JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.06.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in Crl. Appeal No. 25 (D-3)/2006 affirming the judgment and order dated 22.08.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udalguri in G.R. Case No. 372/2005 convicting the accused petitioner u/s 448/354 of the IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for two months u/s 448 IPC and four months u/s 354 of the IPC. 2. Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner and Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The accusation against the accused petitioner is that on the evening of 02.06.2005 at about 5.30/6.00 PM the accused petitioner entered into the house of the informant and molested his wife taking advantage of the absence of the other family members from the house including her husband who is the informant of this case. Initially the matter was sought to be resolved through the Mahila Samittee, but due to absence of the accused the matter could not be settled which compelled the informant to file the FIR before the police and consequently there was delay of about 10 days in filing the FIR. On the basis of the delayed FIR police registered a case and on completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the accused petitioner. 4. The trial court found the accused petitioner guilty u/s 448/354 of the IPC which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. The prosecution in the instant case is relying on the testimony of the victim woman who has been examined as P.W.3. Her evidence is that the accused petitioner came to her house in the evening to collect water from her tube-well and enquired about her husband and when he came to know that he was away he entered into the kitchen and tried to drag her towards the bed. She raised alarm which attracted the attention of her daughter and on seeing her the accused tried to run away. Scuffle followed which left some nail marks on her cheek. When her husband came in the evening information was given to him, he went to the woman organization of the village requesting for taking appropriate action. Having failed to settle the dispute due to absence of the accused petitioner the FIR was filed. Scuffle followed which left some nail marks on her cheek. When her husband came in the evening information was given to him, he went to the woman organization of the village requesting for taking appropriate action. Having failed to settle the dispute due to absence of the accused petitioner the FIR was filed. The delay in filing the FIR has been sufficiently explained and there is no reason to suspect embellishment or afterthought. The evidence of the victim woman is corroborated by her husband and her neighbor P.W.2 Ahmed Ali, the post-occurrence witness who arrived at the spot just after the occurrence and was informed about the same by the woman herself. P.W.4 Purnima Deka also lends support to the prosecution case and according to her, she saw scuffle between the accused and the woman. 6. Mr. Kalita, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that there was concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the court and revisional interference is unwarranted. 7. It is a settled proposition of law that ordinarily it is not open to the High Court to interfere when there is concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below, in its revisional jurisdiction. 8. Keeping in view the above settled proposition while going through the evidence on record it is found that the evidence of the victim is fully corroborated by her husband P.W.1 who arrived in his house after the occurrence and lodged the FIR before police and before filing the FIR he even tried to resolve the matter through the Mahila Samitee of the village. P.W.2 and P.W.4 also supported the prosecution and P.W.4 even saw the scuffle taking place between the accused and the victim. 9. Mr. Kamar, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submits that there is no medical report to support the testimony of the victim woman with regard to the injury sustained by her, but it appears from the evidence on record that medical examination was not done as the injury complained of was very simple in nature. It is further submitted by Mr. Kamar that no ingredient of offence u/s 354 has been made out and there might have been some quarrel regarding non-payment of Rs.150/- to the accused by the informant which was taken as loan from him. It is further submitted by Mr. Kamar that no ingredient of offence u/s 354 has been made out and there might have been some quarrel regarding non-payment of Rs.150/- to the accused by the informant which was taken as loan from him. Some scuffle might have taken place but the accused petitioner never intended to outrage her modesty and his culpable intention suggestive of sex has not been made out. On scrutiny of the evidence on record it appears that quarrel took place between the accused and the wife of the informant and it is not established beyond doubt that the accused intended to molest the woman, as a result of the scuffle she might have sustained injuries and at best, it was a case of simple assault which attracts Section 323 of the IPC. 10. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel and considering the impugned judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court I do not find any infirmity in the judgment calling for interference in this revision except that the prosecution has been able to prove only the offence u/s 323 of the IPC against the accused petitioner and consequently he is found guilty under the said section. The offence was committed in the year 2005. The accused is a rustic villager and there is no record of any previous conviction and more than 10 years have elapsed from the date of commission of the crime. 11. In view of the above, instead of sentencing the accused to imprisonment, I sentence him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to imprisonment for 2 (two) months. Fine, if realized, shall be paid to the victim as compensation. 12. Revision stands dismissed with modification of sentence as stated above. 13. Send down the LCR forthwith.