Conviction under IPC can rely solely on the victim's testimony if credible, but all sentences must adhere to minimum statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT

1. By means of filing this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C., petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Khowai in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2019 affirming their conviction and sentence under section 354B read with section 34 IPC passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khowai by his judgment and order dated 31.08.2019 in case No.PRC (WP) No.54 of 2018.

2. The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix with the officer in charge of Teliamura police station on 21.04.2018. The prosecutrix (name withheld to hide her identity) alleged in her written FIR that on 21.04.2018 at about 8 O'clock in the morning she went to the tilla (a high land) near her home to see her goat which was left there for grazing. At that time, the petitioners appeared there and gave indecent proposals to her. When she was untying her goat, accused petitioner Chandra Mohan Sarkar embraced her and he tried to disrobe her. As she applied force to free herself from the hold of Chandra Mohan Sarkar, other accused Laxmikanta Das came forward and seized her hands. Both of them touched at different places of her body and thus outraged her modesty. She raised hue and cry and picked up a dao to defend herself. The petitioners then left her and fled away. When she informed her neighbours about the incident, they advised her to report the matter to police. She accordingly lodged the FIR.

3. Based on her FIR, Teliamura PS case No.2018 TLM 039 under sections 354 and 354B IPC was registered and the case was taken up for investigation.

4. During investigation, the investigating officer visited the crime scene and prepared hand sketch map with separate index. She also examined the victim and other available witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. Victim was also produced before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Khowai who recorded her statement under section 164(5) Cr.P.C. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the petitioners for committing offence punishable under sections 354 and 354B read with section 34 IPC.

5. In order to bring home the charges against the petitioners, as many as five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Among them, PW-1 is the prosecutrix, Smt. Laxmi Biswas [PW-2] is a neighbourer of her.

Similarly, Sri Amit Biswas [PW-3] and Sri Kala Chand Biswas [PW-4] are also her neighbours. WSI Uma Rani Nama [PW-5] is the investigating officer.

6. After the prosecution evidence was closed, petitioners were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. In reply, they stated that they were innocent and the charges were foisted on them. They declined to adduce evidence on their defence.

7. On appreciation of evidence, trial court held that prosecution successfully established the charges against the petitioners and the evidence of the prosecutrix was conclusive in nature which was totally inconsistent to the innocence of petitioners which led to the conclusion of their guilt beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. The learned trial court convicted both of the petitioners under section 354B read with section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer RI for one month with a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

8. The petitioners challenged the judgment of the trial court in appeal. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 05.12.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2019 held that there was no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court and therefore the learned S