Md Abdul Paramanik vs State Of Assam

Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State.

This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.06.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in Crl.A. No.

10/2008.

The petitioner was convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Goalpara by judgment and order dated 24.06.2008 in Sessions Case No.

07/2008 under Section 354 & 457 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 500/-under Section 354 IPC

and rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 457 IPC. On appeal, learned Sessions Judge converted the conviction

under Section 457 IPC to Section 448 IPC and reduced the sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. Learned Sessions Judge also modified

and reduced the sentence under Section 354 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for three months and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case in a nutshell was that on 04.11.2007, while the alleged victim (PW-2) was in her house alone, the accused entered into the

house and grabbed her with intention to commit rape on her. She raised alarm, hearing which, her husband and other villagers arrived and caught the

accused inside the house.

During evidence, the alleged victim, examined as PW-2, reiterated the averments made in the FIR, that while she was in her house alone and her

husband was away in the market, the accused entered the house and grabbed her and tried to outrage her modesty. When she raised alarm, her

husband and other villagers arrived there and caught the accused. The other witnesses being PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 & PW-7, who followed the husband

of the victim to the place of occurrence, corroborated the version of the PW-1 and PW-2. On appreciation of such evidence, learned Assistant

Sessions Judge recorded conviction of the petitioner and awarded the sentence as indicated above. Learned appellate court by re-appreciating the

evidence, modified the conviction and sentence.

Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner preferred the instant revision petition.

From perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and also the learned Sessions Judge, it appears that there

was no illegality or irregularity committed by the court below requiring interference with the findings, so far commission of the offence by the accused

petitioner is concerned. It is settled position of law that revisional court is not supposed to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact, unless it is

found to be perverse or the judgment suffered from any glaring mistake causing miscarriage of justice. Apparently, the judgment passed by both the

courts has not suffered from any illegality or irregularity and as such, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned appellate court

convicting the petitioner under Section 448 IPC and 354 IPC.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused was in custody for about three months during investigation and trial and

there was no record of his previous conviction and also that the occurrence took place nearly more than a decade ago, and urged for showing some

leniency to the petitioner with regard to the sentence.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be

preponderous, inasmuch as, the appellant almost having completed the terms of imprisonment, no cause of justice will be served by sending him to jail

again for a week or two. Since the appellant was already in jail for about three months, taking note of the totality of the matter, this court is of the

view that the imprisonment for the period, which the accused had undergone during investigation and trial for the offence under both the Section,

would meet the ends of justice. In addition to that he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one

month.

The revision petition is accordingly partly allowed with the above modification in the sentence.

The accused petitioner shall surrender before the learned Trial Court to pay the fine imposed, or serve out the default sentence.

Send down the LCR.