The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of provisions related to house trespass under the IPC and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the allegations.

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.2008 dismissing the Crl. Appeal 35(N)/2006 thereby confirming the conviction of the Petitioner under Sections 451/ 323/ 427 of the IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai in GR case No. 3/2003 reducing the sentence of imprisonment under Section 451, IPC from six months to one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Sections 323/ 427, IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. K. Munir, the learned P.P. for the State.

3. The prosecution case, inter alia, is that, on 1.1.03 the informant, PW1, Sri Nageswar Kutum lodged an FIR before the O.C., Lumding Police Station, stating inter alia, that on the previous night at about 9 P.M., the accused Petitioner alongwith two other persons forcibly entered into his quarter demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him and on his refusal to pay the amount the informant assaulted him, caused injuries and ransacked his house damaging certain household goods. The accused further intimidated the informant of dire consequences, if, he failed to meet the demand of the money within two days.

Upon receipt of said FIR, police registered a case under Sections 456/ 323/ 427/ 34, IPC and started investigation. The case was initially investigated by PW 5 and on his transfer from the said Police Station, the investigation was completed by PW 6.

4. During the course of investigation certain materials were seized vide Ext-2 and statements of witnesses were recorded and having found prima facie commission of offence under Sections 456/323/ 427, IPC, charge-sheet was submitted against the Petitioner and he was sent for trial.

On the basis of the materials submitted under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure charges were framed against the accused-Petitioner under Sections 456/ 323/ 427, IPC, which, on being explained, he denied and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the charges against the Petitioner the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The Petitioner was also examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, putting the circumstances that appeared against him during examination of PWs, which he denied.

6. The learned trial court after appreciation of the evidence and materials on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties convicted the Petitioner under Sections 451/ 323/ 427, IPC and sentenced him vide judgment and Order dated 28.11.2006 in the manner as aforesaid. The said judgment was carried into the Crl. Appeal 35(N)/2006 before the FTC, Nagaon, and vide Judgment and Order dated 11.7.2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nagaon, maintained the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court but reduced the period of imprisonment from six months to one month under Sections 451/ 323/ 427, IPC. The accused was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each offence, in default, with further imprisonment for one month. Challenging the said judgment passed by the learned appellate court, the present revision petition is filed.

7. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that in the instant case the prosecution not having examined any independent witnesses, it is not safe to accept the statements of the PWs 1 to 3 who are interested witnesses. It is further submitted that the learned trial court also committed illegality in alternating the charges under Sections 456/ 451 without providing any opportunity to the Petitioner. Other contention of the learned Counsel is that on proper appreciation of materials and evidence on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused and accordingly the order of conviction of sentence is illegal, improper and unjust.

8. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Munir,