Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010011742014 2025:GAU-AS:14326 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./267/2014 BABUL ALI S/O LT. SIRAJ ALI R/O BOIRAGIMOTH, NEAR DIBRUGARH COLLEGE, P.O. and P.S. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR 2:MD NAZRUL HOQUE S/O FAZLUL HOQUE R/O BOIRAGIMOTH NEAR PRATIDIN OFFICE DIBRUGARH P.O. DIBRUGARH- 786001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D BARUAH, MR.C BARUAH,MR.B BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 16/10/2025 Heard Mr. J Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment and Page No.# 2/5 order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Crl. A. No. 77(4)/2013, dismissing the same and thereby, upholding the conviction and sentencing imposed upon the petitioner under Section 354 IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh in G.R. Case No. 1483/2009. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that Md. Nazrul Hoque had lodged an FIR before the Dibrugarh Police Station, inter-alia, alleging therein that on 25.08.2009 at about 1:00 PM, the petitioner, herein, had gone to their house for repairing of electric light and therein taking advantage of the absence of other family members, the petitioner tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter by touching different parts of her body and also offering her money to purchase clothes for Eid festival. On receipt of the said FIR, Police registered Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 425/2009 under Sections 448/354/323 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation in the matter, a charge-sheet under Sections 448/354/323 IPC came to be laid against the petitioner, herein. The learned Trial Court, thereafter, framed a charge against the petitioner, herein, under Sections 448/354/323 IPC and the same on being read over and explained to the petitioner, herein, he having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued in the matter. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment and order dated 13.11.2013 to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 354 IPC. The petitioner, herein, was acquitted from the charge framed against him under Sections 448/323 IPC. Basing on the said conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months for the offence under Sections 354 IPC. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions:- Page No.# 3/5 “14. It is true that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are related witness of the victim “X” but solely as they are related their evidence cannot be discarded when their evidence are corroborated and also inspire confidence. The victim “X” who is a young girl aged about 13/14 years had deposed that the accused offered her money and there is no explanation why a young girl and her parents would join hand to implicate the accused falsely and expose herself to shame and ignominy in the society. Thus the assertion of the accused that he was falsely implicated carries no weight and this advancement of the accused towards a young girl by offering money and by throwing her down and crawling over her body is an act suggestive of sex and it is an offence of outraging the modesty. 15. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the charge u/s 354 IPC against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt whereas the charges u/s 448/323 IPC stands not proved.” 6. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court and finds that the same has been so drawn basing upon a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record during the trial. This Court finds no infirmity with the conclusions so drawn by the learned Trial Court in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also failed to highlight any infirmity in the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court in the matter. 7. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by his conviction imposed by the learned Trial Cout assailed the judgment dated 13.11.2013 by way of instituting an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh being Crl. A. No. 77(4)/2013. The Appellate Court on considering the evidences coming on record as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties was pleased vide judgment dated 13.03.2014 to dismiss the said appeal and thereby, upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court. 8. This Court has perused the judgment dated 13.03.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Court and finds that the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court in the Page No.# 4/5 said judgment was so drawn basing on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record and no infirmity thereon is found in the matter. The conclusions of the learned Appellate Court that the evidences coming on record having established the commission of an offence by the petitioner, herein, under Section 354 IPC, being one based on the evidences coming on record, this Court finds no infirmity thereon and accordingly, the judgment dated 13.03.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Court would not mandate any interference. 9. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 354 IPC would not mandate any interference and accordingly, the same is maintained. 10. This Court notices that the learned Trial Court while proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, deemed it proper not to extend the benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioner, herein, only considering the nature of the offence committed by him in the matter. 11. This Court also notices that the offence was committed by the petitioner on 25.08.2009 and thereafter, long time has elapsed. It is also noticed that the petitioner, herein, has been litigating the matter initially before the Trial Court, thereafter, before the Appellate Court and presently, before this Court in the present revision petition. 12. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner, herein, has not been alleged to have committed offence of similar nature either prior to the one alleged against him in the present proceeding and/or during the pendency of the present proceeding against him. 13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is entitled to be extended the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The said benefit being permissible to be granted by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, this Court extends the benefit under the Act of 1958 to the petitioner, herein. 14. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded, hereinabove, the petitioner, herein, is given the benefit under the Act of 1958 and the sentence stands modified to the effect that instead of Page No.# 5/5 sending the petitioner to jail, he should be given the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 15. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that the petitioner, herein, will file two sureties to the tune of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) along with a personal bond before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh and undertake to the effect that the petitioner, herein, shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of 1 (one) year from the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of this order. 16. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 17. Send down the records of the case to the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant