Gauhati High Court
Sharif Uddin Choudhury vs The State Of Assam on 17 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010004932014
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./25/2014
SHARIF UDDIN CHOUDHURY
S/O AFTAB UDDIN CHOUDHURY, VILL.PAIKAN, P.S. HAILAKANDI, DIST.
HAILAKANDI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM,
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A CHOUDHURY, MS.S B CHOUDHURY,MS.P PATHAK
Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 17-10-2025 Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State.
2. The present appeal has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 10-12-2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 04/2012, Page No.# 2/8 convicting the appellant, herein, under Section 332 IPC and sentencing him accordingly.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Assistant Sub-Inspector Matiur Rehman Laskar lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Hailakandi Police Station on 25-02- 2011, inter alia, stating therein that he had brought a victim girl to Hailakandi court for recording her statement in connection with Lala P.S. Case No. 40/2011 and as he was coming from the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, the appellant, herein, threw a piece of brick on him, which had hit his back, as a result, he fell down sustaining injuries on his person. It was further stated that people had apprehended the accused and he was handed over to the police. The police on receipt of the FIR, registered the same as Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 81/2011 under Section 332/307 IPC.
On conclusion of the investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the appellant, herein, under Section 332/307 IPC.
The case being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi. The learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 332/ 307 IPC against the petitioner, herein, and the same on being read over and explained to him, he having pleaded not guilty, a trial ensued in the matter.
The prosecution had examined 06 (six) witnesses during the trial and thereafter the appellant, herein, was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 10-12-2013, on appreciation of the evidences coming on record, proceeded to convict the appellant, Page No.# 3/8 herein, under Section 332 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 (one) year, along with payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 02 (two) months.
Being aggrieved, the appellant has instituted the present proceeding.
4. Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant after taking this Court through the deposition of the prosecution witnesses has submitted that the victim had not seen the appellant, herein, throwing the brick upon him. He submits that the appellant, herein, was apprehended by the people present at the relevant point of time at the place of the incident. He submits that, the fact that the appellant, herein, was the aggressor has not been established by the evidences coming on record. He, accordingly, submits that the benefit of doubt as arising in the matter is required to be extended to the appellant, herein, and his conviction under Section 332 IPC would mandate interference by this Court.
5. Per contra, Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. Assam, has submitted that the evidences coming on record having overwhelmingly pointed to the fact that the appellant, herein, was the person who had thrown the brick upon the informant, for which he was apprehended by the public present, at the place of occurrence, at the relevant point of time, no doubt exists with regard to the fact that the appellant, herein, is the aggressor. Mr. Goswami has further submitted that the informant was, at the relevant point of time, discharging his official duty and that the assault he was subjected to being so done by the appellant, herein, at the time when the informant was discharging his official duty, the ingredients of Section 332 IPC stood established against the appellant, herein, and Page No.# 4/8 accordingly, his conviction there-under by the learned Trial Court would not mandate any interference.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.
7. The learned Trial Court upon considering the evidences coming on record, had drawn the following conclusions:-
"12. From the evidence on record, it appears that the accused was apprehended by the public immediately after the incident and the informant himself took him to the police station. PW. 3, informant as well as PW. 1, Islam Uddin Laskar, identified the accused as the miscreant who threw the piece of brick at the informant. The earlier version of the case, as transpires from the ejahar lodged by the informant within a couple of hours from the time of incident, is that the miscreant was immediately apprehended by the public and the same fact has been narrated by PW. 3, the informant as well as PW. 1. It is also unlikely as to why the public apprehended an innocent person instead of real miscreant, who threw the brick-bat to the informant, causing injuries to him. Prompt filing of ejahar, apprehension of accused immediately after the incident and handing him over to the police ruled out the possibility of manufacturing a false case against the accused, with whom neither the informant nor the public in general had enmity. Moreover, in the Court after about more than on year, the informant as well as PW. 1 easily recognized the accused, who pelted brick bat to the injured, PW. 3. It can be presumed a person can memorize easily the episode that happened before about one year, in which, the witnesses i.e. Pws.1 and 3 got full opportunity to see the accused. In the instant case, PW. 3 himself handed over the accused to police at the police station; taking him from the public at the place of occurrence and the said facts have been contained in the ejahar, the early version of the case.
13. PW. 6, Sheijang Chongloi, IO., deposed that the investigation, of the case was entrusted with him after receiving the ejahar from ASI. M.R. Laskar on 25.2.20011. He further stated that he seized one piece of brick on being produced by the informant at police station, vide Ext. 1. During investigation, it was found that injured was sent to Hailakandi Civil Hospital for treatment. He drew sketch map vide Ext. 4. He collected the materials and on completion of investigation, he Page No.# 5/8 submitted the charge sheet under Ext. 5.
14. From the evidence available on the record, it appears that there is no vital/major discrepancies and contradiction in the evidence of witnesses to create a doubt about the veracity of the witnesses. The materials on record amply proved the complicity of the accused in the incident of throwing, stone at the informant, who was discharging his duty as public servant.
15. Point No. (iii): From the evidence of PW. 3, it is seen that the brick bat hit him on the back side. PW. 5, Dr. Samarjit Chakrobarty, who examined the injured on the date of incident itself, found soft tissue swelling of size 3cm. in diameter in lumber region. No bony deformities was seen in the x-ray of the specific region. In his opinion, the injury is fresh, used by blunt object and nature of injury is simple."
8. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict the appellant under Section 332 IPC. It is to be noted that the learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidences coming on record had also drawn the conclusion to the effect that the charge under Section 307 IPC framed against the appellant was not established beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the appellant, herein, was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC.
9. This Court has appreciated the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court and on perusal of the same, this Court finds that the same was drawn basing on due and proper examination of the evidences coming on record. This Court on perusal of the deposition of the informant as PW-3, during the trial finds that immediately after he was hit by a piece of brick, the appellant, herein, was caught hold by the public on the spot. Thereafter, he deposed that he was taken to the Hailakandi Police Station by the police and therein he came to know that the name of the appellant was Sarif Uddin. During his cross- examination, he deposed that Constable Islam Uddin along with other people caught hold Page No.# 6/8 of the accused. He further deposed that he had not seen as to who had thrown the piece of brick on him and he had no enmity with the appellant, herein. Islam Uddin Laskar had deposed as PW-1 during the trial. In his deposition, PW-1 had deposed that he had witnessed a boy throwing a piece of brick towards the informant and the same had hit him on the backside. He identified the appellant in the dock to be the person who had thrown a piece of brick on the informant. During his cross-examination, he had said that he cannot say who had threw the brick on the informant as he was sitting in the office of the PSI, but he had seen the accused being taken away from the place. The fact that the appellant, herein, was hit with a piece of brick while he was discharging official duty is not disputed. The evidences coming on record have also highlighted that the appellant, herein, was apprehended by the people present in the court premises, immediately after the informant was hit by a piece of brick on his backside. The apprehension of the appellant, herein, by the persons present at the place of occurrence, immediately after the incident and the handing over of him to the police by them would bring to the forefront that it is the appellant, herein, who was aggressor in the matter. Accordingly, on analysis of the evidences coming on record, it is established that the appellant, herein, was the aggressor and he had thrown a piece of brick upon the informant, while the informant was discharging official duty. Accordingly, the offence under Section 332 IPC having been found to be established against the appellant, herein, his conviction there- under by the learned Trial Court would not mandate any interference.
10. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court would now consider sentencing of the appellant, herein. The offence committed by the appellant, herein, was so committed Page No.# 7/8 on 25-02-2011 and around 14 (fourteen) years has lapsed since the date of commission of the offence. The appellant was convicted under Section 332 IPC. Accordingly, the provision of Section 332 IPC being relevant, is extracted, here-in-below, for ready reference:-
Section- 332 Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
On perusal of the Section 332 IPC it is found that the same mandates punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 03 (three) years, or with fine, or with both.
11. A punishment being permissible to be so imposed under Section 332 IPC also with fine, this Court considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter since the date of commission of the offence by the appellant, herein, is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be made if the sentencing of the appellant, herein, by the learned Trial Court is modified and limited to the payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 (two) months.
12. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, herein, under Section 332 IPC, his sentencing by the learned Trial Court is modified and the appellant is now required to pay the fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 (two) months. The appellant shall appear before Page No.# 8/8 the learned Trial Court within a period of 03 (three) months from today and deposit the fine amount.
13. With the above observations and directions present appeal stands disposed of.
14. Registry to send back the TCR along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant