Diwakar Mitra vs State Of Bihar and Lalita Devi

Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.—The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 17.1.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 2001 by which the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.1.2001 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj in complaint case No. 2 C of 1995 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.10.1995 the accused Petitioners were damaging the house of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 situated in the Dey market which was protested by the complainant, upon which the Petitioners assaulted the complainant with fist and slaps and she fell down and became naked. The Petitioners also abused the complainant by calling caste name.

The complaint case No. 2 C of 1995 was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 354 I.P.C. After enquiry, cognizance was taken and summonses were issued. After the trial, learned Magistrate found and held that the complainant has failed to prove the charge u/s 354 I.P.C. and she has established the charge u/s 323 I.P.C. against both the accused-petitioners and they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each u/s 323 I.P.C. Against that judgment the Petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 2001 before the learned Sessions Judge but later on it was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj and the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court has been affirmed.

On perusal of the record it appears that the learned trial Court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and had come to the conclusion that the offence u/s 354 I.P.C. has not been established and the Petitioners have been found guilty u/s 323 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and in the appeal also the conviction and the sentence has been affirmed. Learned Appellate Court has also considered the evidence on record. It also appears from the record that the Petitioners have no criminal antecedent. The occurrence has taken place in the year 1995 and since then the Petitioners have been suffering from mental agony. The Petitioners have also remained in custody for some time.

Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order so far the conviction of the Petitioners is concerned, but in my opinion, it is a fit case in which the sentence of the Petitioners should be modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the Petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone in custody.

With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed.