MAQSOOD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is against concurrent findings of the trial Court and also the lower appellate Court, as findings of guilt recorded by the trial Court against the Petitioners under Sections 341 and 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) sentencing them to undergo a term of six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - each, were affirmed by the lower appellate Court too.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix are that Kumari Rumana Tabassum (P.W. 4), a minor girl aged about 14 years, while going to attend school, was intercepted by the Petitioners and others, when they behaved with her indecently, obviously with an object to kidnap her. However, explicit accusations about outraging her modesty was against one Azhar and Petitioner Karamat Hussain, who having caught hold of her, made abortive bid to kiss her. The accusation against rest was that they too were standing there. It was on behest of prosecutrix that a Police case had been registered and investigation commenced. The Police, however, on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet only against Md. Azhar, Md. Murshid, Md. Karamat Hussain, and Md. Maqsood leaving Md. Iqbal, Md. Iliyas and Md. Qutubdin, who were not sent up for trial. In trial that commenced, the State examined altogether four witnesses, including the prosecutrix, her brother and other two witnesses, who claimed to be ocular witnesses to the incident about the Petitioners intercepting Rumana Tabassum while she was on way to her school and making attempt to outrage her modesty. At the outset, I may mention that Md. Azhar was not tried, as he was found to be juvenile.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners sought to highlight certain contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, non -examination of the Investigating Officer and also custody of the Petitioners, which they had undergone during period of trial. Though Petitioner No. 1 Md. Maqsood and Petitioner No. 2 Md. Murshid too suffered conviction with the aid of Section 34 IPC under Section 354 IPC, if the earliest version of the prosecutrix was to be given consideration, admittedly no explicit accusation about outraging modesty of the prosecutrix was, attributed to them, though it was sought to be developed at trial not only by prosecutrix but also by other witnesses.