A criminal court is bound to impose the statutory minimum sentence for offenses, without discretion to reduce it, highlighting the importance of adhering to legislative mandates in sentencing.

ORDER :

1. Criminal Revision Petition No.382/2024 has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter) and the revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.632/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur, arose out of Crime No.163/2015 of Irikkur Police Station, Kannur. He assails conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate and its confirmation by the learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery, as per judgment in Crl.A.No.283/2019, dated 3.2.2024.

2. The parties in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.382/2024 will be referred as ‘the prosecution’ and ‘the accused’ hereinafter, for easy reference.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant records.

4. Here, the prosecution allegation is that, the accused herein committed offences punishable under Sections 457 and 354 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘the IPC’ hereinafter). In a nutshell, the allegation is that, at about 1.00 a.m. on 17.3.2015, the accused committed lurking house-trespass by night and trespassed upon the house of the de facto complainant, having building No.PGP X/45, on removing the roof tiles. Thereafter, he lifted the nighty of the de facto complainant, with intention to outrage her modesty and thereby, the modesty of the de facto complainant was outraged. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.

5. When final report filed after investigation in this crime, the trial court framed charge for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 354 of the IPC and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and provided opportunity to him, to adduce evidence. But no defence evidence adduced. The trial court appreciated the evidence and found that the accused was guilty for the offences under Sections 457 and 354 of the IPC. Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 457 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month was imposed. For the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months and fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month also was imposed. Although appeal had been filed challenging the said conviction and sentence, the learned Sessions Judge also concurred the finding of the trial court.

6. The learned counsel for the accused argued at length to convince this Court that the trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence and ignored the contradictions in the evidence of PW1. He also argued that, going by the deposition of PW1, even though the accused was booked as per the version of PW1, in the early morning on 17.3.2015, the arrest was recorded only at 8.30 p.m. Therefore, the prosecution case is in the midst of doubts and therefore, the accused is entitled to get acquittal.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed interference in the concurrent verdicts on the submission that the evidence available as that of PW1, supported by the evidence of PW2 to PW6 and Exts.P1 to P6, the prosecution allegation as to commission of offences punishable under Sections 457 and 354 of the IPC, by the accused, is well established.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, I have gone through the verdicts under challenge with a view to find out any perversity or absolute illegality to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. On perusal of the verdicts, it is discernible that, the prime witness to prove the prosecution allegation, is none other than the de facto complainant, who got examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that,