ANU MIA ABDUL ALIM Vs. UNION OF TRIPURA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the petitioners by the Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1960, in which the first petitioner Anu Mia was convicted under Section 376, I. P. C. for committing rape on a girl Uria Khatun, (P.W. 3) aged 11 to 12 years, on 17.5.1959, at about noon in the village of Khupilong, and the second petitioner Abdul Rasid was convicted under the same section for committing the offence of rape on a girl called Lalmati, (P.W. 12) aged 14 years, the elder sister of Uria Khatun, at the same time and on the same date near the same place. Each of them was convicted and sentenced to 3 1/2 years' R. I. Both of them appealed to the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1960. But the appeal was dismissed and the Sessions Judge even remarked that the sentences passed on them were really inadequate. Now they have come up in revision.

(2.) I have perused the entire evidence in the case, as it was strenuously argued for the petitioners that there was no evidence to convict them and that the judgments of the lower Courts were perverse. It is not necessary for me in this revision to deal with all the facts as they have been dealt with in very great detail by the Assistant Sessions Judge in a careful judgment in which he has dealt with all the objections raised by the defence lawyer. The entire oral evidence has been fully discussed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, who saw the witnesses give evidence before him and who was therefore in a position to judge whether the witnesses could be relied upon. Again, the appellate Court has dealt with the entire evidence and has fully agreed with the Assistant Sessions Judge that the case has been brought home against the petitioners. In the case of such concurrent findings on questions of fact, it is not necessary in this revision to deal with the same matters over again, particularly, as I have satisfied myself after a full perusal of the entire evidence that the conclusion arrived at by the lower Courts, was quite correct. Hence, I do not propose to deal with the evidence.

(3.) IT was pointed out for the petitioners by their learned counsel that the two petitioners were charged with distinct and separate offences, namely, that the first petitioner Anu Mia raped Uria Khatun, (P.W. 3) while the second petitioner Abdul Rasid raped Lalmati, (P.W. 12) and that therefore they should never have been tried jointly under Section 239 (d), Criminal Procedure Code and that such joint trial has vitiated the entire proceedings. This question was raised by the petitioners before the lower appellate Court and it was considered by the said Court in paragraph 8 of its judgment and it was held that the two different offences were committed by the two petitioners in the course of the same transaction and that therefore there was no illegality or irregularity in a joint trial.