JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. By thiscriminal revision petition, the convict petitioner has challenged the judgmentand order dated 23-12-2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, NorthTripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 19(4) of 2004 whereby andwhereunder the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upheld the order of convictionunder Section 448/323, IPC passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, firstclass, Dharmanagar on 30-9-2004 in G.R. case No. 141 of 2004 and modified thesentence passed relating to the offence under Section 323, IPC to the extent tosuffer R.I. for three months instead of six months and also maintained theorder of sentence to pay Rs. 1000/- relating to commission of offence underSection 448, IPC. Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioneras well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent. 2. Theprosecution case, in short, is as follows: Smt.Bakul Barua (P.W. 1) lodged a complaint that on 19-5-2004, at noon, the accusedpetitioner used slang language to her at Ration shop and, thereafter, on thatday, in the evening, at about 2 p.m. came to her tea stall at Kanchanpur marketand assaulted her by fist and blows on her chest and back etc. and also triedto outrage her modesty. When she raised alarm, neighbouring people came for herhelp and the accused-petitioner fled away. Again, on 20-5-2004 , at about 3-30 p.m. he used slang language to her at Kanchanpurmarket. 3. Atthe commencement of the trial, the accused-petitioner was examined underSection 251, Cr.P.C. reading over the substance of accusation to theaccused-petitioner when he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Theprosecution examined as many as nine witnesses to prove its case including theofficial witnesses. 5. Thelearned trial Court after conclusion of the trial found the accused-petitionerguilty for committing offence under Section 323/448, IPC and consequentthereto, passed the order of sentence for commission of offence under Section323, IPC to suffer R.I. for six months and for commission of offence underSection 448, IPC, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, i.e., to suffer imprisonment forone month. In default of payment of money, both the sentences shall runconcurrently. Fine money, if realized from the accused-petitioner, shall bedeposited to the Treasury by challan. 6.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed by thelearned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in G.R.case No. 141 of 2014, the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before thelearned Addl. In default of payment of money, both the sentences shall runconcurrently. Fine money, if realized from the accused-petitioner, shall bedeposited to the Treasury by challan. 6.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed by thelearned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in G.R.case No. 141 of 2014, the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before thelearned Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar which was registeredas Crl. Appeal No. 19(4) of 2004. 7. Thelearned Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and considering theevidence on record passed the impugned judgment and order which is thesubject-matter of the instant revision petition. 8. Mr.Roy, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner while arguing the revisionpetition would contend that the alleged incident took place in May, 2004 and bythis time, almost nine years already elapsed. Thus, the petitioner is notraising any question regarding the order of conviction maintained by thelearned appellate Court, but urging for modifying the sentence passed by thelearned appellate Court to pay a fine only in place of suffering imprisonment. 9. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. also conceded to the submissionof the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10.This Court has considered both the judgment of the learned trial Court as wellas appellate Court. It appears from the record that the learned appellate Courtconsidered the judgment of the learned trial Court and noted inter alia, 10. xxx So,considering all aspects of the case it reveals that the judgment and convictionof the learned Court below should be upheld and accordingly upheld. Butconsidering the sentence imposed on the accused it appears that the offencepunishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable withimprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year orwith fine which may extent Rs. 1000/- or both. But the learned Court belowafter due consideration of the provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. hasdiscussed at para 13 of the impugned judgment sentenced the appellant to sufferrigorous imprisonment for six months. In my considered opinion it reveals thatconsidering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering thatit is a first offence the rigorous imprisonment for six months is to someextent harsh and the same should rigorous imprisonment for three months onlythe learned Court below also imposed sentence of fine of Rs. In my considered opinion it reveals thatconsidering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering thatit is a first offence the rigorous imprisonment for six months is to someextent harsh and the same should rigorous imprisonment for three months onlythe learned Court below also imposed sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- forcommitting offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code.Offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code is punishablewith imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one yearor with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/- or with both. So, it reveals thatthe offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code is punishablewith imprisonment or fine or both. The learned Court below considering theentire facts and circumstances imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- only withoutimposing fine as well as imprisonment. So, I find that no interference isdeserved in respect of the sentence awarded by the learned Court below forcommitting offence punishable under Section 448 of Cr.P.C. imposing fine of Rs.1000/- only. 11. Inthe result, the appeal is partly allowed ,. Theconviction of the appellant for committing offence punishable under Section448/323 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained but sentence for committingoffence punishable under Section 323of the Indian Penal Code is modified to theextent to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months only. The sentenceawarded by the learned Court below imposing fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees onethousand) only for committing offence punishable under Section 448 of theIndian Penal Code is maintained. The appellant is directed to surrender beforethe trial Court immediately to serve the sentence imposed on him. 11. Asa revisional Court, this Court has also the duty to reassess the evidence onrecord and accordingly, this Court has considered the evidence of P.W. 1, theinformant-victim who deposed on oath that she has got one tea stall atKanchanpur market. On 19-5-2004, at about 12.00 a.m. she went to a Fair priceshop to bring some goods and at that time, the accused-petitioner used slanglanguage to her and thereafter she came back to her tea stall and on that day,at about 2.00 p.m., the accused came to her tea stall and assaulted her byfists and blows and also pressed her breast. She raised hue and cry and onhearing her alarm, the neighbouring persons came to her shop. She raised hue and cry and onhearing her alarm, the neighbouring persons came to her shop. At that relevantpoint of time, her husband was also present in her tea stall and due toassault, she lost her sense and she was shifted to Kanchanpur hospital whereshe regained her sense. She further deposed that subsequently on 21-5-2004 , she lodged written ejaharto OC, Kanchanpur PS. and the said ejahar was written by P.W. 7, Matilal Nath.In her evidence, she also identified her signature in the ejahar which wasmarked as Exbt. I and she also identified the accused-petitioner in the dock. Inher cross, she has explained the reasons for causing delay in preferring theejahar. 12.P.W. 2 Pulak Barua is the husband of P.W. 1 who corroborated her evidence. 13.P.W. 3 Bapan Das in his evidence specifically stated that on 19-5-2004 at about 2 p.m. , he was preparing some foods in hisshop. At that time, he heard some hot altercation between the informant P.W. 1and the present accused-petitioner. 14. P.W. 4 Chitta Ranjan Sana also corroborated the evidence of the aforesaid witnessso far as altercation between the P.W. 1 and the accused-petitioner isconcerned and this witness also stated that after hearing hue and cry, heproceeded towards the tea stall of the informant (P.W. 1) and on arrival there,he found some persons gathered there including the accused-petitioner and hecould know that the accused-petitioner had assaulted the informant. 15.Thus, from the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4, it is established by the prosecutionthat the accused-petitioner was found in the tea stall of the informant by theprosecution witnesses. 16.P.W. 5 Tarani Hrishidas is the star witness of the prosecution who was presentin the tea stall of the informant at the relevant time of occurrence and foundthat the accused-petitioner had assaulted the informant by fists and blows anddue to assault, the informant fell down on the earth. Then he came back to hisshop. 17.P.W. 8 Dr. Dipak Rudrapal is the medical officer who had examined the informanton 20-5-2004 and found someinjuries on her person which according to him were simple in nature. 18. Inview of the aforesaid evidence, it can be easily said that the prosecution hasestablished its case and both the learned trial Court as well as appellateCourt has rightly found the accused-petitioner guilty for commission of offenceunder Section 323/448, I.P.C. 19. Nowlet us examine whether the sentence of imprisonment can be converted intosentence of fine. 18. Inview of the aforesaid evidence, it can be easily said that the prosecution hasestablished its case and both the learned trial Court as well as appellateCourt has rightly found the accused-petitioner guilty for commission of offenceunder Section 323/448, I.P.C. 19. Nowlet us examine whether the sentence of imprisonment can be converted intosentence of fine. In B.C. Goswami v. Delhi Administration, 1974 Cri LJ 243, theApex Court discussed what should be the proper sentence for an offence andwhile discussing their lordships observed, inter alia, "Now question ofsentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper balancingof various considerations which weigh with judicial mind in determining itsappropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadlystated is that the accused must realize that he has committed an act of whichhe forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as anindividual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protectsociety by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty partyfrom repeating the offence, it is also designed to reform the offender andre-claim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole.Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their duepart in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilizedsocieties, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greaterimportance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose theirefficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby theoffender a hardened criminal." 20. Theaforesaid case of B.C. Goswami (1974 Cri LJ 243) (supra) was subsequentlyfollowed by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kr. Gupta v. State of MadhyaPradesh, AIR 1995 SC 2121 : (1995 Cri LJ 3656) wherein the sentence ofimprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, in a case where theaccused was sentenced under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 21. AsMr. Roy , learned counsel for thepetitioner in his usual fairness did not raise any question about theconviction. From the record, it appears that admittedly, by this time, nineyears already elapsed and the accused-petitioner is on bail. 21. AsMr. Roy , learned counsel for thepetitioner in his usual fairness did not raise any question about theconviction. From the record, it appears that admittedly, by this time, nineyears already elapsed and the accused-petitioner is on bail. Thus, in view ofthe decision of the Apex Court in B.C. Goswami (1974 Cri LJ 243) (supra) itwould not be proper on the part of this court to send the petitioner to jailfor suffering sentence of imprisonment passed by the learned trial Court andmodified by the appellate Court relating to the offence under Section 323,I.P.C., rather it would meet justice if the sentence of imprisonment ismodified to a sentence of payment of a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for commission ofoffence under Section 323, I.P.C. Accordingly, it is ordered. 22. Theorder of payment of fine money of Rs. 1,000/- passed by the trial Court andmaintained by the appellate Court relating to the offence under Section 448,I.P.C. is not interfered with. 23. Thefine money shall be deposited within a period of one month from today. If theaccused-petitioner fails to deposit the fine money within the aforesaid period,then he shall suffer sentence as passed by the learned appellate Court. 24. Ifthe fine money is not deposited within the stipulated period, then thepetitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court just after completionof one month. If the accused-petitioner does not surrender as stated supra,then the trial court shall take all necessary steps for taking him into custodyto serve out the sentence as passed by the appellate Court. 25. Asthe petitioner is on bail, his bail bond shall stand discharged after depositof the fine money. 26.Fine money, if realized, shall be sent to the victim (P.W. 1) instead ofdepositing the same to the Treasury as ordered by the trial Court andmaintained by the appellate Court. In the result, the instant revision petitionis partly allowed. Senddown the L.C. records.