Aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 06.08.2003, passed, in GR Case No.725/2002, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Golaghat, convicting the present petitioner under Section 354 IPC and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for four months and pay fine of Rs.300/- and, in default of payment of fine, undergo simple imprisonment for one month, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No.33/2003. By judgment and order, dated 27.03.2004, as the learned Session Judge, Golaghat, while sustaining the conviction, reduced the sentence of simple imprisonment to a period of two months in stead of four months, the petitioner, feeling still aggrieved, has come to this Court with the present revision.2. Before I enter into the merit of the present revision, let me set forth, in brief, the prosecution’s case, which runs as under:

The informant (PW1) and his wife (PW3) are close relatives of the accused-petitioner. On 27.07.2002, the accused-petitioner came, in the evening, to the house of PW1 and PW3 and requested PW3 to stay, at the night, at the house of the accused-petitioner on the ground that he (accused) would be away from his house and someone was needed to be present at his house to look after his wife and children during the period of his absence. PW3 accordingly went to the house of the accused; but, on arriving there, she found neither the wife nor the children of the accused present there. When PW3 enquired from the accused as to where his wife and children were, the accused asked PW3 to stay, at his house, at night, by showing her money. The accused also pulled the clothes of PW1 and gagged her mouth by placing weapons on her neck and belly and wanted to have sex with her. During the course of the scuffle, which took pace between the accused and PW3, PW3 managed to, somehow, free herself from the clutches of the accused and went running to her house and informed her husband (PW1), her sister-in-law and brother-in-law. PW3’s sister-in-law (PW2) asked PW3 to wait till morning as it was night. A bichar (i.e., sitting for settlement of dispute) was held in the village; but no settlement was arrived at and, then, PW1 informed the police by lodging a written information with regard to the occurrence. In course of time, treating the said written information as First Information Report, a case, under Sections 342/354 IPC, was registered against the accused and, on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was accordingly laid against him under Sections 342/354 IPC.

3. The accused was accordingly put to trial for offences having been allegedly committed by him under Sections 342 and 354 IPC.

4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether six witnesses including the investigating officer. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence.

5. The learned trial Court, while acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 342 IPC, convicted him of the offence under Section 354 IPC and pass sentence against him as mentioned above. Since the learned Session Judge has maintained the conviction, though reduced the sentence, as indicated above, the accused is, as mentioned above, before this Court with the present revision.

6. I have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel, for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.

7. While considering the present revision, it needs to be noted that PW3, who is claimed to be the victim, is the sole eye witness of the occurrence. Her evidence is, therefore, pivotal in nature. According to her evidence, on the day of the occurrence, the accused came, in the evening, to their house and informed them that he would be away from his house and he, therefore, requested PW

Click Here to Read the rest of this document