JUDGMENT : MITALI THAKURIA, J. Heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1—5 and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent No.6. 2. The present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.03.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in C.A. Case No.14 (D-3)/2014, whereby the judgment and order dated 11.06.2014, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaldoi in G.R. Case No.2102/2010, under Sections 341/323/354/34 of the IPC, is upheld wherein the accused/petitioners were acquitted by the learned Trial Court. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 01.12.2010, at about 6:00 p.m., when informant, namely, Masina Begum was going alone through the village road, the accused persons, namely, Kudrat Ali, Maksida Begum, Jasminara Begum, Arfan Ali and Minanur Ali, by taking the advantage of darkness, dragged her and disrobed her by removing her clothes and tied by rope with a tree and assaulted, for which she sustained serious injuries on her person. It is further alleged that the accused persons uprooted the hair and kicked at her chest, back & also assaulted by fist and blows. Later on some villagers unfastened her. 4. Describing the incident, informant Masina Begum filed an FIR with the in- charge of Bura Police Outpost which was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of Shipajhar Police Station and on receipt of the said FIR, the Shipajhar P.S. Case No 370/2010, under Section 341/326/354/34 of the IPC (corresponding to G.R. No. 2120/2010) was registered and S.I. Muzibur Rahman was entrusted to investigate the case. In course of investigation, the I.O. visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses, send the injured person for medical examination and after conclusion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet vide Charge Sheet No.189/2010, against the accused persons under Section 341/323/354/34 of the IPC to stand trial. The accused were arrested and subsequently were released on bail. 5. On appearance of the accused persons before the Trial Court after finding prima facie case against the accused persons, charges were framed, read over and explained, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The accused were arrested and subsequently were released on bail. 5. On appearance of the accused persons before the Trial Court after finding prima facie case against the accused persons, charges were framed, read over and explained, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses including the Doctor, who examined the victim woman, whereas the plea of the defence was total denial and in support of their case, they examined two witnesses. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused persons, finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and set them at liberty, by the judgment and order dated 11.06.2014. 7. The Appellate Court did not interfere into the aforesaid findings of the learned Trial Court on the appeal so preferred. Hence the present petitioner is before this Court to challenge the legality and validity of the aforesaid order. 8. Assailing the aforesaid judgment, it is contended by Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court committed grave error of law and facts in passing the impugned judgment, that the learned trial Court had arrived at a erroneous finding, that the learned trial Court did not correctly and judicially evaluate the prosecution witnesses and arrived at a wrong findings and as such it suffers from legality and correctness. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the PW.1/informant/ victim of this case had categorically deposed before the learned Trial Court and explained as how she was caught hold by the accused/respondents by her hair and dragged her to their house, tied her by a rope with a tree and she was completely disrobed by them. Thereafter, the accused/ respondents Jesmina Begum and Arfan Ali assaulted her and also call for the village headman who came there and he rescued her and brought her to her house. On the following day, she lodged the FIR. Thus the PW.1 described as to how she was assaulted and outraged her modesty by the accused/petitioners. 9. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the PW.3 is the village headman whose presence is admitted by both the accused respondents as well as the petitioner. On the following day, she lodged the FIR. Thus the PW.1 described as to how she was assaulted and outraged her modesty by the accused/petitioners. 9. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the PW.3 is the village headman whose presence is admitted by both the accused respondents as well as the petitioner. Rather, the accused respondents had called the village headman who immediately arrived at the place of occurrence and saw the victim who was tied by a rope with a tree. Thus, the PW.3 is a very vital and important witness of the prosecution but the learned Trial Court below did not consider the evidence of prosecution witnesses in its true perspective and arrived at a wrong finding, acquitting the accused/ respondents. From his evidence, it is also seen that he saw the clothes of the informant in torned condition and thereafter, he took the informant to the house of her mother. The evidence of the other prosecution witnesses also corroborated the evidence of the PW.1/informant/victim of this case. PW.2 also visited the house of the accused respondents coming to know about the incident from the mother of the victim and saw the victim in a nude condition who was tied with a tree. PW.4 also saw the victim in such a condition when he arrived in the house of the accused respondents and the PW.5 also narrated the same story who arrived at the place of occurrence, after hearing noise from her house. 10. PW.7, the Doctor also supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that he saw the tenderness over her neck and abrasion over her both knees and also complaint of pain on her abdomen. But in spite of all the corroborating evidence of other prosecution witnesses who supported the case of the prosecution/PW.1, the Trial Court below had misread the evidence on record and vide its judgment and order had acquitted all the accused respondents. Hence, interference of this Court is necessary and all the accused respondents should be accordingly convicted. 11. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam on the other hand submitted that basing on the evidence put forward by both sides in support of their case, the learned Trial Court has rightly passed its judgment, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Mr. Sharma, the learned Addl. 11. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam on the other hand submitted that basing on the evidence put forward by both sides in support of their case, the learned Trial Court has rightly passed its judgment, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Mr. Sharma, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam further submitted that in para 22 of the judgment, passed by the learned Appellate Court in C.A. Case No.14(D-3)14, had discussed in detail as to why the so called eye witnesses are not reliable and trustworthy and there is no evidence to prove the exact role played by the accused at the time of the occurrence and thus the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned Trial Court below had arrived at a concurrent finding and acquitted the accused respondents and hence, there cannot be any reason to make any interference in the judgments, passed by the learned Court below wherein both the Courts had arrived at a concurrent finding. More so, he submitted that unless the order passed by the learned Magistrate or the learned Appellate Court is perverse or the view taken by the Court is wholly unreasonable and also for non-consideration of any relevant materials, which is palpable in the record, the Revisional Court may interfere in the judgment of the learned Court below. But here in the instant case, it is seen that after proper appreciation of evidence on record, both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have rightly arrived at a concurrent findings and hence, interference of this Court is not at all necessary. 12. Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1—5 submitted that there is no perverse finding to interfere the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, which have arrived at the concurrent findings. Mr. Uddin further submitted that initially the case was registered under Section 326 of the IPC but subsequently, the case has been charge sheeted under Section 323 of the IPC and considering the evidence on record, the learned Courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding and accordingly, passed the order of acquittal. He further submitted that the present case is instituted only as a counter blast, as the father of the informant is an accused of a rape case, filed by the accused side. He further submitted that the present case is instituted only as a counter blast, as the father of the informant is an accused of a rape case, filed by the accused side. Only to counter the case filed by the accused/respondents, the concocted case is lodged by the PW.1/informant with false allegation of outrage of modesty as well as assault on her. He further submitted that to substantiate the plea of the accused/respondents, they have also adduced evidence of two defence witnesses who brought the actual fact of the case and the reasons behind the filing of the case by the informant/victim. 13. DW.1 Tafiqul Haque also admitted that on the day of incident, at about 5:00 P.M., while he was going to pharmacy, he heard noise in front of the house of respondent Kudrat Ali, wherein PW.1/informant was shouting on the village road saying that she will send the accused Kudrat Ali and his family members to jail. He also deposed that three years prior to the incident, the father of the PW.1 committed rape on the daughter of accused/respondent Arfan Ali and the case is still pending in the Court. In the meantime, the village people gathered and she went to the house of Kudrat Ali. The village people also asked the accused respondent Arfan Ali to call the village headman Yunish Ali (PW.3) and accordingly he came to his house and took said Masina/informant from the house of the accused respondents and handed over to her mother. As per DW.1, no any incident of detaining of the informant or fastening her in a flower tree had occurred nor there was any incident of assault at the time of incident. 14. Mr. Uddin, the learned counsel for the accused/respondents further submitted that no suggestion was put to the DW.1 with regard to the alleged incident of outraging of modesty of the PW.1, as well as assault on her. Same deposition has been made by the DW.2 Rubul Ali, who at the relevant time of incident was going to his home from the Dipila Market, when he heard noise in front of the house of the accused respondents and then he saw that the informant/victim was scolding the accused respondents with obscene language. Same deposition has been made by the DW.2 Rubul Ali, who at the relevant time of incident was going to his home from the Dipila Market, when he heard noise in front of the house of the accused respondents and then he saw that the informant/victim was scolding the accused respondents with obscene language. This witness also deposed that the accused Arfan Ali went to the house of the village headman Yunish Ali (PW.3) to call him, who accordingly came to the place of occurrence and handed over the PW.1 to her mother. Mr. Uddin, the learned counsel for the accused/respondents further submitted that the prosecution witnesses could not prove that there was any assault on the victim or she was disrobed by the accused respondents, as alleged by her. More so, there is no eye witness to the prosecution witnesses and sufficient contradictions are found in the evidence of the supporting witnesses, for which the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court had acquitted the accused respondents and set them at liberty. 15. In support of his submission, Mr. Uddin, the learned counsel for the accused/respondents submitted that it is not justified for the Revisional Court in setting aside the order merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an Appellate Court. The only purpose of the Revisional Jurisdiction is to see if there is any perverse findings by the learned Courts below and if there is any failure of material consideration by the learned Court below. To substantiate his plea, the learned counsel for the accused/respondents also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 123 and basically emphasized in para 14 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “In the case before us, the learned Magistrate went through the entire records of the case, not limiting to the report filed by the police and has passed a reasoned order holding that it is not a fit case to take cognizance for the purpose of issuing process to the appellant. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The revisional court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.”. 16. Mr. Uddin, the learned counsel for the accused/respondents further submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court had only passed the order of acquittal for the respondents and hence, there is double presumption in favour of the accused that they are innocent and presumption of innocence is certainly not weakened but re-enforced and strengthen by the learned Trial Court. In that context, the learned counsel also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka , reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 and para 16 of the said judgment reads as under: “It cannot, however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court”. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court”. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Uddin, the learned counsel for the accused/respondents that there cannot be any reason to make any interference in the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. 17. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case records and the judgment and the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. 18. It is seen that both the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court had also made discussion in regards to the deposition made by the prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses. It is also seen from the judgment as well as the evidence of the witnesses that PW.1 is the informant/victim of this case, who allegedly dragged to the house of the accused persons by holding her hair and then she was tied with a tree and also stated that she was assaulted by the accused persons. That apart, she has also brought the allegation of outraging her modesty by torning her wearing apparels. From her cross evidence as well as the discussion made by the learned Court below, it is seen that the village headman i.e. the PW.3 had arrived and released her and the entire incident had taken place in from 6:30 to 10:30 p.m., wherein 50 to 60 persons gathered at the place of occurrence but surprisingly, none of the persons had made any effort to rescue or release her from the clutches of the accused persons. 19. It is also seen that the wearing apparels of the PW.1/victim, like petticoat and blouse were seized by the police on the same day of incident at about 10:30 a.m., which also cannot believed, as the incident allegedly happened at 6:30 p.m., which continued till 10:30 a.m., till she was rescued by the village headman. 20. Similarly, it is seen that the PW.2 claimed herself to be the eye witness of the prosecution case but from her cross-evidence it is seen that she has not stated before the police that she saw the occurrence. 20. Similarly, it is seen that the PW.2 claimed herself to be the eye witness of the prosecution case but from her cross-evidence it is seen that she has not stated before the police that she saw the occurrence. PW.3, the village headman stated to be one of the vital witnesses of the prosecution case, who released or rescued the victim, while she was tying with a tree and her wearing apparels were also torn, when he arrived at the place of occurrence. But surprisingly, this witness also did not say anything before the police that he saw the occurrence nor he was informed by the prosecutrix that Kudrat Ali and Fijnur Ali had assaulted her. 21. PW.4 and PW.5 also claimed that they saw the victim tied with a tree and her wearing apparels were torn but their cross-evidence are also not found so relevant. 22. PW.6 is the mother of the victim and as per her also she saw the occurrence but from her cross-evidence it also reveals that she has not stated before the police that accused Kudrat Ali and Fijnur Ali along with two other persons had forcibly tied the prosecutrix with a tree. 23. As stated above, two defence witnesses are also examined by the defence who also saw the occurrence while the prosecutrix was shouting in the house of the accused Kudrat Ali, when some people gathered there in the house of the accused and at that moment, the village headman arrived there and took away the prosecutrix. Thus, as per these two defence witnesses also, the PW.3/village headman arrived at the place of occurrence and he took away the prosecutrix from there. But these two defence witnesses, who also deposed that the prosecutrix had lodged the false case and concocted case against the accused persons, as they earlier lodged a rape case against the father of the prosecutrix and on the day of occurrence also, she was shouting in front of the house of the accused persons, threatening them that she will send the accused persons to jail. 24. Thus from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is seen that they contradicted their own statements and did not state before the investigating officer that they have seen the occurrence nor saw the prosecutrix tying against a tree and her wearing apparels were torn by the accused persons. 24. Thus from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is seen that they contradicted their own statements and did not state before the investigating officer that they have seen the occurrence nor saw the prosecutrix tying against a tree and her wearing apparels were torn by the accused persons. The evidence of the prosecutrix also does not inspire confidence, as she also contradicted her own statement and made a different statement at the time of adducing her evidence. 25. It is further seen from the evidence of both the defence witnesses that the persons gathered in the place of occurrence asked one of the accused to call for the village headman/PW.3 and accordingly accused Arfan Ali went to the house of PW.3 and called him to the place of occurrence. Thus the version of the defence witnesses is also supported by the PW.3 and as per him also, he was called by the accused to the place of occurrence. Thus it is not the prosecutrix but the accused persons called the PW.3/the village headman to settle the matter who accordingly took away the victim from the place of occurrence. 26. So considering, all these aspects of the case, it is seen that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record had arrived at a concurrent finding that the prosecution could not establish the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, passed the order of acquittal. 27. It is the settled proposition of law that the conviction can be based only on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if she inspires confidence of the Court. But in the instant case, it is seen that the presecutrix herself made some contradictory statements which are not believable and it is seen that the case has been lodged with some exaggerations, rather from the evidence of both the defence witnesses, it is seen that one incident had happened wherein the prosecutrix/PW.1 was shouting and it is the accused Arfan Ali who informed the village headman/PW.3 and accordingly, he arrived at the place of occurrence and took away the victim. 28. 28. In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in C.A. Case No.14 (D-3)/2014, whereby the judgment and order dated 11.06.2014, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaldoi in G.R. Case No.2102/2010, do not suffer from any legality, correctness and propriety to make any interference by this Court. 29. Accordingly, this Court find no merit in this Revision Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 30. Return back the Trial Court Records forthwith along with a copy of judgment of this Court.