones on the house of the informant and when the informant and her husband scolded them, both the accused trespassed into the house of the informant, they beat the informant and assaulted her husband with a lathi causing fracture on her husband's shoulder and that the accused left the place of occurrence only when other witnesses intervened. Injured Dilwar was medically examined on the very evening of the occurrence and the Doctor found, besides other injuries, a fracture on his right shoulder bone. Treating the Ejahar as the First Information Report, Barpeta P. S. case No. 501 / 88 under Section 447/336/325 IPC was registered and, upon completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet accordingly against the petitioners.

(3.) During trial, charges under Sections 447, 336 and 125 IPC were framed against the petitioners and they pleaded not guilty thereto prosecution examined altogether 6 (six) witnesses. The accused were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. In their examinations aforementioned, the accused denied that they had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by them. The learned Trial court found both the accused guilty of the offences aforementioned and convicted them accordingly and passed sentences against them as hereinabove mentioned. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused petitioners preferred an appeal, which was also turned down with modification of the conviction and sentence passed against them as hereinabove indicated. The accused petitioners have, now, approached this Court against the learned appellate Court's judgment and order aforementioned.