TRHC010011972025

2026:THC:1351

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

Crl. Rev. P. No. 46 of 2025

Sri Bijoy Baidya,

S/O: Lt. Mantu Kr. Baidya,

R/O: Rajarbagh, PS-R K Pur,

Udaipur, Gomati Tripura.

---- Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State of Tripura

---- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pijush Kanti Biswas, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rishiraj Nath, Adv.

Mr. Pujan Biswas, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Addl. P. P.

Date of hearing : 14.09.2026

Date of delivery of judgment : 24.09.2026

Whether fit for reporting : Yes

HON’BLE MR . JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Judgment & Order

The present revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been

filed challenging the judgment dated 04.07.2025 passed by the

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur,

whereby the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

13.09.2024 passed by the L earned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Gomati District, Udaipur, in connection with PRC (WP) No . 118 of

2024, was upheld.

Page 2 of 20

2. Heard Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Pijush Kanti Biswas,

assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. Rishiraj Nath and Mr. Pujan

Biswas, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-accused also heard

Learned Addl. PP Mr. Soumyadeep Saha , appearing on behalf of

the State-respondent.

3. At the time of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner-accused, first of all drawn the attention

of the Court to the contents of the FIR lodged by the alleged victim

and submitted that, on the basis of the FIR lodged by the alleged

victim, R.K. Pur Woman P.S. Case No. 14 of 2020 under Section

354 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner-accused.

4. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer

(I.O.) submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioner-

accused. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused stood trial before the

Learned Trial Court. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial

Court found the petitioner-accused guilty and convicted him

accordingly.

5. It was further submitted by Learned Sr. Counsel appearing

for the petitioner-accused, referring to the contents of the FIR and

the evidence on record, that none of the students who used to

pursue their studies at the residence of the present petitioner -

accused was cited as witness by the prosecution in this case. It

was further submitted that no study material was seized by the

I.O. during the course of investigation to substantiate the

allegation that the alleged victim had gone to the residence of the

Page 3 of 20

petitioner-accused on the alleged date for the purpose of taking

private tuition.

6. More importantly, it was submitted that, soon after the

alleged incident, the alleged victim did not report the matter to any

person in the vicinity, which, according to the Learned Sr. Counsel,

casts a doubt upon the version of the prosecution. It was further

submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution suffers

from material infirmities and contains contradictions on material

particulars. Referring the above, it was argued that there was no

sufficient basis to hold the petitioner-accused guilty of the alleged

offence. However, according to the Learned Sr. Counsel, the

learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on

record while delivering the judgment, and the Learned Appellate

Court also, without proper appreciation of the evidence on record,

affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Learned Trial

Court. Hence, Learned Sr. Counsel urged for interference of the

judgment.

7. Thus, Learned Senior Couns el, in summing up his

submissions, submitted that the evidence adduced by the

prosecution suffers from material infirmities and that the

prosecution witnesses failed to give any specific evidence

establishing the involvement of the petitioner -accused in the

alleged commission of the offence. Accordingly, Learned Senior

Counsel urged that the judgment and order of conviction passed

by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

Page 4 of 20

8. On the other hand, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

Mr. S. Saha, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, at the

very outset, drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of

the petitioner-accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,

wherein he had categorically denied that he used to conduct

private tuition to any person. Apart from making a complete denial

of the allegations levelled by the prosecution, although the

petitioner-accused expressed his intention to adduce evidence in

support of his defence, ultimately, he failed to adduce any

evidence in support thereof. Furthermore, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that, despite the cross-examination of the

prosecution witnesses, the petitioner-accused could not create any

doubt in, or otherwise discredit, the evidence brought on record by

the prosecution witnesses.

9. It was further submitted that the evidence of the victim is

trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. It

was further submitted that, at the time of the alleged occurrence,

the victim was alone to the alleged place of occurrence and,

therefore, there was naturally no occasion for any student to be

present or to be examined in support of the prosecution case. It

was also submitted that offences of such nature generally take s

place within the four corners of the wall and, therefore, it is quite

natural that the alleged offence was committed in the absence of

any independent public or witness.

Page 5 of 20

10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that

there was no plea on behalf of the petitioner -accused that any

enmity existed between the petitioner-accused and the family of

the victim. It was further submitted that the petitioner-accused

had not specifically denied the allegations made by the

prosecution. Summing up his submissions, Learned Additional

Public Prosecutor contended that the Learned Trial Court, as well

as the Learned Appellate Court, had rightly appreciated the

evidence on record and upheld the judgment of conviction passed

by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was, therefore,

submitted that there was no infirmity in the judgment and order

passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati District,

Udaipur.

11. Thus, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in summing up

of his submissions, urged that the present revision petition be

dismissed and prayed before the Court to uphold the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur. In support of his

contention, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon a

judgment, which shall be discussed at a later stage.

12. Heard both the sides.

13. In the present case, the prosecution was set into motion

on the basis of an FIR lodged by the victim to the O.C. R.K. Pur

Women P.S. on 11.02.2020, alleging, inter alia, that she was a

student of Class XII at Brilliant Stars School. She was residing at

Page 6 of 20

Rajarapur and, like as on other days, on the date of the alleged

occurrence, she went to the residence of the petitioner-accused to

attend her Mathematics tuition. While the victim was attending the

tuition, the petitioner-accused allegedly started pulling her cheeks

then touched her thigh and suddenly pressed her breasts .

Thereafter, she stopped attending the tuition, returned home, and

informed her mother about the incident and hence she laid the

FIR.

14. On the basis of the FIR, R.K. Pur Women P.S. Case No. 14

of 2020 was registered under Section 354 of the IPC. The case was

thereafter investigated, and upon completion of the investigation,

the Investigating Officer submitted charge -sheet against the

present petitioner-accused. Before the Learned Trial Court, formal

charge under Section 354 of the IPC was framed against the

petitioner-accused. In order to substantiate the charge, the

prosecution examined in total seven nos. of witnesses. During the

course of investigation, on the prayer of the Investigating Officer,

the statement of the victim was also recorded under Section

164(5) of the Cr.P.C.

15. PW-1, victim (name withheld), deposed that she was

studying in class XII at Brilliant Star School in Udaipur. On

11.02.2020, at about 6:30 p.m., she went to the residence of the

petitioner-accused to attend her tuition. At that time, she noticed

that the other students who were supposed to attend the tuition

along with her were not present and, as such, she was alone there.

Page 7 of 20

Thereafter, her teacher, i.e. the petitioner -accused, started

teaching her Mathematics. However, all on a sudden, he pulled her

cheeks and then he kept his hand on her left thigh and suddenly

pressed her left breast. Immediately thereafter, she returned

home and informed her parents about the incident.

She further deposed that the ejahar was lodged on

11.02.2020 and that she had put her signature thereon. She

identified the ejahar, which was marked as Exhibit -P1, and also

identified her signature thereon, which was marked as Exhibit -

P1/1. She further stated that, during the course of investigation,

her statement was recorded before the Court under Section 164(5)

of the Cr.P.C. She identified the said statement, which, upon

identification, was marked as Exhibit-P2/1 and Exhibit-P2/2. She

also identified the petitioner-accused before the Court. Nothing

material could be elicited from her evidence except denial. She

further stated that she, along with three other students, used to

regularly take Mathematics tuition from the petitioner-accused.

16. PW-2 namely Sri Tapash Kr. Datta, is the father of the

victim, deposed that the victim had lodged a case against her

teacher, i.e. the present petitioner-accused. He stated that, like as

on other days, on 11.02.2020 at about 6:00 p.m., he had dropped

his daughter at the residence of the petitioner -accused for

attending tuition. After about an hour, he received a telephone call

from his wife, who asked him to return back home immediately.

Thereafter, he, along with his friend, namely, Ranjit Kr. Saha,

Page 8 of 20

immediately returned home and came to know from his daughter

that her teacher, i.e. the accused herein, had touched her cheeks,

thigh and also touched her breast. Thereafter, he informed the

matter to his brother-in-law, namely, Mintu Acharjee, and also to

his sister-in-law's husband, namely, Subrata Roy, about the

incident. Subsequently, they went to R.K. Pur P.S., and he

identified the accused in the dock.

During cross-examination, he stated that he had been

examined by the police in connection with the case. He, however,

admitted that he had not stated to the I.O. that, after receiving the

telephone call from his wife, he had returned back home along

with his friend, namely, Ranjit Kr. Saha. He further admitted that

he had not stated to the I.O. that, after receiving the information

from his daughter, he had informed his brother -in-law, namely,

Mintu Acharjee, and his sister-in-law's husband, namely, Subrata

Roy, about the incident and thereafter went to R.K. Pur P.S. for

lodging the complaint.

17. PW-3 namely Smti Tanusree Dey Datta, the mother of the

victim, deposed that on 11.02.2020 at 6 -6.30 pm her daughter

went to the residence of accused house for her tuition. But after

one hour her daughter returned back home hurriedly and stated

that while taking tuition, the accused misbehaved with her

daughter, he touched her cheeks, her thigh and also touched her

breast with bad intention. After that she informed this matter to

her husband over phone. Her husband along with his friend Mintu

Page 9 of 20

Acharjee rushed to the house and thereafter her husband along

with others went to the PS for lodging complaint against the

petitioner accused and identified the accused in the dock.

During the cross examination she stated that the house of

accused is situated in their locality. Her daughter and other

students also take tuition from the accused. Nothing more came

out relevant from her cross examination.

18. PW-4 namely Sri Ranjit Kr. Saha, is the friend of the father

of the victim, deposed that on 11.02.2020, at about 7:00–7:15

p.m., he was at Ramesh Chowmuhani along with the father of the

victim. At that time, the wife of Tapas Kr. Datta called him over

telephone and requested him to return home immediately.

Thereafter, this witness, along with Tapas Kr. Datta, rushed to his

house and found several local people gathered there in. He also

found Tapas Kr. Datta's daughter crying. Upon being asked, she

stated that, on that day, she had gone to the residence of her

private tutor, i.e. the present accused, for attending tuition and at

that time, no other students were present. Taking advantage of

the situation, her teacher, i.e. the accused herein, had allegedly

misbehaved with her and touched her cheeks, thigh and also

touched her left breast with bad intention. The witness identified

the accused in the dock.

During cross-examination, he stated that he had not been

examined by the police and, therefore, he had appeared before the

Court for the first time after the incident. He further admitted that,

Page 10 of 20

when they reached the house of Tapas Kr. Datta, approximately

10–15 persons were present there. He could not say whether the

accused had been manhandled by anyone. He further stated that,

after the incident, he came to know from the local people that the

accused was the Headmaster of a Government Higher Secondary

School and had been working as a teacher for more than 20 years.

He also stated that, prior to the alleged incident, he had never

heard of any such allegation against the petitioner-accused.

He further stated that he had no knowledge since when

the victim had been taking tuition from the accused or the amount

of tuition fees charged by him. He stated that the distance

between the residences of the accused and Tapas Kr. Datt a was

approximately 100 metres. He further stated that the accused had

been residing in the house of his father-in-law, namely, Shakti

Ranjan Roy Barman, who was also a renowned teacher and the

Secretary of Arunachal Sangha. Nothing further material could be

elicited from his cross-examination, save and except denial.

19. PW-5 namely Sri Mintu Acharjee, was declared as hostile

by the prosecution, and the relevant portion of his statement was

marked as Exhibit-P3. He further stated that he did not know any

person namely Bijoy Baidya.

During cross-examination, he stated that Tapas Kr. Datta

is the full-blooded brother of his wife.

Page 11 of 20

20. PW-6 namely Sri Subrata Roy, deposed that on

11.02.2020, at about 8:00 p.m., he and his wife were informed by

his wife's elder sister that some incident had occurred. Accordingly,

they immediately went to her house. On reaching there, he came

to know that the present accused had allegedly misbehaved with

the victim and touched her body. Upon being asked, the victim

also told him that, on that day, when she had gone to take tuition

from her teacher, i.e. the present accused herein touched her thigh

and her left breast. He stated that he had advised the parents of

the victim to approach the police and take necessary action against

the petitioner-accused.

During cross-examination, he stated that he knew the

accused, Bijoy Baidya, since their school days and that the accused

was a Government teacher. He reached the house of his wife's

elder sister at about 8:10 p.m. He could not say whe ther Bijoy

Baidya had been manhandled by anyone. He further stated that,

when he reached the house of the victim, he found the accused,

the parents of the victim, and the friends of the victim's father

present there in.

He was confronted with his statement recorded by the

I.O., wherein he had allegedly stated that, upon being asked by

him, the victim had told him that, when she went to the residence

of the accused, the accused had committed the alleged offence.

However, that portion of the statement was not found recorded in

Page 12 of 20

the statement of the witness. Nothing further material could be

elicited from his cross-examination.

21. PW-7 the IO of this case, she deposed that on 11.02.2020,

she was posted as WSI at R.K. Pur Women P.S. On that day, WSI

Ripita Bhattacharjee was the Duty Officer. The Duty Officer

received a written complaint from the victim, and the witness

identified the endorsement/receipt note made by the Duty Officer

thereon, which, upon identification, was marked as Exhibit -P1/1.

The printed FIR form was also filled up by the Duty Officer, which

the witness identified and was marked as Exhibit-P3.

Upon being entrusted with the investigation, she visited

the place of occurrence and prepared hand-sketch map along with

the index, which she identified and were marked as Exhibit-P4 and

Exhibit-P4/1, respectively. She examined the available witnesses

and recorded their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

She also produced the victim before the competent Court for

recording her judicial statement, caused the arrest of the accused,

and proved Exhibit-P3.

During cross-examination, she stated that, as per the

printed FIR form, the complaint was registered on 11.02.2020 and

on the same day, she caused arrest of the accused. She further

stated that she had not mentioned in the case diary as to whether

the accused had been manhandled or not. She also stated that she

had not registered any case regarding the alleged manhandling of

the accused.

Page 13 of 20

She further stated that, on the alleged date of occurrence,

the accused was the Headmaster of East Photamati School. She

admitted that she had not made any enquiry either from the house

of the complainant or from the house of the accused regarding

private tuition in Mathematics. She also admitted that she had

neither examined any other student who used to take tuition along

with the victim, nor seized any study materials.

She further stated that witness Subrata Roy had not

specifically stated to her that he came to know about the alleged

incident from the victim, but had only stated that he came to know

about the fact after reaching the house of the victim.

She further stated that no complaint had been made to the

competent authority against the accused regarding his alleged act

of conducting private tuition. However, she volunteered that, on

the alleged date of occurrence, there was no other student

attending private tuition along with the victim.

These are the synopsis of the evidence on record of the

prosecution.

22. From the evidence on record, it appears that, on the

alleged day, the victim had gone to the residence of the present

petitioner-accused to attend private tuition in Mathematics and at

the time of the alleged incident, apart from the victim, no other

student was present there, and the victim herself has specifically

stated this fact in her evidence.

Page 14 of 20

23. It is quite natural that an occurrence of such nature takes

place in the absence of any independent person or eyewitness, and

such incidents generally occur within the four corners of the wall.

In the present case, soon after the alleged occurrence, the victim

returned back home and narrated the incident to her mother, who

thereafter informed the father of the victim and his friend. All

these persons appeared before the Court as witnesses and, in

material particulars, supported the version of the victim.

The petitioner-accused, despite cross -examining the

prosecution witnesses, could not bring out any material

contradiction or inconsistency so as to create a reasonable doubt

regarding the credibility of their evidence.

24. Although learned Senior Counsel, during the course of

hearing, submitted that the prosecution witnesses did not support

the version of each others. But upon careful analysis of the

evidence on record, it appears that the witnesses have, in a

clandestine manner, corroborated one another as well as the

version of the victim. As already stated, the present petitioner-

accused could not discard the credibility of their evidence in the

course of cross-examination.

25. PW-4 was declared hostile by the prosecution. Although

the prosecution could not derive any substantial benefit from his

evidence.

Page 15 of 20

However, the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses,

when considered as a whole, does not give rise to any ground to

disbelieve their testimony. The I.O. was also subjected to

extensive cross-examination; however, the petitioner -accused,

through the course of cross-examination, could not discard her

evidence.

More importantly, the petitioner-accused, in support of his

defence, could not specifically deny that he had been conducting

private tuition on the alleged date of occurrence.

26. Furthermore, during his examination under Section 313 of

the Cr.P.C., the petitioner-accused did not dispute this aspect.

Rather, he denied the prosecution allegations as well as the fact

that he was conducting private tuition. Learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner-accused took the plea that the

prosecution had failed to examine any student in support of the

version of the victim and had also failed to seize any study

material in the course of investigation. However, when the victim

herself had specifically stated that, at the time of the alleged

occurrence, apart from herself, no other student was present, so

the aforesaid plea of the petitioner-accused cannot be accepted.

The petitioner-accused also denied the other allegations levelled

against him.

27. Rather, the petitioner-accused fairly submitted that he had

no enmity with the family of the victim so as to suggest that he

had been falsely implicated in the case. He specifically stated that,

Page 16 of 20

after becoming the Headmaster in the year 2006, he had never

conducted any private tuition. However, it is noteworthy that,

except PW-4, Mintu Acharjee, the other prosecution witnesses

categorically stated that the petitioner-accused was conducting

private tuition. Whether conducting private tuition was in violation

of any Government circular or otherwise, constituted an offence or

not is not relevant for adjudication of the present case.

28. Learned Senior Counsel, during the course of hearing,

submitted that the prosecution had failed to explain why the

accused had gone to the residence of the victim. It was further

submitted that it might have been the case that, out of fear, the

petitioner-accused had gone to the residence of the victim soon

after the alleged occurrence. It was also pleaded that the

petitioner-accused had been manhandled. However, in this regard,

the Investigating Officer categorically stated that no such fact had

been brought on record or noted dur ing the course of

investigation.

29. During the course of hearing, Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India reported in (2004) 1 SCC 215, Vidyadharan v. State of

Kerala, wherein, in paragraphs 8 to 1 0, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court observed as follows:

“8. We shall first deal with the plea of false

implication. It is seen that though there was some

delay in lodging the FIR, it is but natural in a

tradition-bound society to avoid embarrassment,

which is inevitable when the reputation of a

woman is concerned. Delay in every case cannot be

Page 17 of 20

a ground to arouse suspicion. It can only be so

when the delay is unexplained. In the instant case

the delay has been properly explained. Further, PW

2 is an independent wi tness and a neighbour of

both the accused-appellant and PW 1. There is no

reason as to why he would falsely implicate the

appellant. A charge under Section 354 is one which

is very easy to make and is very difficult to rebut.

It is not that on account of e nmity false

implications are made. It would, however, be

unusual in a conservative society that a woman

would be used as a pawn to wreak vengeance.

When a plea is taken of false implication, courts

have a duty to make deeper scrutiny of the

evidence and decide the acceptability or otherwise

of the accusations. In the instant case, both the

trial court and the High Court have done that.

There is no scope for taking a different view.

9. In order to constitute the offence under Section

354 mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman

is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any

deliberate intention of having such outrage alone

for its object. There is no abstract conception of

modesty that can apply to all cases. (See State of

Punjab v. Major Singh [AIR 196 7 SC 63 : 1967 Cri

LJ 1] .) A careful approach has to be adopted by

the court while dealing with a case alleging

outrage of modesty. The essential ingredients of

the offence under Section 354 IPC are as under:

(i) that the person assaulted must be a woman;

(ii) that the accused must have used criminal force

on her; and

(iii) that the criminal force must have been used on

the woman intending thereby to outrage her

modesty.

10. Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence

punishable under Section 354 IP C, and it can be

committed by a person assaulting or using criminal

force to any woman, if he knows that by such act

the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected.

Knowledge and intention are essentially things of

the mind and cannot be demonstrated li ke physical

objects. The existence of intention or knowledge

has to be culled out from various circumstances in

which and upon whom the alleged offence is

alleged to have been committed . A victim of

molestation and indignation is in the same position

as an injured witness and her testimony should

receive the same weight. In the instant case after

careful consideration of the evidence, the trial

court and the High Court have found the accused

guilty. As rightly observed by the courts below,

Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act which deals with

assaults or use of force to any woman belonging to

a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with the

intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty is an

aggravated form of the offence under Section 354

IPC. The only difference between Section 3(1)(xi)

and Section 354 is essentially the caste or the tribe

to which the victim belongs. If she belongs to a

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, Section

Page 18 of 20

3(1)(xi) applies. The other difference is that in

Section 3(1)(xi) dishonour of such victim is also

made an offence. Section 448 provides for

punishment relating to house trespass. In order to

sustain the conviction under Section 448 IPC it

must be found that the intention of the accused

was to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or

annoy the complainant. There must be unlawful

entry and there must be proof of one or the other

of the intentions mentioned in Section 441 IPC. In

the case at hand, evidence clearly establishes the

commission of offence punishable under Section

448.”

30. Referring to the aforesaid decision, Learned Additional

Public Prosecutor drawn the attention of the Court to the

observation that the existence of intention or knowledge has to be

inferred from the various circumstances in which, and the manner

in which, the alleged offence was committed. It was further

submitted that the testimony of a victim of molestation and

indignation stands on the same footing as that of an injured

witness and, therefore, her testimony deserves due weight and

consideration.

31. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, Learned Additional

Public Prosecutor further submitted that the alleged victim, in her

deposition before the Court, clearly and categorically stated as to

how the petitioner-accused had allegedly committed the offence

upon her in the absence of any other student. It was further

submitted, referring to the aforesaid judgment, that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has observed that a careful approach has to be

adopted by the Court while dealing with a case alleging outraging

of the modesty of a woman.

32. In the case at hand, as already discussed, the prosecution

witnesses have, in clear and categorical terms, deposed regarding

Page 19 of 20

the involvement of the present petitioner-accused with the alleged

commission of offence. The petitioner-accused, despite extensive

cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, could not create

any material doubt or bring out any circumstance sufficient to

discredit the evidence of the victim, her parents, or the other

independent witnesses.

33. Thus, it appears to this Court that the Learned Trial Court,

upon proper appreciation and analysis of the evidence on record,

rightly found the present petitioner-accused guilty of the alleged

offence and convicted him accordingly. The learned Appellate

Court, upon reappraisal of the evidence on record, also rightly

upheld the judgment and ord er of conviction passed by the

Learned Trial Court. Accordingly, this Court finds no perversity,

illegality, or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur.

34. It is also pertinent to note that, during examination under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner-accused stated before

the learned Trial Court that he would adduce defence evidence in

support of his case. However, ultimately, he did not examine any

witness or adduce any evidence in support of his defence. Moreso,

the mere failure of the accused to adduce defence evidence

cannot, by itself, be treated as a circumstance establishing his

guilt; the prosecution must stand on its own evidence. In the

present case, as discussed hereinabove, the evidence adduced by

the prosecution has sufficiently established its case against the

petitioner-accused.

Page 20 of 20

35. Thus, upon hearing Learned counsel appearing for both

sides and on meticulous examination of the evidence on record, it

appears that the prosecution has successfully established the

charge levelled against the petitioner-accused. Accordingly, both

the Learned Courts below have rightly found the petitioner-accused

guilty of the alleged offence.

36. In the case at hand, upon hearing both sides and having

regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the

evidence available on record, this Court finds no perversity,

illegality, or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the

Learned Trial Court, which has been affirmed by the Learned

Appellate Court.

37. In the result, the revision petition filed by the petitioner-

accused stands dismissed, being devoid of merit. The petitioner -

accused is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court on

12.10 .2026.

Let the record be sent down to the Learned Trial Court

along with a copy of this judgment / order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present

Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

JUDGE

Satabdi