RATNESWAR KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision application is filed against the Judgment and order dated 16.10.97 in Crl. Appeal No. 20 of 1997 dismissing the appeal preferred by the present petitioners challenging the Judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate, 1 st class (Jorhat) in GR case No. 793 of 1995 dated 17.6.97. By the said Judgment dated 17.06.97 the learned triel court convicted both the petitioners under Section 341/326 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 341 IPC and simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 326 IPC with a fine of Rupees one thousand, in default, further simple imprisonment for another 15 days, with further direction that if the fine is realized from the accused persons, it would be awarded to the injured person as compensation.

(2.) I have heard Mr. P.C. Gayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Laskar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel Mr. Gayan, in support of the accused petitioners, has submitted that the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioners on the basis of the occular evidence of PWs 1 & 2 is not safe. It is further submitted that there is no materials against the accused petitioner Dilip Karmakar to uphold the conviction against him. Further submission of the learned counsel is that both the courts below misappreciated and misunderstood the evidence and materials on record and illegally passed the impugned order. Mr. Laskar, on the other hand submitted that this court being a revision Court will not reappreciate the evidence on record and the impugned Judgment and order has been rightly passed by the courts below and accordingly the Revision petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) 1 have considered the rival submissions of the parties. Mr. Gayan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his case took me through the impugned Judgment passed by the learned appellate court and also took me through the Judgment passed by the learned trial court in order to properly appreciate the submissions made by him. Necessary portion of the evidence of P.W. 1,2 and 3 were also read over by Mr. Gayan in support of his contention. Learned counsel has submitted that, the time of occurrence being 7 P.M., it is not possible for PWs 1 & 2 to recognize the accused petitioners and accordingly the entire evidence of PWs 1 & 2 against the petitioners are shaky in nature and on the basis of such evidence the impugned conviction cannot be sustained in law.