Smti.Laxmi Roy Vs the State — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smti.Laxmi Roy Vs the State — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Acquittal of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 342, 504 and 147 IPC; conviction under Section 324 IPC modified to a conviction under Section 323 IPC; conviction under Section 506 IPC left undisturbed; release on probation for six months under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on a bond of Rs. 1000/- with direction to keep peace and good behaviour, the probation officer to report within six months to the learned JMFC, Mayabunder.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means). +6 more

Court's answer

No material on record against the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 IPC: the victim's injury was inflicted by the tooth bite of co-accused Sandhya Golder, and there is no evidence that the petitioner used any weapon or means to cause injury.

Ratio / Principle

The only allegation against the petitioner is that she caught hold of the victim's hair and slapped her; on that material the Court held she committed an offence under Section 323 IPC, not Section 324 IPC.

Key takeaways

The petitioner's conviction under Section 324 IPC is modified by convicting her under Section 323 IPC.ratio¶57
No case under Section 342 IPC is proved against the petitioner: the tying of the victim with a towel (gamcha) was not corroborated by any witness, no gamcha was seized, and the site plan (Exhibit 3) did not show the betel nut tree at the place of occurrence; the petitioner is acquitted of Section 342 IPC.ratio¶43
The prosecution failed to prove the Section 504 IPC case: neither the victim nor any witness stated that the petitioner intentionally insulted the victim intending or knowing the provocation likely to cause a breach of the peace; the petitioner is acquitted of Section 504 IPC.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision (CRR/3/2025) by Smt. Laxmi Roy before the High Court at Calcutta, Port Blair Circuit Bench (Krishna Rao, J.; judgment dated 09.07.2025) against the judgment dated 23.08.2024 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2023, whereby the conviction dated 07.09.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mayabunder in GR Case No. 283 of 2011 under Sections 324, 342, 147, 504 and 506 IPC (FIR No. 49/2011, PS Diglipur; incident of 25.05.2011 at Smith Island) was affirmed. Held: (i) the victim's injury was inflicted by the tooth bite of co-accused Sandhya Golder; there being no evidence that the petitioner used any weapon or means, and the only allegation against her being that she caught the victim's hair and slapped her, the conviction under Section 324 IPC is modified to one under Section 323 IPC; (ii) the petitioner is acquitted under Sections 342, 504 and 147 IPC — the tying with a towel (gamcha) was uncorroborated, no gamcha was seized, the site plan (Exhibit 3) did not show the betel nut tree at the place of occurrence, and the ingredients of Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) were absent; (iii) the conviction under Section 506 IPC is upheld, sufficient evidence existing that the accused used force against and threatened the victim. Though slow to disturb concurrent findings, a revisional court may interfere where they are perverse; here the Magistrate had convicted all accused alike without assessing each accused's role. Holding the petitioner eligible under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act (case pending since 2011, trial till 2022, regular appearance, not a habitual offender, sole case), the Court released her on probation for six months on a bond of Rs. 1000/- with a direction to keep peace and good behaviour, the probation officer to report within six months. CRR/3/2025 disposed of.

Issues for consideration

7 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means).¶36
The court held
No material on record against the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 IPC: the victim's injury was inflicted by the tooth bite of co-accused Sandhya Golder, and there is no evidence that the petitioner used any weapon or means to cause injury.ratio¶36
2.
Whether the petitioner wrongfully confined the victim so as to attract Section 342 IPC.¶43
The court held
No case under Section 342 IPC is proved against the petitioner: the tying of the victim with a towel (gamcha) was not corroborated by any witness, no gamcha was seized, and the site plan (Exhibit 3) did not show the betel nut tree at the place of occurrence; the petitioner is acquitted of Section 342 IPC.ratio¶43
3.
Whether the ingredients of Section 504 IPC (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) were made out against the petitioner.¶48
The court held
The prosecution failed to prove the Section 504 IPC case: neither the victim nor any witness stated that the petitioner intentionally insulted the victim intending or knowing the provocation likely to cause a breach of the peace; the petitioner is acquitted of Section 504 IPC.ratio¶48
4.
Whether there was evidence on record against the petitioner for the offence under Section 147 IPC.¶57
The court held
There being no evidence on record against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 342/504/147 IPC, the petitioner is acquitted of those offences.ratio¶57
5.
Whether the petitioner's conviction under Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) should be allowed to stand.¶52
The court held
Sufficient evidence exists against the petitioner for the offence under Section 506 IPC — the accused persons used force against and threatened the victim — and the Court does not interfere with the conviction under Section 506 IPC.ratio¶52
6.
Whether this Court, sitting in revision, may interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts.¶54
The court held
While courts are slow to interfere with concurrent findings of two courts, a revisional court may interfere where the concurrent finding is perverse; in the present case the trial and appellate courts did not properly consider the evidence on record.ratio¶54
7.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.¶58
The court held
The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act: the case was initiated in 2011, she faced trial till 2022, regularly appeared, is not a habitual offender, has committed no offence during pendency, and this is her only case.ratio¶58