GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 17 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 17:

1] Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.

2] This appeal is presented against the judgment & order dated 26.03.2014 passed in Sessions Case No. 271/2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, Assam, (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 341/342/354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") and sentenced to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months under Section 354 of the IPC.

3] The case of the prosecution is that on 28.05.2012, PW-2 lodged an FIR alleging, inter alia, that his daughter, who was aged 14 years at that time, while returning home from her school with her classmates, i.e., PW-3, PW-4, and PW-5, and upon reaching near the house of the accused/appellant at Bahati N.C., the accused/appellant, who was sitting under an overhanging bamboo structure by the side of his house with a dagger in his hand, forcibly dragged her by holding her hand to his dwelling house and, after shutting the door behind, tried to rape her forcibly. The case was accordingly registered under Section 341/342/384/376/511 of the IPC. Thereafter, an investigation was done by the investigating officer, i.e., PW-8, and upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under the same sections. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges under Sections 341/342/384/376, r/w Section 511 of the IPC against the accused/appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4] During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses, including the victim, her friends, and the investigating officer. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him, to which he generally denied but did not offer any explanation whatsoever. He further did not adduce any defence witness. Upon completion of the trial, the trial court convicted the accused/appellant. Situated thus, the present appeal has been preferred.

5] Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, does not seriously challenge the conviction on merits; however, he submits that the sentence of 2 years simple imprisonment is excessive and disproportionate to the nature and circumstance of the offence.

6] Mr. M. P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent, submits that with the maximum sentence being 5 years, the sentence of 2 years simple imprisonment is proportionate to the nature and the circumstances of the offence proved.

7] I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the material available on record.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=lG6h6ilt3H1fOBr4DLdM9YuB4i0ZCCD4qB9k9UtaKA2xXpLUxRDZXaAqK0ArFhY9&caseno=Crl.A./131/2014&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010008792014&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.