Page No.# 1/5
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P. 415/2011
1:SHRI LILAMBAR SONOWAL @ NILAMBAR and ANR
S/O SRIMOHAN SONOWAL R/O VILL- HOLOUDUNGA P.S. GOGAMUKH
DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM.
2: SHRI SUBAL SONOWAL @ BORSAIKIA
S/O LT. BHOGESWAR SAIKIA R/O VILL- HOLOUDUNGA P.S. GOGAMUKH
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Goswami, Addl. PP.
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
Date : 01-03-2019
This Revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Criminal Appeal No.25(4)/2010, whereb y the
appellate court has affirmed the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate in
GR Case No.570/2009 wherein the accused persons are convicted under Section 341 and
354 of the IPC and sentence them to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under
Page No.# 2/5
Section 341 and simple imprisonment for six months under Section 354 IPC and the
sentences will run concurrently.
2. I have heard Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. I have also heard
Mr. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
3. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 28.07.2009 in the afternoon, when the
informant, Smti. Putuli Baruah was returning home along with other girls, two accused persons,
namely Sri Nilambor Sonowal and Sri Subhal Borsaikia, who were waiting along with other
(10-20 boys) by the side of the road tried to take the said Putuli Baruah into the standing
vehicle on the road side at Bakulbari Turning Point. Then, due to the protest made by said
Putuli Baruah and due to active resistance given by the girls accompanying her they could not
succeed to take her. Immediately, after the incident a FIR was lodged on the said fact before
the O/C, Bordoloni outpost and subsequently same was registered as Gogamukh PS Case
No.121/2009 under Section 143/354/323 IPC.
4. The accused persons faced the trial and denied the charge explained to them under
Section 341/354 IPC.
5. In support of the case, prosecution examine nine witnesses and defence witnessed none.
At the conclusion of the evidence for prosecution, the accused were examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C. and they have denied all the allegations. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned
trial court convicted both the accused persons under Section 341/354 IPC and sentence them as
aforesaid. The appeal preferred by the accused-petitioners was also failed wherein the learned
appellate court has confirmed the impugned judgment and order of the trial court. Now, the
present revision petition has been preferred challenging the legality and validity of the
impugned judgment of the appellate court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution case cannot
claim that the charge has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as there are certain
infirmities in the case. It is submitted that as the assault made to the victim girl, no injury was
found by the Medical Officer.
7. Lastly, it has been submitted that one of the witness, PW-7 have also stated that he
heard only about some eve teasing on the part of the accused person towards the girl and
Page No.# 3/5
nothing more. That being the position, coupled with the fact that the matter is old pending of
2009, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before this Court to consider the matter.
8. Per-contra, learned counsel for the state respondent, Mr. Goswami has submitted that in
view of overwhelming evidence on record in support of the charge there cannot be any
challenge to such concurrent finding of the court. It has been argued that the evidence of
victim is fully supported by the witnesses, who were present at the place of occurrence
accompanying the victim and there being no any ommission and contradiction of any witness
so as to rise doubt about the authenticity, it cannot be said that the prosecution failed to prove
the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.
9. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties and gone
through the materials on record and the impugned judgment. Being a revisional court, this
Court is to appreciate whether the learned court below has properly appreciated all the
matters, evidence on record or there is no perversity while finding the guilt of the accused. The
scope of revisional court is limited to that aspect.
10. Being in mind the principle and jurisdiction of the revisional court, let us appreciate the
materials on record and the evidence that was led by the prosecution.
11. It is the evidence of the informant/PW-1 that on the fateful day, while she was returning
home, both the accused persons restrained her on the way and tried to put her inside the
vehicle standing nearby road but due to resistance created by her companion, Rita Saikia and
Niju Bharali, the accused could not succeeded to take her. Upon hearing their hue and cry,
nearby shop keeper, Kirti Chutiya (PW-7) arrived and due to such arrival, the accused fled
12. It is also the evidence of PW-3(Rita Saikia) and PW-2 (Niju Bhorali) that while they were
going with PW-1 on the faithful day as both accused-person tried to took the PW-1 towards the
vehicle standing by the road side they offered resistance for which they could not succeeded to
take PW-1. Similarly, the PW-2 and PW-5 has also supported the evidence of PW-1. PW-7, who
is the shop keeper near the place of occurrence, has also supported that some kind of incident
happened to the other witnesses. PW-6 is the person/driver of a vehicle, who give lift to the
victim in his vehicle from the place of occurrence.
Page No.# 4/5
13. The learned trial court appreciated all the evidence on record and found that the
testimony of all the witnesses are corroborating and convincing and there being no any
omission and contradiction etc., the authenticity of the witnesses can be acted upon. The
evidence of the doctor, PW-8 was that there was no external injury on the parts of the victim
but in view of the other corroborating evidence, the learned trial court found and held the
accused guilty under Section 341/354 IPC and sentences them as mentioned above. There is
nothing to show that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on proper perspective
of law and similarly the learned appellate court has also duly appreciated all the materials
including the evidence on record to hold that there is no infirmity in the aforesaid judgment
and same was upheld.
14. This Court had examined all the aforesaid evidence and judgment and nothing transpires
to hold that the judgment suffers from any such ambiguity and perversity so as to call for the
interference. However, in this context, this Court on scrutinising the evidence of PW-7, who
happens to be the shop keeper of the nearby place, it is found that he has not given
description of any sort of serious incident that has been stated by the other witnesses. Similarly,
PW-6, who happened to give the lift to the victim girl immediately after the occurrence he has
not stated anything about the occurrence, as same was not reported to him.
15. According to the evidence of PW-1, due to arrival and interference made by the PW-7,
the accused flead away hearing their hue and cry but the PW-7, in his evidence has stated that
he saw three-four girls going together in front of his shop and after few days he came to know
that those girls was teasing by someone and he laid no importance to such incident. It appears
that no such serious offence was committed by the accused and it may be a case of “eve
16. But, however, in view of the evidence of PW-1 and other supporting witnesses including
PW-3 and PW-5 some sort of indecent behaviour of the accused person can be accepted and
which may be sufficient to outrage the modesty of a woman, as it was in public road.
17. From the evidence of PW-6 and 7, it can be seen that both the petitioner do not have
such serious intention as has been stated by the informant and other witnesses. On the other
hand, the incident is approximately 10 years old and the offence being prior to amendment,
which was punishable up to two years or fine, this Court while maintaining the sentence of
Page No.# 5/5
conviction under said Section of law, sentences is converted to a fine of Rs.1000/- under
Section 341 IPC, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for one month and Rs.10000/- each
under Section 354 IPC, in default, simple imprisonment for three months.
18. Petitioners will deposit the fine amount before the trial court within 2(two) months from
19. With such modification of sentence, this appeal is partly allowed.
20. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order.