A conviction under IPC for house trespass and outraging modesty cannot stand if based on inconsistent witness testimonies, emphasizing that mere suspicion is insufficient for proof.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

2 By means of filing this revision petition under Section-401 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE read with Section-397 of the said Code for examining the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in connection with Crl. Appeal No.09 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal upholding the order of conviction and sentence dated 25.03.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia in connection with Case No.PRC 350 of 2014 wherein, the learned trial Court sentenced him under Section-448 of IPC to suffer RI for 3 months and further sentenced him under Section-354 of IPC to suffer IR for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulations. Both the sentence shall run concurrently.

3. The fact of the case is that, on 14.07.2014 at about 4.00pm the wife and child of the informant were clone in the house at Batisha Colony and taking advantage of the same, the accused-person entered into their dwelling hut and pushed the wife of the informant on the ground and torn her wearing apparels and outraged her modesty. The wife of the informant cried out for help, but the accused person pressed her mouth and applied force upon her. Hearing her hue and cry one Tapan Tripura came to the spot and before he could enter into the room of the victim, the accused-person immediately fled away from there and thereafter she narrated the incident to her husband and the local villagers and thereafter, the informant lodged the case.

4. On the basis of said FIR, police registered P.R. Bari P.S. Case No.75 of 2014 under Sections-448/354 of IPC and after investigation finding prima facie case, Inspector Ashis Kr. Das submitted charge sheet dated 31.07.2014 vide C/S No.48 of 2014 under Sections-448/354 of IPC against the accused-person.

5. After taking cognizance and supplying the prosecution copies to the accused person, charges under Sections-448 and 354 of IPC have been framed against the accused person to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused-person, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. Thereafter, the accused-person was examined under Section-313 of Cr.P.C. at which he denied the incriminating materials and also denied to adduce defence witness.

7. After hearing the parties and perusal of the evidence on record and also the observation made by the learned Court below, the learned Appellate Court has observed as under:

'In the totality of the evidence of the witnesses, I find no impropriety in the judgment of learned trial Court justifying any interference from this Court. I find no merit in the appeal. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed. The convict-appellant is hereby directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within one month from today to undergo the sentence.'

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned Courts below, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

9. In support of the case of the petitioner Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that both the courts below have erred in the matter of correctness, legality and propriety while passing the judgments and sentence to the present petitioner. The Courts below committed serious error of law by c