Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam on 27 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010194112013
2025:GAU-AS:14404
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./492/2013
LALMOHAN DAS and ANR.
S/O TERA MONI DAS VILL- VICHINGCHA PART-I P.S. and DIST.
HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.
2: SWAPAN DAS
S/O LT. MORAI DAS VILL- VICHINGCHA PART-I P.S. and DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J ISLAM, MR.N H BARBHUIYA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 27-10-2025
Heard Mr. N.H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. A.M.
Begum, learned Additional. P.P. Assam, appearing for the State.
2. The present revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 20-
Page No.# 2/8
08-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Crl. Appeal No. 18/2009,
upholding the conviction and sentencing of the petitioners, herein, by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi vide judgment dated 14-05-2009 in GR Case No. 171/2007
under Section 354/447/34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Dulu Rani Das had lodged a complaint before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, inter-alia, alleging, therein, that the
named accused persons had outraged her modesty. It was further contended in the
complaint that the petitioners, herein, along with one Abinash Das on 18-03-2007 at
around 09:30 pm, had entered into the house of the complainant and by dragging her out
of the house by holding her hand had intended to commit rape on her. It was also alleged
that the petitioners and Abinash Das have tried to disrobe her. She further stated that on
raising alarm neighboring people as well as passer bys passing, having assembled there,
the accused fled away from the scene. The said complaint was forwarded by the court to
the police, leading to registration of the Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 73/2007 under Section
447/354/506/34 IPC. The police on completion of the investigation laid charge-sheet
against the present petitioners and Abinash Das under Section 448/354/506/34 IPC.
Accordingly, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court under Section 447/ 354/ 34
IPC.
On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 14-
05-2009 was pleased to convict the petitioners, herein, along with Abinash Das under
Section 447/354/34 IPC and accordingly, sentenced them.
Being aggrieved, the petitioners, herein, along with Abinash Das instituted an appeal
Page No.# 3/8
assailing the said conviction, before the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi.
The learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi vide judgment and order dated 20-08-2013, upon
appreciating the evidences coming on record, was pleased to dismiss the said appeal
upholding the conviction of the petitioners, herein, along with said Abinash Das.
Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the present proceeding.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
5. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidence coming on record had
drawn the following conclusions:-
"18. To sum up, therefore, I find that on 19.3.07 at night of about 9.30 P.M.,
accused Abinash Das, Lalmohan Dan, and Swapan Das in furtherance of their
common intention went to the home of the victim woman and dragged her out of
the house by holding her hair and in course of scuffling in verandah, her wearing
saree and blouse were torn and as a result, her modesty has been outraged. The
ingredients of offence u/n 449/354/34 IPC are found to be well proved.
19. The offence u/s 449 IPC is aggravate form of offence u/s 447 IPC. The
ingredients of offence u/s 447 & 443 IPC are common except in case of sec. 448
IPC the entering into the house or building or tent is required but my ld.
predecessor explained the offence u/s 447 IPC against the accused persons.
Therefore, there will be no prejudice if the accused persons are convicted u/s
447/354/34 IPC. Hence, I convict then u/s 447/354/34 IPC."
6. On drawing the said conclusions, the petitioners, herein, were convicted and
sentenced in the following manner;
"Hence, I convict sentence all the accused persons to undergo R.I. of 6 (six)
months with a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) each and in case of default
of the payment of fine, they shall undergo with S.I. of 1 (one) month more u/s
354/34 IPC. I also sentence all of the accused persons to pay fine of Rs. 500/-
(Rupees five hundred) each u/s 447/34 IPC and in case of default of payment of
Page No.# 4/8
fine they shall undergo with S.I. of 1(one) month more. Both of the sentences shall
run concurrently. Accordingly, the case is disposed of on contest."
7. The learned Appellate Court on an appeal being preferred before it, assailing the
conviction of the petitioners, herein, was pleased vide judgment and order dated 20-08-
2013 to draw the following conclusions:-
"15. On proper scrutiny of the evidence of Pws. 1 and 3, it is found that
there are some discrepancies and contradictions in their evidence with certain
variations from their earlier statements. For certain variations, exaggerations
appeared in the evidence of witnesses, their entire evidence can not be rejected.
Although PW. 1 did not state before police that during scuffling with the accused,
her blouse was torn out when they tried to drag her out and attempted to take her
to a dark place, the fact remains that PW. 2 Md. Siraj Uddin saw the incident of
pulling the victim by the accused. His evidence is that he saw accused persons
were pulling and pushing the victim lady. PW. 5, Mujibur Rehman deposed that on
the following day of incident, the victim lady came to his house and narrated to
him that the accused persons on the previous night went to her house and tortured
her. He advised her to take recourse to law. PW. 1, the victim has also stated that
she narrated the incident to her witnesses.
16. On proper scrutiny, I am of the considered view that the evidence of PW.
2, Siraj Uddin, an Independent witness, can not be discarded as evidence of a
chance witness. The evidence of PW. 5 also can not be discarded as hear say
evidence. Since PW. 1 stated that after the incident, she reported about it to her
witnesses and PW. 5 was accordingly reported about the incident by PW. 1 and
thus the evidence of Pw. 1 received support from Pw. 5. Pw. 2 has also supported
the evidence of PW. 1 to certain extent. From the evidence of PW. 2, it appears
that at the relevant time, he was coming home with one Mujibur but from his said
statement, it can not be ascertained whether he was accompanied by PW. 5,
Mujibur Rehman Barbhuiya or any body else by name Mujibur.
17. The Ld. Trial Court on careful scrutiny of the evidence found that the
contradictions and discrepancies, which are not very significant can not diminish
the value of the evidence of Pws. Certain extent of variation and discrepancies are
bound to occur in natural course as it may not be possible for human being to
reproduce any event in detail like a recorded video. The Ld. Advocate further
argued that the incident is not at all believable as no neighbouring people was
examined. In the instant case, the incident occurred all on a sudden and in such
Page No.# 5/8
situation, person who heard hue and cry came to the place of occurrence. Non
examination of neighbouring people can not be a ground to discard the entire facts
of the case. It is also argued that the complainant instead of going to the police
station, she came to the court and filed the complaint before the Court on the next
day. Filing a complaint is the prerogative of the complainant and there is no bar to
file a complaint before the Court. The complaint, which was filed on the following
day of incident can not be disbelieved for filing the same before the Court.
18. In a case under Sec. 354 of the CrPC., the culpable intention of the
accused is the crux of the matter. Knowledge of the accused that modesty is likely
to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute an offence under this section. In a case
where the evidence of the victim did not appear to be reliable and cogent, the
corroboration is required. In the instant case, the evidence of the victim is found to
be reliable and cogent to inspire confidence of the Court, which also received
support from other witnesses. Pulling and dragging a woman by holding her hand,
coupled with an attempt to take her to a dark place at night amounts to an offence
under Sec. 354, IPC.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and observation, it is found and held
that the Ld. Trial Court has not committed any error or illegality to arrive at a
conclusion that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention
committed the offence punishable under Sec. 447/354, IPC. with the aid of Sec.
34, IPC. As such, I hold that the impugned conviction under the aforesaid section
recorded by the Ld. TM. needs no interference."
8. Upon drawing the above conclusions the learned Appellate Court dismissed the
appeal and thereby upheld the conviction of the petitioners, herein.
9. I have perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the
learned Appellate Court in the light of the evidences coming on record. The evidences of
the prosecutrix as well as her sister who had deposed as PW-3 and that of their father
who had deposed as PW-4, brings to the forefront the offence committed by the
petitioners, herein, along with Abinash Das. It is seen that the said evidences as brought
on record through the deposition of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 were not dislodged by the
Page No.# 6/8
petitioners, herein, during their cross-examination. PW-2 Sirajuddin Barbhuiya who is an
independent witness had during his deposition deposed that on hearing the hue and cry
from the house of the prosecutrix he had rushed there and had seen all the three accused
persons, including the petitioners, herein, scuffling with the prosecutrix in her veranda
and on the gathering of the neighbors, the petitioners along with Abinash Das had fled
away from the place. It is seen that the cross-examination of the PW-2 by the petitioners,
herein, his version could not be dislodged. In the light of the evidences coming on record,
this Court is of the considered view that the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court
as well as by the learned Appellate Court, convicting the petitioners, herein, under Section
447/354/34 IPC is not erroneous and no infirmity has been found with regard to the
conclusions drawn by the courts in the matter. This Court had examined the evidences,
although there were concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court as well as by the
learned Appellate Court in the matter, only to satisfy itself with regard to the conclusions
drawn in the matter by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court.
10. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court upholds the conviction of the
petitioners, herein.
11. This Court notices that the learned Trial Court while proceeding to sentence the
petitioners, herein, had noticed the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,
however, the benefits there-under was declined to be extended to the petitioners, herein,
only by noticing the nature of offence committed by them. This Court notices that the
offence was committed by the petitioners on 18-03-2007 and around 18 years have
passed since the commission of the offence by the petitioners, herein. This Court further
Page No.# 7/8
notices that the petitioners have been litigating in the matter for the last 18 years, initially
before the learned Trial Court, thereafter, before the learned Appellate Court and
presently before this Court in the present criminal revision petition. Accordingly,
considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioners, herein, are entitled to be extended with the benefits
under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The said benefit being
permissible to be extended by this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, this
Court directs that the petitioner, herein, be not required to undergo the sentences of
imprisonment, and they be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
However, this Court has not interfered with the imposition of fine by the learned Trial
Court.
12. As such, it is directed that the petitioners, herein, will file 02 (two) sureties each to
the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each along with a personal bond before
the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hailakandi and undertake to the effect that the
petitioners shall keep peace and good behaviour during the period of 06 (six) months
from the date of filing of such bond. The aforesaid bond shall be filed by the petitioners
within a period of 01 (one) month from today along with deposit of the fine amount as
awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi.
13. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition
stands disposed of.
14. Registry to send back the TCR forthwith along with a copy of the present order for
information and necessary action.
Page No.# 8/8
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
