The court upheld the trial court's convictions for outraging modesty and arson, confirming that decisions on evidence were sound and legal.

JUDGMENT :

V.Narasingh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 24.07.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Case No.28 of 2003, affirming the order of conviction dated 22.10.2003 of the Petitioner passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in S.T. Case No.440/49 of 1999 arising out of G.R. Case No. 568 of 1997 relating to Balikuda P.S.Case No.107 of 1997 under Sections 354 /436/34 I.P.C. and imposing a sentence of S.I. for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand only), and in default to undergo S.I. for three months for the Offence under Section 354 I.P.C. and R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousands only), further S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 436 I.P.C.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.09.1997 at about 8:00 A.M., the accused Petitioners, being armed with deadly weapons, suddenly entered into the cowshed of the informant, Netrananda Guru (P.W.5) of village Marichipur and manhandled the mother and niece of the informant and outraged the modesty of the niece. Thereafter, they drove them outside and set fire to the cowshed. On the basis of which, a case under Sections 354 /294/436/506/34 I.P.C. was registered and investigation was taken up.

3. The case of the defence was one of complete denial and false implication on account of the ongoing civil dispute inter se between the parties as well as due to the counter case between them.

4. To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, of whom P.W.5, the informant, P.W.3, the mother of the informant, and P.W.6, the niece of the informant, are the material witnesses. P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 7 are independent witnesses and P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer.

To fortify their defence, three witnesses were examined, of whom D.W.1 is an independent witness and D.Ws.2 and 3 are the accused persons, namely Petitioner Nos.1 and 4, respectively.

5. On consideration of the evidence and materials on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused persons under Sections 354 , 436 and 34 I.P.C., while acquitting them of the offences under Sections 294 and 34 I.P.C. Further, negating their claim to be released under the Probation of Offenders Act, the learned trial Court directed them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 436 I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Assailing the same, Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2003 was preferred by the accused-Petitioners. Taking into account the statements of the independent witnesses as well as the victims who levelled the allegation under Section 354 I.P.C., the Appellate Court came to a conclusion that, in the light of the conviction, the sentence was not excessive and did not interfere with the same.

It may not be out of place to note here that in the judgment of the Appellate Court, though its an appeal, the case has been referred to as “Criminal Case No.28 of 2003”.

6. Perused the note of the Registry regarding non-taking of consent by the