Sri Chandra Mohan Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 455 Tri

                                             Page - 1 of 15


                                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                          AGARTALA

                                    Crl. Rev. P. No. 02 of 2020

1. Sri Chandra Mohan Sarkar,
Son of Sri Makhan Sarkar, resident of Village Uttar Krishnapur, P.S. Teliamura,
District Khowai Tripura
2. Sri Laxmikanta Das,
Son of late Nepal Das, resident of Village Uttar Krishnapur, P.S. Teliamura, District
Khowai Tripura
                                                                   ----- Petitioner(s)
                                             Versus
The State of Tripura
Represented by the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tripura.
                                                           -----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)                            :        Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)                            :        Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. P.P.
Date of Hearing                              :        3rd November, 2021.
Date of Pronouncement                        :        19th April, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting                    :        NO

                                          B_E_F_O_R_E_
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
                                       JUDGMENT & ORDER

By means of filing this criminal revision under section 397 read with

section 401 Cr.P.C., petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated

05.12.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Khowai in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2019

affirming their conviction and sentence under section 354B read with section 34 IPC

passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khowai by his judgment and order dated

31.08.2019 in case No.PRC (WP) No.54 of 2018.

[2] The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the FIR lodged by

the prosecutrix with the officer in charge of Teliamura police station on 21.04.2018.

The prosecutrix (name withheld to hide her identity) alleged in her written FIR that

on 21.04.2018 at about 8 O'clock in the morning she went to the tilla (a high land)

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 2 of 15

near her home to see her goat which was left there for grazing. At that time, the

petitioners appeared there and gave indecent proposals to her. When she was

untying her goat, accused petitioner Chandra Mohan Sarkar embraced her and he

tried to disrobe her. As she applied force to free herself from the hold of Chandra

Mohan Sarkar, other accused Laxmikanta Das came forward and seized her hands.

Both of them touched at different places of her body and thus outraged her

modesty. She raised hue and cry and picked up a dao to defend herself. The

petitioners then left her and fled away. When she informed her neighbours about

the incident, they advised her to report the matter to police. She accordingly lodged

the FIR.

[3] Based on her FIR, Teliamura PS case No.2018 TLM 039 under

sections 354 and 354B IPC was registered and the case was taken up for

investigation.

[4] During investigation, the investigating officer visited the crime

scene and prepared hand sketch map with separate index. She also examined the

victim and other available witnesses and recorded their statements under section

161 Cr.P.C. Victim was also produced before the Judicial Magistrate of the First

Class at Khowai who recorded her statement under section 164(5) Cr.P.C. On

conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the petitioners for

committing offence punishable under sections 354 and 354B read with section 34

IPC.

[5] In order to bring home the charges against the petitioners, as

many as five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Among them,

PW-1 is the prosecutrix, Smt. Laxmi Biswas [PW-2] is a neighbourer of her.

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 3 of 15

Similarly, Sri Amit Biswas [PW-3] and Sri Kala Chand Biswas [PW-4] are also her

neighbours. WSI Uma Rani Nama [PW-5] is the investigating officer.

[6] After the prosecution evidence was closed, petitioners were

examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. In reply, they stated that they were innocent

and the charges were foisted on them. They declined to adduce evidence on their

defence.

[7] On appreciation of evidence, trial court held that prosecution

successfully established the charges against the petitioners and the evidence of the

prosecutrix was conclusive in nature which was totally inconsistent to the innocence

of petitioners which led to the conclusion of their guilt beyond reasonable shadow

of doubt. The learned trial court convicted both of the petitioners under section

354B read with section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer RI for one

month with a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

[8] The petitioners challenged the judgment of the trial court in appeal.

The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 05.12.2019 in Criminal Appeal

No.08 of 2019 held that there was no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court

and therefore the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction and sentence

awarded by the trial court.

[9] For better appreciation of the revision petition, it would be

appropriate to reproduce the findings of the learned Sessions Judge:

"9. So, to decide the above point again we may re-appreciate the evidence on record of the prosecution witnesses.

The material witness of this case is the victim who as PW 1 deposed in her evidence that on 21.04.2018 at about 08.00 a.m. she was stopped/detained by the present appellants and they put indecent proposal to her and as she tried to go away they caught hold of her. Firstly, the appellant Chandra Mohan held her from back side also touched her breast and tried to put off her clothes while the appellant Laxmi Kanta held her one hand

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 4 of 15

and started recording the scene by a mobile phone of Chandra Mohan. A scuffling was started, victim tried to make herself free also raised hue and cry and took up a' dao' in her hand for her defence and the appellants left the place.

The trend of cross-examination of this witness is nothing but denial. In her cross examination I find some suggestions put to the witness by defence which were marked as "subject to confirmation by the IO." I failed to understand how and why the suggestions will be confirmed through the IO. Since no attention of the witness are drawn to her earlier statements. However, on perusal of the evidence of the IO who is PW 5 , I find even those portions are not confirmed through the IO. Rest 3 (three) witnesses are no doubt hearsay witnesses but the prosecution case is soon after the incident they were informed by the victim (PW 01).

The specific plea taken by the appellants in their appeal memo is that hearsay evidence of these PW No.2 to 4 failed to satisfy the provision of Section 3 of the Evidence Act and about the evidence of victim their submission is that in the complaint petition the victim did not stated that the appellants put indecent proposals to the victim nor she stated in her complaint petition that accused Chandra Mohan held her from back and touched her breast and tried to put off her clothes and the accused Laxmikanta held her by one hand and started recording the scene with the mobile phone of Chandra Mohan.

It is well settled law that FIR is not an encyclopedia. We know that FIR set in motion a criminal case for investigation. Every pros and corns are not required to be written in FIR. The main allegation brought by the victim is that on a certain day, at a certain place, at a certain time the offence was committed by the accused persons. The victim at the time of her adducing evidence in toto disclosed the same before the trial court and in no way the defence able to shatter her above evidence by way of their cross-examination. It is not the case of defence that there is/was any enmity in between the victim and the appellants though it is clear on record that the appellants are the inhabitants of the same locality of the victim. From the evidence of the IO it is also clear that soon after the incident the victim appeared in the PS and lodged her oral complaint which was reduced into writing by the O/C and registered a specific case.

A specific plea also taken by the appellants that except the victim there is no eye witness even the husband of the victim also not examined in this case as a prosecution witness.

On my perusal of the judgment of the trial Court I find the trial court discussed this aspect by referring a case law reported in (2006) 11 SCC 323. In the said judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that based on the testimony of a single eye witness a conviction may be recorded, but for this purpose court

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 5 of 15

must be satisfied that the testimony of the solitary eye witness is of such sterling quality that the court finds it safe to base a conviction solely on the testimony of that witness and the evidence must influence the court as wholly truthful, natural and so convicting that the court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on the basis of the testimony of that witness.

10. As I discussed above the alleged incident took place on 21.04.2018 at 08.00 a.m and complainant appeared in the PS at 1430 hours also lodged her complaint. Prior to that she informed the matter to her neighbours and her such evidence corroborated by PW 02 to 04. So in such a situation the decision so taken by the trial court in appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is found to be correct. There is nothing in record to disbelieve the prosecutrix.

Now coming to this conclusion I have to decide whether this is a fit case for giving the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants?

On my perusal of the judgment of the trial court, I find the trial court discussed the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. The discussion so made by the trial court in rejecting the benefit of the provision of Probation of Offenders Act is justified because the accused-appellants are no doubt aged persons and it cannot be say that they have lack of understanding of the consequence of the offence. Moreover, the offence is against the woman.

So far the sentence as awarded by the trial Court, I am of the view that the trial court taken a very lenient view in awarding the sentence to the convicts for their offence under Section 354- B of IPC. However, as there is no cross appeal from the side of prosecution, the sentence so awarded is remained untouched and is hereby up-held."

[10] Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. representing the State

respondent.

[11] It would appear from the record that while admitting the petition,

this Court by order dated 14.01.2020 observed that while imposing sentence on the

convicts, the trial court as well as the appellate court deviated from the prescribed

sentence. Minimum sentence prescribed under section 354B IPC shall not be less

than three years which is extendable upto seven years with fine. But, the trial court

on the conviction of the petitioners under section 354B IPC sentenced each of them

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 6 of 15

to RI for one month with fine which was also upheld by the appellate court.

Therefore, by order dated 14.01.2020 passed by this Court, notice was also issued

to the petitioners to show cause as to why sentence imposed on them shall not be

enhanced in terms of section 354B read with section 34 IPC pursuant to the

conviction returned by the trial court.

[12] Mr. Raju Datta, counsel appearing for the petitioners has

contended that the statement of the prosecutrix is not supported by any other

witness. Counsel submits that the prosecutrx in her statement before the Judicial

Magistrate under section 164(5) Cr.P.C. as well as in her testimony at the trial

improved her FIR version which has seriously affected the credibility of her version.

Counsel contends that nowhere in her FIR statement she stated that one of the

accused captured the incidence in his mobile phone. Subsequently, in her statement

before the Magistrate under section 164(5) Cr.P.C. as well as in her testimony at

the trial, she stated that accused petitioner Laxmikanta Das held her with one hand

and recorded the scene in the mobile phone of accused petitioner Chandra Mohan

Sarkar with the other hand. Counsel submits that it was quite improbable that the

accused would be able to capture the 32 years' lady with one hand and record

something in his mobile with the other hand particularly when she was armed with

a dao. Moreover, there is no other eye witness to the occurrence though the

incident occurred near the house of the victim. Having relied on the judgments

dated 26.11.2021 in Criminal Revision Petition No.65 of 2016 and Criminal Revision

Petition No.04 of 2020 passed by this Court, counsel of the petitioner contended

that in both these cases, conviction of the accused was set aside by this Court as

the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove those cases beyond

reasonable shadow of doubt. Counsel submits that in the instant case also the

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 7 of 15

evidence of the prosecutrix is not free from doubts and therefore similar benefit

should also be given to the present accused. Counsel, therefore, urges the Court to

set aside the impugned judgment. On the question of imposition of sentence less

than minimum sentence prescribed under section 354B IPC, counsel submits that

unquestionably sentence less than minimum sentence prescribed under the law

cannot be passed by a Court. But in the instant case, question of enhancing

sentence does not arise as the case against the petitioners could not be proved.

[13] Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the

other hand contends that even though other than the prosecutrix there is no eye

witness to the occurrence, there is no ground to disbelieve the statement of the

prosecutrix who gave a very convincing statement before the court during the trial

of the case. Counsel contends that insofar as the conviction of the petitioner is

concerned, the trial court as well as the appellate court relied on her statement in

arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the accused and there is no ground to interfere

with the concurrent findings of the two courts. Learned Addl. P.P., however,

submits that since the trial court erroneously imposed a sentence less than the

prescribed sentence on conviction of the accused, the sentence should be enhanced

at least to the minimum sentence. Counsel, therefore, urges for dismissal of the

petition.

[14] While arguing in the case, the counsel representing the parties had

taken the Court to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. PW-1 is the victim

who stated in her examination in chief that when she went to the tilla near her

home to bring back her goat from there, the two accused stood on her way and

gave indecent proposal to her. When she tried to leave, they held her. Accused

Chandra Mohan Sarkar held her from her back and touched her breast while the

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 8 of 15

other accused Laxmikanta Das caught hold of her with one hand and started

recording the scene in his mobile with the other hand. She raised hue and cry and

scuffled to free herself. It was further stated by her that when she picked up a dao

for her defence, the two accused left the place. The victim also stated that she

informed her neighbours Laxmi Biswas, Tarachand and others about the

occurrence. Following their advice, she went to the police station and lodged the

FIR.

In her cross examination, few suggestions were given to her on

behalf of the accused. She denied those suggestions.

[15] Smt. Laxmi Biswas [PW-2] is the neighbour of the prosecutrix.

Laxmi told the court that the prosecutrix told her that their neighbours Chandra

Mohan Sarkar and Laxmikanta Das chased her and disrobed her.

[16] Sri Amit Biswas [PW-3], a 25 years' old carpenter told the trial

court that prosecutrix was his neighbour. On the material date, the prosecutrix

went to his house and told him that when she went to bring back her goat, the two

accused disrobed her and touched different parts of her body.

[17] Sri Kala Chand Biswas [PW-4] gave the same evidence. According

to the PW, on the material day, the prosecutrix met the PW at his home and told

him that the two accused disrobed her and touched at different places of her body

when she went to bring her goat back from a tilla (high land) hear her home.

[18] WSI Uma Rani Nama [PW-5] is the investigating officer who stated

that the statements of the available witnesses supported the charge against the

accused. Therefore, she laid charge sheet against the petitioners.

[19] Having read the evidence of the prosecutrix, I find that there is

hardly any reason to disbelieve her statement. In her statement at the trial, she

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 9 of 15

told the court that the petitioners gave an indecent proposal to her. When she was

going away, accused Chandra Mohan Sarkar held her from her back. He touched

her breasts and tried to put off her clothes. Then accused Laxmikanta Das held her

by one of his hand and started recording the scene in his mobile. She then picked

up the dao from the ground which she was carrying with her and raised hue and

cry, the two petitioners then left her.

[20] On appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix, the trial court

was of the following view:

"10.1. In the instant case the prosecutrix herself is the witness of the occurrence and all the remaining other witnesses gave hearsay account of the occurrence. Let us refer to S 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in this regards, which provides that no particular number of witnesses shall be required for proof of any fact. So on the basis of evidence of a sole witness, a fact can be said to be proved. Hence, the requirement as to having any other independent eye witnesses to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix does not arise at all.

In Bhimappa Chandappa Hosamani & Ors Vs State of Karnataka as reported in MANU/SC/8508/2006

[equivalent (2006) 11 SCC 323] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:-

"This Court has repeatedly observed that on the basis of the testimony of a single eye witness a conviction may be recorded, but it is also cautioned that while doing so the Court must be satisfied that the testimony of the solitary eye witness is of such sterling quality that the Court finds it safe to base a conviction solely on the testimony of that witness. In doing so the Court must test the credibility of the witness by reference to the quality of his evidence. The evidence must be free of any blemish or suspicion, must impress the Court as wholly truthful, must appear to be natural and so convincing that the Court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on the basis of the testimony of a single witness."

10.2. Thus, from the above discussion what follows is that even though the prosecutrix [PW-1] is the only witness of the occurrence her evidence cannot be discarded being not corroborated as from the evidence itself it clearly comes out that she was attacked before the occurrence in the tilla near house and from the hand sketch map as marked Ext.3 what reveals is that there was no human dwelling just near the place of occurrence and that there was none other than the prosecutrix

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 10 of 15

herself and the accused persons. The defence could not deviate the evidence of the prosecutrix herself and the accused persons. The defence could not deviate the evidence of the preosecutrix in cross-examination by rebuttal of any of the points about the occurrence except that she was given indecent proposal by the accused persons as the defence proved subsequent development thereof. In the opinion of the Court such subsequent development, if the same can be termed so, is immaterial as the same only refers to the fact that the statement US 161 CRPC is not recorded in the said manner. In no way this point undermine the gravity of the occurrence and the weight of evidence put by the prosecutrix.

From the evidences of other witnesses it comes out that the prosecutrix ran pillar to post to inform injustice meted upon her seeking redress as the other witnesses deposed that the prosecutrix in fact informed them about the manner. 10.3. From the above discussion I observe as follows: The prosecution has been able to establish the accusation which connect the accused persons to the offence and the evidence of the prosecutrix is conclusive in nature which totally inconsistent to the innocence of the accused persons and is not explainable by any other hypothesis except guilt of the accused persons. The involvement of the accused persons in the offence is thus proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. There is no reason available in the evidence in entirety not to believe the evidence of the prosecutrix safely."

[21] Evidently, the place of occurrence is a high land not visible from the

houses in the neighbourhood. Moreover, the hand sketch map drawn by the

investigating officer which has been taken into evidence would demonstrate that

the place is surrounded by big trees and bushes. In such circumstances, eye

witness would hardly be available. The prosecutrix gave a consistent and convincing

statement before the trial court which was tested by cross examination. Her

evidence could not be impeached to any extent in cross examination. Therefore,

trial court committed no error in relying on her evidence particularly when accused

could not bring out any case of animosity of the prosecutrix towards them or any

other reason to disbelieve her evidence. Moreover, the reaction and post

occurrence conduct of the victim like violent resistance, sharing the incidence with

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 11 of 15

her next door neighbours and prompt reporting of the incidence to police

establishes the truthfulness of her statement.

[22] The trial court as well as the appellate court has dealt with the

matter in great detail. Petitioners could not make out any ground for this Court to

disturb the concurrent findings of the courts below against them with regard to

charge of using criminal force to the prosecutrix intending to outrage her modesty.

It is evident that when the victim was alone at a place in her village, two accused

petitioner overpowered her and outraged her modesty in furtherance of their

common intention by touching her breast and other places of her body. However,

the allegation against the petitioners that they intended to disrobe the prosecutrix is

not proved. Therefore, their conviction under section 354B IPC cannot be sustained

and accordingly same is interfered with. Since the conduct of the petitioners clearly

constitute an offence punishable under section 354 IPC and the same has been

established beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt, their conviction is modified and

both of them are convicted under section 354 IPC.

[23] As noted, the trial court on conviction of the petitioners under

section 354B IPC sentenced each of them to suffer RI for one month with fine of

Rs.1,000/- which was also upheld by the learned Sessions Judge whereas the

minimum sentence prescribed under section 354B IPC is imprisonment of either

description for not less than three years which is extendable upto 7 years with fine.

Once the accused is convicted for an offence and sentenced to imprisonment, a

sentence lesser than the sentence prescribed under the law is not permissible. The

Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das; reported

in (2019) 4 SCC 125 has held that where minimum sentence is provided, court

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 12 of 15

cannot impose lesser sentence. Observation of the Apex Court in the said judgment

is as under:

"8. In view of aforesaid judgments that where minimum sentence is provided for, the Court cannot impose less than the minimum sentence. It is also held that provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be resorted to impose sentence less than the minimum sentence."

[24] With regard to the power of enhancing sentence in exercise of

revisional jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Sahab Singh vs. State of Haryana; reported in (1990) 2 SCC

385 has held that even if no appeal is filed by the State for enhancement of

sentence, court can exercise suo motu power of revision under Section 397 read

with Section 401 Cr. P. C. But before the High Court exercises revisional jurisdiction

to enhance the sentence, it is imperative that the convict is put on notice. In

paragraph 4, in the case of Sahab Singh (supra) the Apex Court held as under:

"4. Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code"

hereinafter) provides for appeals from conviction by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge to the High Court. Section 377 entitles the State Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. Sub- section 3 of Section 377 says that when an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence. Admittedly no appeal was preferred by the State Government against the sentence imposed by the High Court on the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. Section 378 provides for an appeal against an order of acquittal. Section 386 enumerates the powers of the appellate court. The first proviso to that section states that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. Section 397 confers revisional powers on the High Court as well as the Sessions Court. It, inter alia, provides that the High Court may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situate within its jurisdiction for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 13 of 15

sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any inferior court. Section 401 further provides that in the case of any proceedings, the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of appeal by Sections 386,389, 390 and 391 of the Code. Sub-section 2 of Section 401 provides that no order under this Section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by Pleader in his own defence. Sub-section 4 next provides that where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. It is clear from a conjoint reading of Sections 377, 386, 397 and 401 that if the State Government is aggrieved about the inadequacy of the sentence it can prefer an appeal under Section 377(1) of the Code. The failure on the part of the State Government to prefer an appeal does not, however, preclude the High Court from exercising suo motu power of revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code since the High Court itself is empowered to call for the record of the proceeding of any court subordinate to it. Sub- section 4 of Section 401 operates as a bar to the party which has a right to prefer an appeal but has failed to do so but that sub-section cannot stand in the way of the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction suo motu. But before the High Court exercises its suo motu revisional jurisdiction to enhance the sentence, it is imperative that the convict is put on notice and is given an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence either in person or through his advocate. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to the prejudice of the convict without putting him on guard that it is proposed to enhance the sentence imposed by the Trial Court."

[25] Same principles were reiterated by the Apex Court in the Case of

Govind Ramji Jadhav vs. State of Maharastra; reported in (1990) 4 SCC

718 and also in the case of Surendra Singh Rautela vs. State of Bihar;

reported in (2002) 1 SCC 266.

[26] In this background, there is no embargo in enhancing the sentence

of the petitioners by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section

397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. For this purpose, accused was given notice by

this Court vide order dated 14.01.2021 by directing as under:

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 14 of 15

"....................It has come to the notice of this court that by the judgment dated 05.12.2019 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2019, which is under challenge in the revision petition, the sentence passed by the trial court has been upheld by the Sessions Judge. The trial court by the order dated 31.08.2019 delivered in PRC(WP) 54 of 2018 sentenced the petitioners to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Section 354-B/34 of the IPC. The sentence prescribed by the Section 354-B/34 of the IPC is as follows:

"Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

The sentence as affirmed is a gross deviation from the prescribed sentence. Hence, this court is passing the following order:

Issue notice to the petitioners as to why the sentence shall not be enhanced in terms of the Section 354-B/34 of the IPC pursuant to the conviction returned by the trial court."

[27] As noted, I have heard the counsel representing the parties also on

the question of enhancement of sentence while hearing them on the merit of this

criminal revision petition.

[28] As stated, conviction of the petitioners has been modified as a

conviction under section 354 read with section 34 IPC. Section 354 IPC prescribes

minimum punishment which shall be imprisonment of either description for a term

which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years with fine.

[29] Having due regard to the nature of offence, the transaction and

impact of the offence on the victim, this Court is of the view that if each of the

petitioners are sentenced to SI for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, it would serve

the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence as imposed by the impugned

judgment and order is set aside and in view of what has been discussed above,

each of the petitioners are sentenced to SI for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020 Page - 15 of 15

default to suffer SI for one month for having committed offence punishable under

section 354 read with section 34 IPC.

[30] The convict petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial

Court (the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khowai) to suffer the sentence

within a period of one month from today failing which the trial court shall issue

process according to law to compel their appearance before the court and commit

them to prison to suffer the sentence.

[31] In terms of the above, the criminal revision petition stands

dismissed and the same is disposed of. Send down the LCR. Pending application(s),

if any, also stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Rudradeep

Crl. Rev. P. No.02 of 2020