SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Monday, December 18, 2023

Printed For: Utsav kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2022 SCC OnLine Tri 231 : 2023 Cri LJ 154

In the High Court of Tripura at Agartala

(BEFORE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, J.)

Chandra Mohan Sarkar and Another … Petitioner(s);

Versus
State of Tripura represented by the Secretary,
Home Department … Respondent(s).
Crl. Rev. P. No. 02 of 2020
Decided on April 19, 2022, [Date of Hearing : 3rd November, 2021]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. P.P.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, J.:— 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.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, December 18, 2023
Printed For: Utsav kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sessions
Judge affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.
9. For better appreciation of the revision petition, it would be
appropriate to reproduce the findings of the learned Sessions Judge:
“9. So, to decide the above point again we may re-
appreciate the evidence on record of the prosecution
witnesses.
The material witness of this case is the victim who as PW 1
deposed in her evidence that on 21.04.2018 at about 08.00
a.m. she was stopped/detained by the present appellants and
they put indecent proposal to her and as she tried to go away
they caught hold of her. Firstly, the appellant Chandra Mohan
held her from back side also touched her breast and tried to
put off her clothes while the appellant Laxmi Kanta held her
one hand and started recording the scene by a mobile phone
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Monday, December 18, 2023
Printed For: Utsav kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of Chandra Mohan. A scuffling was started, victim tried to

make herself free also raised hue and cry and took up a’ dao’
in her hand for her defence and the appellants left the place.
The trend of cross-examination of this witness is nothing
but denial. In her cross examination I find some suggestions
put to the witness by defence which were marked as “subject
to confirmation by the IO.” I failed to understand how and
why the suggestions will be confirmed through the IO. Since
no attention of the witness are drawn to her earlier
statements. However, on perusal of the evidence of the IO
who is PW 5, I find even those portions are not confirmed
through the IO. Rest 3 (three) witnesses are no doubt hearsay
witnesses but the prosecution case is soon after the incident
they were informed by the victim (PW 01).
The specific plea taken by the appellants in their appeal
memo is that hearsay evidence of these PW No. 2 to 4 failed to
satisfy the provision of Section 3 of the Evidence Act and
about the evidence of victim their submission is that in the
complaint petition the victim did not stated that the
appellants put indecent proposals to the victim nor she stated
in her complaint petition that accused Chandra Mohan held her
from back and touched her breast and tried to put off her
clothes and the accused Laxmikanta held her by one hand and
started recording the scene with the mobile phone of Chandra
Mohan.
It is well settled law that FIR is not an encyclopedia. We
know that FIR set in motion a criminal case for investigation.
Every pros and corns are not required to be written in FIR. The
main allegation brought by the victim is that on a certain day,
at a certain place, at a certain time the offence was committed
by the accused persons. The victim at the time of her adducing
evidence in toto disclosed the same before the trial court and
in no way the defence able to shatter her above evidence by
way of their cross-examination. It is not the case of defence
that there is/was any enmity in between the victim and the
appellants though it is clear on record that the appellants are
the inhabitants of the same locality of the victim. From the
evidence of the IO it is also clear that soon after the incident
the victim appeared in the PS and lodged her oral complaint
which was reduced into writing by the O/C and registered a
specific case.
A specific plea also taken by the appellants that except the
victim there is no eye witness even the husband of the victim
also not examined in this case as a prosecution witness.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Monday, December 18, 2023
Printed For: Utsav kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On my perusal of the judgment of the trial Court I find the

trial court discussed this aspect by referring a case law
reported in (2006) 11 SCC 323. In the said judgment Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that based on the testimony of a
single eye witness a conviction may be recorded, but for this
purpose court must be satisfied that the testimony of the
solitary eye witness is of such sterling quality that the court
finds it safe to base a conviction solely on the testimony of
that witness and the evidence must influence the court as
wholly truthful, natural and so convicting that the court has
no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on the basis of
the testimony of that witness.
10. As I discussed above the alleged incident took place on
21.04.2018 at 08.00 a.m and complainant appeared in the PS
at 1430 hours also lodged her complaint. Prior to that she
informed the matter to her neighbours and her such evidence
corroborated by PW 02 to 04. So in such a situation the
decision so taken by the trial court in appreciation of the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses is found to be correct.
There is nothing in record to disbelieve the prosecutrix.
Now coming to this conclusion I have to decide whether
this is a fit case for giving the benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act to the appellants?
On my perusal of the judgment of the trial court, I find the
trial court discussed the provision of Probation of Offenders
Act. The discussion so made by the trial court in rejecting the
benefit of the provision of Probation of Offenders Act is
justified because the accused-appellants are no doubt aged
persons and it cannot be say that they have lack of
understanding of the consequence of the offence. Moreover,
the offence is against the woman.
So far the sentence as awarded by the trial Court, I am of
the view that the trial court taken a very lenient view in
awarding the sentence to the convicts for their offence under
Section 354-B of IPC. However, as there is no cross appeal
from the side of prosecution, the sentence so awarded is
remained untouched and is hereby up-held.”
10. Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. representing
the State respondent.
11. It would appear from the record that while admitting the
petition, this Court by order dated 14.01.2020 observed that while
imposing sentence on the convicts, the trial court as well as the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Monday, December 18, 2023
Printed For: Utsav kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

appellate court deviated from the prescribed sentence. Minimum

sentence prescribed under section 354B IPC shall not be less than three
years which is extendable upto seven years with fine. But, the trial
court on the conviction of the petitioners under section 354B IPC
sentenced each of them to RI for one month with fine which was also
upheld by the appellate court. Therefore, by order dated 14.01.2020
passed by this Court, notice was also issued to the petitioners to show
cause as to why sentence imposed on them shall not be enhanced in
terms of section 354B read with section 34 IPC pursuant to the
conviction returned by the trial court.
12. Mr. Raju Datta, counsel appearing for the petitioners has
contended that the statement of the prosecutrix is not supported by
any other witness. Counsel submits that the prosecutrx in her
statement before the Judicial Magistrate under section 164(5) Cr.P.C.
as well as in her testimony at the trial improved her FIR version which
has seriously affected the credibility of her version. Counsel contends
that nowhere in her FIR statement she stated that one of the accused
captured the incidence in his mobile phone. Subsequently, in her
statement before the Magistrate under section 164(5) Cr.P.C. as well as
in her testimony at the trial, she stated that accused petitioner
Laxmikanta Das held her with one hand and recorded the scene in the
mobile phone of accused petitioner Chandra Mohan Sarkar with the
other hand. Counsel submits that it was quite improbable that the
accused would be able to capture the 32 years' lady with one hand and
record something in his mobile with the other hand particularly when
she was armed with a dao. Moreover, there is no other eye witness to
the occurrence though the incident occurred near the house of the
victim. Having relied on the judgments dated 26.11.2021 in Criminal
Revision Petition No. 65 of 2016 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 04
of 2020 passed by this Court, counsel of the petitioner contended that
in both these cases, conviction of the accused was set aside by this
Court as the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove those
cases beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Counsel submits that in the
instant case also the evidence of the prosecutrix is not free from doubts
and therefore similar benefit should also be given to the present
accused. Counsel, therefore, urges the Court to set aside the impugned
judgment. On the question of imposition of sentence less than
minimum sentence prescribed under section 354B IPC, counsel submits
that unquestionably sentence less than minimum sentence prescribed
under the law cannot be passed by a Court. But in the instant case,
question of enhancing sentence does not arise as the case against the
petitioners could not be proved.
13. Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the
other hand contends that even though other than the prosecutrix there
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Monday, December 18, 2023
Printed For: Utsav kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is no eye witness to the occurrence, there is no ground to disbelieve the

statement of the prosecutrix who gave a very convincing statement
before the court during the trial of the case. Counsel contends that
insofar as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, the trial court as
well as the appellate court relied on her statement in arriving at the
conclusion of guilt of the accused and there is no ground to interfere
with the concurrent findings of the two courts. Learned Addl. P.P.,
however, submits that since the trial court erroneously imposed a
sentence less than the prescribed sentence on conviction of the
accused, the sentence should be enhanced at least to the minimum
sentence. Counsel, therefore, urges for dismissal of the petition.
14. While arguing in the case, the counsel representing the parties
had taken the Court to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. PW-1
is the victim who stated in her examination in chief that when she went
to the tilla near her home to bring back her goat from there, the two
accused stood on her way and gave indecent proposal to her. When she
tried to leave, they held her. Accused Chandra Mohan Sarkar held her
from her back and touched her breast while the other accused
Laxmikanta Das caught hold of her with one hand and started recording
the scene in his mobile with the other hand. She raised hue and cry
and scuffled to free herself. It was further stated by her that when she
picked up a dao for her defence, the two accused left the place. The
victim also stated that she informed her neighbours Laxmi Biswas,
Tarachand and others about the occurrence. Following their advice, she
went to the police station and lodged the FIR.
15. In her cross examination, few suggestions were given to her on
behalf of the accused. She denied those suggestions.
16. Smt. Laxmi Biswas [PW-2] is the neighbour of the prosecutrix.
Laxmi told the court that the prosecutrix told her that their neighbours
Chandra Mohan Sarkar and Laxmikanta Das chased her and disrobed
her.
17. Sri. Amit Biswas [PW-3], a 25 years' old carpenter told the trial
court that prosecutrix was his neighbour. On the material date, the
prosecutrix went to his house and told him that when she went to bring
back her goat, the two accused disrobed her and touched different
parts of her body.
18. Sri. Kala Chand Biswas [PW-4] gave the same evidence.
According to the PW, on the material day, the prosecutrix met the PW
at his home and told him that the two accused disrobed her and
touched at different places of her body when she went to bring her goat
back from a tilla (high land) hear her home.
19. WSI Uma Rani Nama [PW-5] is the investigating officer who
stated that the statements of the available witnesses supported the
charge against the accused. Therefore, she laid charge sheet against
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Monday, December 18, 2023
Printed For: Utsav kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the petitioners.
20. Having read the evidence of the prosecutrix, I find that there is
hardly any reason to disbelieve her statement. In her statement at the
trial, she told the court that the petitioners gave an indecent proposal
to her. When she was going away, accused Chandra Mohan Sarkar held
her from her back. He touched her breasts and tried to put off her
clothes. Then accused Laxmikanta Das held her by one of his hand and
started recording the scene in his mobile. She then picked up the dao
from the ground which she was carrying with her and raised hue and
cry, the two petitioners then left her.
21. On appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix, the trial court
was of the following view:
“10.1. In the instant case the prosecutrix herself is the
witness of the occurrence and all the remaining other
witnesses gave hearsay account of the occurrence. Let us refer
to S 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in this regards,
which provides that no particular number of witnesses shall
be required for proof of any fact. So on the basis of evidence
of a sole witness, a fact can be said to be proved. Hence, the
requirement as to having any other independent eye
witnesses to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix does
not arise at all.
In Bhimappa Chandappa Hosamani v. State of Karnataka as
reported in (2006) 11 SCC 323
[equivalent (2006) 11 SCC 323] the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed that:—
“This Court has repeatedly observed that on the basis of
the testimony of a single eye witness a conviction may be
recorded, but it is also cautioned that while doing so the
Court must be satisfied that the testimony of the solitary
eye witness is of such sterling quality that the Court finds it
safe to base a conviction solely on the testimony of that
witness. In doing so the Court must test the credibility of
the witness by reference to the quality of his evidence. The
evidence must be free of any blemish or suspicion, must
impress the Court as wholly truthful, must appear to be
natural and so convincing that the Court has no hesitation
in recording a conviction solely on the basis of the
testimony of a single witness.”
10.2. Thus, from the above discussion what follows is that
even though the prosecutrix [PW-1] is the only witness of the
occurrence her evidence cannot be discarded being not
corroborated as from the evidence itself it clearly comes out
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Monday, December 18, 2023
Printed For: Utsav kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that she was attacked before the occurrence in the tilla near
house and from the hand sketch map as marked Ext.3 what
reveals is that there was no human dwelling just near the
place of occurrence and that there was none other than the
prosecutrix herself and the accused persons. The defence
could not deviate the evidence of the prosecutrix herself and
the accused persons. The defence could not deviate the
evidence of the preosecutrix in cross-examination by rebuttal
of any of the points about the occurrence except that she was
given indecent proposal by the accused persons as the
defence proved subsequent development thereof. In the
opinion of the Court such subsequent development, if the
same can be termed so, is immaterial as the same only refers
to the fact that the statement US 161 CRPC is not recorded in
the said manner. In no way this point undermine the gravity
of the occurrence and the weight of evidence put by the
prosecutrix.
From the evidences of other witnesses it comes out that the
prosecutrix ran pillar to post to inform injustice meted upon
her seeking redress as the other witnesses deposed that the
prosecutrix in fact informed them about the manner.
10.3. From the above discussion I observe as follows:
The prosecution has been able to establish the
accusation which connect the accused persons to the
offence and the evidence of the prosecutrix is conclusive in
nature which totally inconsistent to the innocence of the
accused persons and is not explainable by any other
hypothesis except guilt of the accused persons. The
involvement of the accused persons in the offence is thus
proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. There is
no reason available in the evidence in entirety not to
believe the evidence of the prosecutrix safely.”
22. Evidently, the place of occurrence is a high land not visible from
the houses in the neighbourhood. Moreover, the hand sketch map
drawn by the investigating officer which has been taken into evidence
would demonstrate that the place is surrounded by big trees and
bushes. In such circumstances, eye witness would hardly be available.
The prosecutrix gave a consistent and convincing statement before the
trial court which was tested by cross examination. Her evidence could
not be impeached to any extent in cross examination. Therefore, trial
court committed no error in relying on her evidence particularly when
accused could not bring out any case of animosity of the prosecutrix
towards them or any other reason to disbelieve her evidence. Moreover,
the reaction and post occurrence conduct of the victim like violent
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Monday, December 18, 2023
Printed For: Utsav kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

resistance, sharing the incidence with her next door neighbours and
prompt reporting of the incidence to police establishes the truthfulness
of her statement.
23. The trial court as well as the appellate court has dealt with the
matter in great detail. Petitioners could not make out any ground for
this Court to disturb the concurrent findings of the courts below against
them with regard to charge of using criminal force to the prosecutrix
intending to outrage her modesty. It is evident that when the victim
was alone at a place in her village, two accused petitioner overpowered
her and outraged her modesty in furtherance of their common intention
by touching her breast and other places of her body. However, the
allegation against the petitioners that they intended to disrobe the
prosecutrix is not proved. Therefore, their conviction under section
354B IPC cannot be sustained and accordingly same is interfered with.
Since the conduct of the petitioners clearly constitute an offence
punishable under section 354 IPC and the same has been established
beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt, their conviction is modified and
both of them are convicted under section 354 IPC.
24. As noted, the trial court on conviction of the petitioners under
section 354B IPC sentenced each of them to suffer RI for one month
with fine of Rs. 1,000/- which was also upheld by the learned Sessions
Judge whereas the minimum sentence prescribed under section 354B
IPC is imprisonment of either description for not less than three years
which is extendable upto 7 years with fine. Once the accused is
convicted for an offence and sentenced to imprisonment, a sentence
lesser than the sentence prescribed under the law is not permissible.
The Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das;
reported in (2019) 4 SCC 125 has held that where minimum sentence
is provided, court cannot impose lesser sentence. Observation of the
Apex Court in the said judgment is as under:
“8. In view of aforesaid judgments that where minimum
sentence is provided for, the Court cannot impose less than
the minimum sentence. It is also held that provisions of
Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be resorted to impose
sentence less than the minimum sentence.”
25. With regard to the power of enhancing sentence in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C.,
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahab Singh v. State of Haryana; reported in
(1990) 2 SCC 385 has held that even if no appeal is filed by the State
for enhancement of sentence, court can exercise suo motu power of
revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P. C. But before
the High Court exercises revisional jurisdiction to enhance the
sentence, it is imperative that the convict is put on notice. In
paragraph 4, in the case of Sahab Singh (supra) the Apex Court held as
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Monday, December 18, 2023
Printed For: Utsav kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

under:
“4. Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the
Code” hereinafter) provides for appeals from conviction by a
Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge to the High
Court. Section 377 entitles the State Government to direct the
Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court
against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. Sub-
section 3 of Section 377 says that when an appeal has been
filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the
High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving
to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause
against such enhancement and while showing cause the
accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the
sentence. Admittedly no appeal was preferred by the State
Government against the sentence imposed by the High Court
on the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/149,
I.P.C. Section 378 provides for an appeal against an order of
acquittal. Section 386 enumerates the powers of the appellate
court. The first proviso to that section states that the
sentence shall not be enhanced unless the accused has had an
opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement.
Section 397 confers revisional powers on the High Court as
well as the Sessions Court. It, inter alia, provides that the
High Court may call for and examine the record of any
proceeding before any inferior criminal court situate within its
jurisdiction for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or
order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of any inferior court. Section 401 further provides
that in the case of any proceedings, the record of which has
been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its
knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any
of the powers conferred on a Court of appeal by Sections 386,
389, 390 and 391 of the Code. Sub-section 2 of Section 401
provides that no order under this Section shall be made to the
prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an
opportunity of being heard either personally or by Pleader in
his own defence. Sub-section 4 next provides that where
under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no
proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the
instance of the party who could have appealed. It is clear from
a conjoint reading of Sections 377, 386, 397 and 401 that if
the State Government is aggrieved about the inadequacy of
the sentence it can prefer an appeal under Section 377(1) of
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Monday, December 18, 2023
Printed For: Utsav kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the Code. The failure on the part of the State Government to

prefer an appeal does not, however, preclude the High Court
from exercising suo motu power of revision under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code since the High Court itself is
empowered to call for the record of the proceeding of any
court subordinate to it. Sub-section 4 of Section 401 operates
as a bar to the party which has a right to prefer an appeal but
has failed to do so but that sub-section cannot stand in the
way of the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction suo
motu. But before the High Court exercises its suo motu
revisional jurisdiction to enhance the sentence, it is
imperative that the convict is put on notice and is given an
opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence either
in person or through his advocate. The revisional jurisdiction
cannot be exercised to the prejudice of the convict without
putting him on guard that it is proposed to enhance the
sentence imposed by the Trial Court.”
26. Same principles were reiterated by the Apex Court in the Case of
Govind Ramji Jadhav v. State of Maharastra; reported in (1990) 4 SCC
718 and also in the case of Surendra Singh Rautela v. State of Bihar;
reported in (2002) 1 SCC 266.
27. In this background, there is no embargo in enhancing the
sentence of the petitioners by this Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. For this
purpose, accused was given notice by this Court vide order dated
14.01.2021 by directing as under:
“………………..It has come to the notice of this court that by
the judgment dated 05.12.2019 delivered in Criminal Appeal
No. 08 of 2019, which is under challenge in the revision
petition, the sentence passed by the trial court has been
upheld by the Sessions Judge. The trial court by the order
dated 31.08.2019 delivered in PRC(WP) 54 of 2018 sentenced
the petitioners to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month
and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation for
committing offence punishable under Section 354-B/34 of the
IPC. The sentence prescribed by the Section 354-B/34 of the
IPC is as follows:
“Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any
woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or
compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall
not be less than three years but which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
The sentence as affirmed is a gross deviation from the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Monday, December 18, 2023
Printed For: Utsav kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

prescribed sentence. Hence, this court is passing the following

order:
Issue notice to the petitioners as to why the sentence shall
not be enhanced in terms of the Section 354-B/34 of the IPC
pursuant to the conviction returned by the trial court.”
28. As noted, I have heard the counsel representing the parties also
on the question of enhancement of sentence while hearing them on the
merit of this criminal revision petition.
29. As stated, conviction of the petitioners has been modified as a
conviction under section 354 read with section 34 IPC. Section 354 IPC
prescribes minimum punishment which shall be imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which
may extend to five years with fine.
30. Having due regard to the nature of offence, the transaction and
impact of the offence on the victim, this Court is of the view that if each
of the petitioners are sentenced to SI for one year with fine of Rs.
1,000/-, it would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence as
imposed by the impugned judgment and order is set aside and in view
of what has been discussed above, each of the petitioners are
sentenced to SI for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to
suffer SI for one month for having committed offence punishable under
section 354 read with section 34 IPC.
31. The convict petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial
Court (the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khowai) to suffer the
sentence within a period of one month from today failing which the trial
court shall issue process according to law to compel their appearance
before the court and commit them to prison to suffer the sentence.
32. In terms of the above, the criminal revision petition stands
dismissed and the same is disposed of. Send down the LCR. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.