Gauhati High Court
Bichitra Lal Das vs The State Of Assam on 5 May, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010006502014
2026:GAU-AS:6117
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./72/2014
BICHITRA LAL DAS
S/O LT. BASALAL DAS R/O BORIGAON, UNDER JORHAT P.S. IN THE DIST.
OF JORHAT, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P CHOUDHURY, MR. K SAIKIA,MR.D TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 05.05.2026
Heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B.
Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms.
S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the
State respondent.
2. By this criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the
Page No.# 2/5
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”), the petitioner
assails the judgment and order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat (“hereinafter referred to as
the “appellate court”), whereby the appeal against conviction and
sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat
(hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) was partly allowed. The
appellate court set aside the conviction under Section 427 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“hereinafter referred to as the IPC“), altered
the same to Section 426 IPC with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and reduced
the sentence under Section 447 IPC to simple imprisonment for one
month.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an ejahar was lodged
alleging that on 12.11.2008 at about 8:30 AM, the accused/petitioner,
along with others, trespassed into the premises of the complainant,
abused him, damaged two vehicles by breaking their glass with a
khukri, and assaulted him. Accordingly, Jorhat P.S. Case No. 589/2008
was registered under Sections 447/294/427/34 IPC. Upon completion
of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The accused pleaded not
guilty, and the matter proceeded to trial.
4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. In his examination
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating
circumstances but adduced no defence evidence. The trial court
convicted the accused under Sections 447 and 427 IPC and sentenced
him to simple imprisonment of three months on each count, to run
concurrently.
Page No.# 3/5
5. In appeal, the appellate court, upon reappreciation of the
evidence, partly allowed the appeal by converting the conviction under
Section 427 IPC to Section 426 IPC with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and
reducing the sentence under Section 447 IPC to one month’s simple
imprisonment.
6. Mr. D. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the incident arose out of a family monetary dispute and that there
was no intention to cause harm. It is urged that, having regard to the
nature of the offence, the petitioner ought to have been extended the
benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or under the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958.
7. Per contra, Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
submits that the evidence clearly establishes that the petitioner arrived
armed with a dao and attempted to assault the complainant, and upon
failing, caused damage to the vehicles. It is contended that in such
circumstances, the benefit of probation is unwarranted, particularly
when the sentence has already been substantially reduced.
8. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments
advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also
perused the material available on record.
9. At the outset, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of
this Court is limited in scope. The power under Sections 397/401
Cr.P.C. is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is warranted only
in cases of jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, gross procedural
irregularity, or perversity in findings. The revisional court does not
Page No.# 4/5
reappreciate evidence as an appellate court unless such findings suffer
from patent illegality.
10. In the present case, the conviction under Sections 447/426 IPC
is borne out by the evidence on record. No jurisdictional error or
perversity in appreciation of evidence has been demonstrated. The
only issue urged relates to the sentence. The testimony of PW-1, duly
corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, establishes that the
accused approached the complainant armed with a dao, concealed
behind his back. Upon suddenly brandishing the weapon, the
complainant was compelled to retreat inside his house. Thereafter, the
accused caused damage to the vehicles parked in the compound,
including breaking the windshield. Minor discrepancies regarding the
extent of damage do not affect the core of the prosecution case.
11. The question that arises is whether the petitioner is entitled to
the benefit of probation. While the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C.
and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are intended to reform
offenders in appropriate cases, the same cannot be invoked
mechanically. The nature of the offence, the manner of its commission,
and the conduct of the accused are relevant considerations.
12. In the present case, the petitioner was armed with a dangerous
weapon and had approached the complainant in an aggressive
manner. The act cannot be said to be a mere trivial altercation. In such
circumstances, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of
probation.
13. As regards the sentence, the appellate court has already
Page No.# 5/5
exercised leniency by reducing the sentence from three months to one
month. No ground is made out warranting further interference.
14. In view of the above, no case for interference in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction is made out.
15. The criminal revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
16. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
