IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that unexplained delays in lodging FIRs and contradictions in witness testimonies can undermine the prosecution's case, necessitating careful judicial scrutiny.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment dated 15.11.2006 as passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arambag, Hooghly in connection with Criminal Appeal no.3 of 2006 is the subject matter of the instant application. By the impugned judgment the said First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.04.2006 as passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Arambag, Hooghly in connection with GR Case no.391 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the said trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 323/354 IPC and thus directed him to suffer S.I for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-i.d to suffer further S.I for another one month for the offence committed by him under Section 323 IPC and also to suffer SI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-i.d to suffer further S.I for two months for the commission of offence under Section 354 IPC.

2. The convict felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

3. From the trial court record it reveals that the present revisionist was charged under Section 354 IPC for allegedly using criminal force to the victim intending to outrage her modesty and under Section 323 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to the brother of the victim and also under Section 379 IPC for allegedly committing theft of gold ornaments of the victim. On appreciation of the evidence as adduced by the eight prosecution witnesses both oral and documentary learned trial court found the present revisionist guilty under Sections 323 and 354 IPC and he is thus convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment and fine as quoted supra. However, the present revisionist was found not guilty under Section 379 IPC. He is thus acquitted from the said charge.

4. As discussed (supra) in appeal the First Appellate Court upheld the order of the learned trial court.

5. In course of his argument Mr. Mondal, learned advocate for the revisionist submits before this Court that a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred in the aforesaid trial as well as in the appeal since the trial court and the First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence as adduced by the PWs in accordance with law and the findings of the trial court vis-à-vis of the First Appellate Court is perverse. It is further argued by Mr. Mondal, learned advocate for the revisionist that both the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court had failed to consider the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as far as charge under Section 354 IPC is concerned and thus the findings of both the courts are arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is further argued by Mr. Mondal that so far as the charge under Section 323 IPC is concerned both the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court has failed to consider the evidence of doctor who treated the victim after the alleged incident and found no injury on his person and therefore the decision of the learned trial court as well the First Appellate Court with regard to proof of charge under Section 323 IPC is erroneous which calls for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Mr. Sinha, learned advocate for the State contends that while exercising revisional jurisdiction there is little scope to appreciate all the evidence of the prosecution witnesses all over again. It is further submitted that no materials have been placed before this Court to take a contrary decision with regard to the concurrent finings of the trial court and the First Appellate Court. It is thus submitted that it is a fit case for dismissal of the instant revisional application.

7. Before entering into the merits of the instant revisional application this Court proposes to have a look to the law of the land dealing with subject of criminal revision. In this regard reliance can be placed upon a reported decision of State of Kerala vs. Puhumana reported in (1999) 2 SCC 452 whe