The Gauhati High Court has upheld its limited but significant power of revision under Section 401 CrPC—including the authority to alter sentences handed down by subordinate courts—by reducing a sentence of imprisonment to only a fine for the offence of attempt to commit rape. The judgment affirms existing Supreme Court and statutory principles, clarifies that “attempt” punishments under Section 511 IPC may include only fine, and acts as binding authority within Assam and persuasive for other jurisdictions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Crl.Rev.P./244/2012 of MD. JIAUR RAHMAN @ KALA and ANR. Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM |
| CNR | GAHC010182432012 |
| Date of Registration | 23-05-2012 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN |
| Court | Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) |
| Bench | Single Judge (HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; Persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms concurrent findings and statutory position; alters sentence |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – CrPC & IPC (Section 401 CrPC, Section 376 r/w Section 511 IPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court’s revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC are limited: interference is warranted only if lower court findings are perverse, illegal, or unreasonable. However, the High Court is competent to review evidence to satisfy itself that the conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. Where the offence of “attempt to commit rape” under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC is established, the sentence may be lawfully altered to a fine only, as Section 511 IPC permits such a sentence. In the instant case, considering the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and no evidence of penetration, the sentence of four years’ imprisonment was reduced to a fine under these provisions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | State of Maharashtra v. Jag Mohan Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 659; Dulichand v. Delhi Administration (1975 Cri LJ 1732; MANU/SC/0113/1975) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Section 401 CrPC (revisional powers); Section 386 CrPC (powers of appellate court); Section 511 IPC (attempt and sentence); general principles of limited revisional interference; precedents on scope of revisional jurisdiction. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioners were convicted under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC for attempting to commit rape, based on the victim’s allegation that they unlawfully restrained her, took her into a jungle, and attempted to have sexual intercourse, though no penetration was proved. Inconsistencies existed between her FIR, police, and trial court statements. Witness testimony was partly corroborative. The appellate court upheld conviction and sentence. On revision, leniency in sentence was considered due to inconsistencies and lack of evidence of penetration. |
| Citations | State of Maharashtra v. Jag Mohan Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 659; Dulichand v. Delhi Administration (1975 Cri LJ 1732) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Gauhati High Court jurisdiction (Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh) |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Follows | State of Maharashtra v. Jag Mohan Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 659; Dulichand v. Delhi Administration (1975 Cri LJ 1732) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that under Section 401 CrPC, the revisional court may alter sentence—including reducing imprisonment to only fine—where justice so demands and statute so allows.
- Clarifies that sentences for “attempt” under Section 511 IPC can be fine alone or imprisonment up to half the maximum, providing sentencing flexibility not restricted to imprisonment.
- Restates that revisional jurisdiction is limited to gross errors or manifest unreasonableness; mere re-appreciation of evidence is not permitted.
- Provides a precedent for seeking reduction of sentence in cases of attempt to commit rape where evidence is weak or inconsistent, especially where penetration is not proved.
- Lawyers may rely on this ruling to argue for alternative sentences (fine) under Section 511 IPC in similarly situated cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by noting the scope of revision under Section 401 CrPC: interference is justified only where lower court decisions are perverse, illegal, or unsupported by evidence—not for mere reappraisal of facts.
- The evidence revealed inconsistencies in the victim’s statements to the police, magistrate, and at trial, specifically concerning allegations of penetration.
- Other witnesses partly corroborated the victim’s version but there was no medical proof of recent intercourse or injuries, and the victim lacked clarity on FIR content.
- The concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding conviction for “attempt” (not commission) of rape were supported.
- Section 511 IPC was interpreted as allowing either fine or imprisonment (or both) for attempt; thus, reducing imprisonment to a substantial fine is legally valid.
- Citing State of Maharashtra v. Jag Mohan Singh, the Court affirms that revisional powers allow for alteration of findings and sentence, but not to convert acquittal to conviction.
- Having found evidence of “attempt” but not commission or violence, and in light of inconsistencies and lack of penetration, the Court exercised its discretion to alter the sentence to fine only, in accordance with statutory maximums for attempt.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The victim’s statements were inconsistent across the FIR, deposition before the Magistrate, and police, especially regarding the alleged rape.
- Key eyewitnesses could not reliably identify the petitioners; presence at the scene does not confirm commission of the attempt.
- The medical evidence did not corroborate the allegation of sexual assault or violence.
- The FIR allegations amounted at most to “bad signal” and pulling on the road, insufficient for attempt to rape.
- Requested interference with concurrent conviction and sentence.
Respondent (State):
- Evidence from the victim (PW-1), witnesses who saw the petitioners running from the scene (PW-4), those who saw the victim immediately after (PW-5), and an eyewitness to the attempt (PW-8), together establish attempt to commit rape.
- The victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was consistent and credible regarding the events.
- The intervention of a third party prevented further harm; the elements of attempt were established.
- The concurrent findings should not be interfered with in revision, particularly on evidentiary appreciation.
Factual Background
The case arose from an incident on 06.07.2009, when the victim alleged that the petitioners restricted her on a public road as she returned from college, pulled her towards a jungle, and attempted to commit rape by undressing and gagging her. A third person intervened, leading the petitioners to flee. The FIR was lodged under Sections 341/354/34 IPC; subsequently, Section 376 was added and a chargesheet filed under Sections 341/376/34 IPC. The trial court convicted the petitioners for attempt to commit rape (Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC) and sentenced them to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine, a decision upheld in appeal. The present revision challenged both the conviction and sentence.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 401 CrPC: The High Court’s revisional powers are limited to reviewing the legality, correctness, or propriety of judgments. Revisional courts cannot reappraise evidence as a second appeal but may interfere if there is glaring illegality or injustice.
- Section 386 CrPC: Allows appellate or revisional alteration of sentence but prohibits enhancement without opportunity of hearing.
- Section 511 IPC: For attempts, allows punishment with up to half the term of imprisonment prescribed for the substantive offence or with such fine as prescribed for the offence, or both; thus, a sentence of fine alone is legally sufficient for attempt.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or guidelines were announced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment reaffirms and applies existing law regarding revision powers and sentencing discretion under CrPC and IPC.
Citations
- State of Maharashtra v. Jag Mohan Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 659
- Dulichand v. Delhi Administration, 1975 Cri LJ 1732; MANU/SC/0113/1975