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 378, 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.) SECTION 239(d) provides that persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged or tried together. In this case, the prosecution alleged that at about mid -day on 17.5.59, Lalmati (P.W. 12) and Uria Khatun (P.W. 3), the victims in the two offences along with a small boy Rejak Mia (P.W. 2), went to collect snails to a place called Shymacharan's Khamar, about a mile away from their house, that at that time the two petitioners and one Samed and one Arab AH (P. W. 11) were grazing cattle in the Khamar, that seeing the girls, Anu Mia first petitioner proposed that they should catch hold of the girls and commit rape on them and that accordingly, Anu Mia caught hold of Uria Khatun, while Abdul Rashid and Samed caught hold of Lalmati and in spite of the cries of the two girls, Lalmati was dragged into a jungle nearby by Abdul Rasid and Samed and raped by Abdul Rasid, while at the same time Uria Khatun was dragged into a bamboo bush nearby and raped by Ami Mia. During this time Abdul Rejak, the young boy was standing in the field weeping. After the two girls were released, both of them were weeping and recounted to each other what transpired and the two girls and the boy went away weeping.