JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. L.K. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Suraj Verma, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 04.09.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 78/2013, whereby and where under the learned appellate court modified the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned trial court and convicted him under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3½ years for the offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 03 months and if the fine amount is realized, the same was directed to be given to the Informant and dismissed the appeal.

4. The petitioner had preferred the criminal appeal against the Judgment of conviction dated 22.07.2013 and the order of sentence dated 23.07.2013 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in S.T. No. 81 of 2013/T.R. No. 16 of 2013 (arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 62/2012 dated 22.09.2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.439/2012) whereby and where under the petitioner was held guilty and convicted under Sections 376/452 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 04 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and in default in payment of fine, to further undergo Imprisonment for 06 months and 03 months respectively and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and half of the fine amount was directed to be paid to the victim. The learned trial court had acquitted the petitioner for the alleged offence under section 307/379 of IPC.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had arrived at the spot and in fact, he was never arrested from the spot which is a missing link in the chain of circumstances of the case and as such, the petitioner has been wrongly convicted by the learned courts below. The learned counsel submitted that both the learned courts below have failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the case and accordingly, both the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, some sympathetic view may be taken considering the fact that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a long time and accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner may be confined to the period already undergone by him in custody.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

7. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, submitted that concurrent findings have been recorded by the learned courts below and there is enough evidence for conviction of the petitioner including the evidence of the victim who has made direct allegation against the petitioner. He also submitted that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences for interference at revisional stage and for coming to a different finding. He further submitted that so far the sentence is concerned, considering the heinous nature of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathetic view in the matter.

Findings of this Court

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the Informant/Victim, aged about 18 Years, recorded by S.I. Mahendra Kumar of Sadar P.S. on 22.09.2012 at 20:15 hou