JUDGMENT AND ORDER : This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.09.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in Crl. Appeal No. 19/2016 affirming the judgment and order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the learned Spl. Judicial Magistrate, Assam at Guwahati in G.R. Case No. 7103/2010 convicting the accused petitioner under sections 342/354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to RI for 4 months under section 342 IPC and RI for 1 year and 2 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to S.I. for 2 months under section 354 of the IPC with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Heard Mr. B. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The fact of the case is that on 18.09.2010 at about 7 A.M. in the morning while the alleged victim girl named “X”……………. (name not disclosed) was walking on the roadside, the accused petitioner persuaded her to go to the L.P. School situated nearby and outraged her modesty. FIR to that effect was lodged by the mother of the girl on that very day on the basis of which a case was registered and on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused petitioner under sections 342/354 of the IPC. In order to prove the charges the prosecution examined 5 witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The defence took the plea of total denial in his defence statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, inviting my attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, contends that no offence either under section 342 or 354 of the IPC has been made out and the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the courts. The learned state counsel, on the other hand, submits that there is a concurrent finding of facts arrived by the courts and revisional interference is not warranted in the present case. 5. It is a settled proposition that ordinarily it is not open to the High Court when there is a concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts to interfere, in its revisional jurisdiction unless it is shown that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated or misread by the courts. 6. 5. It is a settled proposition that ordinarily it is not open to the High Court when there is a concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts to interfere, in its revisional jurisdiction unless it is shown that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated or misread by the courts. 6. In a case of the instant nature the evidence of the victim girl assumes utmost significance in the sense that it is she who only knew what had happened to her inside the school. Her evidence is that on the morning of that fateful day while she was brushing her teeth on the roadside, the accused came and took her to the bathroom of the L.P. school and although she refused to go with him, he pulled her inside the bathroom and removed her T-shirt and undressed her and committed “bad act” against her will. At that moment one Paniram came and rescued her but the accused managed to run away. In cross-examination, she had stated that the accused had offered her chocolate and after taking chocolate she became unconscious and when she regained her senses she found herself leaning against the urinal of the school and she found that her underwear was pulled down but she refused to divulge the “bad act” committed on her by the accused. She admitted that she had not sustained any injury. Her statement was recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate and in her statement also she had stated that she was given something to eat by the accused and thereafter he pulled her inside the bathroom and when he tried to undress her she bite him and started shouting which attracted attention of other person but the accused managed to flee away. 7. Her evidence and the evidence of her mother reveal that the accused petitioner was their relative. Corroborating the evidence of her daughter, the mother P.W. 1, who is the informant of the case, deposed that she came to know about the incident from her son-in-law and when she reached the place of occurrence, she saw that her daughter was beaten by the villagers and she also saw the accused running away from that place. Corroborating the evidence of her daughter, the mother P.W. 1, who is the informant of the case, deposed that she came to know about the incident from her son-in-law and when she reached the place of occurrence, she saw that her daughter was beaten by the villagers and she also saw the accused running away from that place. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that Paniram saw the incident and it was informed to her by her son-in-law but she did not ask her daughter about the incident due to hesitation and shame. 8. Close on the heels of P.W. 1 the prosecution witness P.W. 3 also deposed that he saw the victim girl and the accused being pulled out from the bathroom of the school by Paniram and he also saw Paniram slapping the girl but the accused managed to run away. He could not say anything regarding the occurrence and he was not even cross-examined by defence. The investigation of the case was done by P.W. 5 and he got the statement of the girl recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. and during investigation he seized one tobacco box and a gamocha from the place of occurrence vide Exts. 2 and 3. The doctor was not examined but from the medical report it appears that no injury was sustained by the girl and she never complained of any injury being sustained by her. At the relevant time the girl was aged about 13/14 years and incapable of giving consent. The accused was close relative and taking advantage of that he took her to the toilet of the school and tried to satisfy his lust but due to timely arrival of Paniram he could not succeed. Moreover, the girl herself declined to divulge the actual acts committed by the accused petitioner and there is no evidence that any attempt at penetration was made by the accused. The victim girl is found to be wholly reliable and there is no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused in the case. Moreover, her evidence is corroborated by her mother and the other two prosecution witnesses who claimed to have seen Paniram slapping her and the accused running away from that place. I do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence. Moreover, her evidence is corroborated by her mother and the other two prosecution witnesses who claimed to have seen Paniram slapping her and the accused running away from that place. I do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence. It is unbelievable that the mother would expose her daughter to shame and ignominy in the society by concocting a false case against the accused who is a close relative. The conduct of the accused forcefully taking the victim girl to the toilet and undressing her is itself sufficient enough to constitute the offence of outraging the modesty of the girl and all the essential ingredients of the said section have been established. 9. Having regard to the submission and the scrutiny of the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and in view of all my discussions above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment calling for interference in this Revision and as such the judgment stands affirmed. 10. The Revision is dismissed. 11. It is submitted by Mr. B. Phukan, learned counsel that the accused who had been in detention since 28.03.2016 was bailed out on 5.1.17 and earlier also he was in jail from 18.09.2010 to 15.11.2010 and he has nearly completed one year in detention. 12. In view of the above submission, the accused petitioner is sentenced to the term already undergone by him in jail in connection with the case. 13. The accused petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial court and deposit fine of Rs. 2,000/- within one month from today. 14. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.