JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By judgment and order, dated 30.07.2007, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 02/2007, learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), No. 1, Kamrup, has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order, dated 11.12.2006, passed, in GR. Case No. 5422/2003, convicting the accused-Petitioner under Sections 448 and 354 IPC and sentencing him to undergo, for his conviction under Section 448 IPC, simple imprisonment for one month and also to suffer, for his Conviction under Section 354 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months with payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. 2. The case of the prosecution may, in brief be described thus: (i) On 26.10.2003, at about 6 p.m., taking advantage of absence of other members of the family of the victim-informant, Smti. PD, the accused-Petitioner went to the house of the informant, pushed open its door, caught hold of the informant's hand, sought sexual favour from her and also offered her money so that she would not report the matter to others. On her refusal, the accused-Petitioner tried to disrobe her so as to enable him to have sexual intercourse with her. The informant, in order to save herself from being ravished, assaulted the accused with a hammer and raised hulla. As a result of the blow, so given by the hammer, the accused sustained injury on his head and on hearing hue and cry raised by the informant and her father-in-law, her co-villagers came and apprehended the accused. The informant, Smt PD, lodged an FIR at Khatri Police Station and a case was accordingly registered against the accused under Sections 448/354 IPC. Upon investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet accordingly. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined five witnesses. The informant, Smt PD, lodged an FIR at Khatri Police Station and a case was accordingly registered against the accused under Sections 448/354 IPC. Upon investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet accordingly. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined five witnesses. The accused-Petitioner was, then, examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offences as alleged to have been committed by him, his case being not only of total denial, but a counter accusation that on the day of the occurrence, at about 5.30 p.m., when he was crossing the lane, where the house of the informant is situated, he was assaulted from behind, with an iron rod, by the informant her husband, Bhubaneswar Deka, her father-in-law, Puwaram, and her brother-in-law, Dhanmoni, and, on being so assaulted, he fell down on the ground, lost his senses and, on regaining his senses, he found that his co-villagers had brought him to police station and, he was, thereafter, taken to Guwahati Medical College and in this regard, he too, after his release from the hospital, lodged an FIR with the police, which gave rise to GR Case No. 423/2007. In support of his case, the accused-Petitioner too adduced evidence by examining two witnesses. Having, however, held the accused-Petitioner guilty of the offences charged with, learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentences against him as mentioned hereinabove. As the appeal preferred by the accused-Petitioner has not yielded any favourable result to him, the accused-Petitioner has, now, come to this Court with the help of the present revision. 4. I have heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the accused-Petitioner, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 5. While considering the present revision, what needs to be noted is that according to the evidence of the informant (P.W. 1), on the day of the occurrence, at about 5-6 p.m., when she was sweeping the floor of her house, the accused-Petitioner entered into her house by pushing open the door, caught hold of her and offered her Rs. 20/- for letting him have sexual intercourse with her. 20/- for letting him have sexual intercourse with her. P.W. 1 has also deposed that she pushed the accused away and came to the backside of her house, but the accused closed the door of the house from inside, came near her, touched her body and tried to throw her on the ground to have sexual intercourse with her. P.W. 1 has further deposed that the accused tried to disrobe her, whereupon she raised hue and cry, her father-in-law, Puwaram Deka (P.W. 2), and her brother-in-law, Dhanmoni Deka, came to the spot, her brother-in-law caught hold of the accused and tied him, whereupon her father-in-law informed her husband and her husband too came home. It is in the evidence of PW l that her CO-villagers came and took the accused away. In her cross-examination, P.W. 1 has clarified that when the accused attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her, she assaulted the accused with a hammer, which caused injury on the head of the accused, and he became senseless. 6. What is, now, extremely important to note is that by cross-examining P.W. 1, nothing was elicited from her by the defence to show that her evidence was untrue or false and though a number of suggestions were offered to her showing that there were contradictions between her statement, recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, and her evidence, given in the Court, none of these contradictions has been proved by eliciting relevant materials from the Investigating Officer as required under the law. Thus, the evidence given by P.W. 1 remains, unless the same can be shown to have been impeached, unshaken. 7. What, now, needs to be pointed out is that in her cross-examination, it had been suggested to P.W. 1 by the defence that she (P.W. 1) had assaulted the accused on the road. As against this, the evidence given by the accused is to the effect that he had been assaulted not only by the informant (P.W. 1), but also by her husband, her brother-in-law and her father-in-law on the road. What is, however, of great significance to note is that no ill will or pre-existing animosity is proved to have been existing between the accused, on the one hand, and the informant had her family members, on the other. What is, however, of great significance to note is that no ill will or pre-existing animosity is proved to have been existing between the accused, on the one hand, and the informant had her family members, on the other. Though it was suggested to the witnesses, at one stage of the case, that there was a land dispute between the parties, no particulars of such a dispute was ever given during the trial. What is also curious to note is that in the entire cross- examination of PW l, defence did not even whisper that there was any pre-existing animosity or dispute between the accused and the family members of P.W. 1. In such circumstances, the mere suggestion, offered during the course of cross-examination of P.W. 1, that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to land does not carry any value, particularly, because a suggestion is not evidence and nothing exists, in the evidence on record, probablising the suggestion of preexisting animosity. 8. Close on the heels of the evidence of P.W. 1, her father-in-law (P.W. 2) has deposed that at the time of the occurrence, when he was returning home pulling his cart, he heard hue and cry raised by his daughter-in-law, he found the door of the house closed, he asked the door to be opened, his daughter-in-law opened the door and he saw the accused lying on the ground, whereupon he went out, but finding no other co-villager present there, he raised hulla, whereupon some of his co-villagers came. In his cross-examination, P.W. 2 has deposed that there was no dispute between them before the occurrence took place. In his cross-examination, P.W. 2 has also clarified that he saw the accused lying on the ground, but he did not notice any injury, because he cannot clearly see due to his old age. Though it has been suggested to P.W. 2 that there is a dispute regarding land between them (i.e. P.W. 2 and his family members) and the accused, this suggestion was denied by P.W. 2. This apart, it is the specific case of the defence that the accused had been assaulted, on the road, by three persons, namely, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. This apart, it is the specific case of the defence that the accused had been assaulted, on the road, by three persons, namely, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. However, what is important to note is that while cross-examining P.W. 2, the defence merely suggested that the accused had been assaulted on the road, but there was no suggestion offered to P.W. 2 that even P.W. 2 was one of the persons, who had assaulted the accused, or that P.W. 2 was in the group of people, who had assaulted the accused. 9. Thus, from the cross-examination of P.W. 2, nothing could be elicited by the defence to show that his evidence is not believable or cannot be relied upon. 10. As far as the victim-informant's husband (P.W. 3) is concerned, his evidence shows that he was, admittedly, not present at the house, when the occurrence took place. Nothing has been elicited from his cross-examination to show that his wife's evidence or the evidence given by his father is false. 11. Though it is the case of the defence, as already indicated above, that P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 had assaulted the accused on the road, no suggestion, in tune with such defence, was offered by the defence to P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Similarly, though it was suggested to P.W. 2 that there had been a dispute with the accused for a long time and due to such dispute, the accused had been assaulted, this suggestion was denied and has not been probablised by either eliciting anything from the cross-examination of the P.W. 3 or by adducing any credible evidence in this regard. In fact, even in his own evidence, the accused has, nowhere, deposed about the pre-existing animosity between him and the family of P.W. 1. 12. Coming to the evidence of the victim's brother-in-law (P.W. 4), what needs to be noted is that according to his evidence, at the time of the occurrence, on hearing hue and cry, he came out of his room and saw the accused lying on the ground and, later on, the co-villagers came there and took the accused away. 12. Coming to the evidence of the victim's brother-in-law (P.W. 4), what needs to be noted is that according to his evidence, at the time of the occurrence, on hearing hue and cry, he came out of his room and saw the accused lying on the ground and, later on, the co-villagers came there and took the accused away. It was, for the first time, to P.W. 4 that it was suggested by the defence that due to a dispute between them and the accused, they had assaulted the accused on the road and, then, pulled him inside their house. Thus, the defence admits that the accused was found inside the house of the informant and, then, taken away by his co-villagers from inside the house of the informant. Unless, therefore, defence can show that the accused had been assaulted on the road and, then, taken inside the said house, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by P.W. 1 and corroborated by P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, particularly, when the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 have, otherwise, remained unshaken in material particulars. 13. Turning to the evidence of the accused (D.W. 1), I find that he has, nowhere, deposed that there was any pre-existing animosity between him and the family of P.W. 1. His specific evidence is that he was assaulted, on the road, by P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. He does not claim that he had been taken inside the house of P.W. 1 or that he was found inside the house of P.W. 1. When it is the admitted case of the defence that the accused was taken away by his co-villagers from inside the house of P.W. 1, the defence, in the face of the evidence discussed above, ought to have either adduced evidence or elicited evidence from the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to show that he had been assaulted on the road by his co-villagers. In fact, D.W. 1 deposed, in his cross-examination, that he was recovered from the house of P.W. 1. Hence, the suggestion offered by the defence to D.W. 1 that he was assaulted on the road and then taken to the house of P.W. 1 is completely false. 14. In fact, D.W. 1 deposed, in his cross-examination, that he was recovered from the house of P.W. 1. Hence, the suggestion offered by the defence to D.W. 1 that he was assaulted on the road and then taken to the house of P.W. 1 is completely false. 14. Coupled with the above, it is also worth pointing out that while it is the evidence of P.W. 1 that he was assaulted on the road and recovered by his co-villagers, the evidence of D.W. 2 is that he had seen the accused being assaulted by P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 on the road and then being taken inside their courtyard and upon hue and cry raised, the villagers came and recovered the accused from inside the house of P.W. 1. Thus, admittedly, the accused was recovered from inside the house of P.W. 1; whereas it had been categorically denied, at one stage, by the defence that he was recovered from the house of P.W. 1. 15. From the discussions held above, what clearly transpires is that the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly shows that the accused entered into the house of P.W. 1 with intent to have sexual intercourse with her and when his attempt was resisted, he tried to forcibly have sexual intercourse with P.W. 1 and, in the process, outraged her modesty by touching her body and also by trying to disrobe her. Viewed thus, it is clear that in the face of the evidence on record, learned Court below was wholly justified in holding the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 448 and 354IPC. In such circumstances, the conviction of the accused-Petitioner, under Sections 448 and 354IPC, cannot be interfered with. 16. Turning to the sentences passed against the accused-Petitioner, I find that in the present case, the sentences passed against the accused-Petitioner are not harsh or unreasonable. Hence, the sentences too call for no interference. In fact, if the accused-Petitioner is not properly punished, it would encourage others to enter into a house, where a woman may be alone, outrage her modesty and/or attempt to commit rape on her. 17. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, I find no merit in this revision. This revision is, therefore, not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 17. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, I find no merit in this revision. This revision is, therefore, not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. The accused-Petitioner is hereby directed to surrender, forthwith, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, to suffer the sentences of imprisonment passed against him. 18. Send forthwith a copy of this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup. Petition dismissed