N. V. ANJARIA, J. : - - (1.)Applicants are original accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 respectively. By judgment and order dated 14th May, 1998 of learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mirzapur (Ahmedabad Rural), in Criminal Case No.93 of 1992, all the accused came to be convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 294 -B, 426, 448, 509 and Section 114, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was challenged before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.8, Ahmedabad (Rural), Navrangpura in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 1998, which came to be dismissed on 30th July, 2004, confirming the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Originally there were four accused, one of whom died during the pendency of the proceedings. The three of them have filed the present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
1.1 The details of conviction recorded and sentence imposed on each of the applicants are as under : -

(i) The applicant No.1 -original accused No.1 came to be convicted under Sections 294 -B, 448 and 509, IPC. In respect of conviction under Section 294 -B, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days with fine of Rs.500/ - with default simple imprisonment for five days. In respect of conviction under Section 448, the sentence imposed was one month's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/ - with default simple imprisonment for five days. For conviction for offence under Section 509, the sentence imposed on him was one month's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/ - with default simple imprisonment for five days.

(ii) The applicant No.2 -original accused No.2 came to be convicted for the offence under Section 294 -B, 426, 448 and 509, IPC. In respect of conviction under Sections 294 -B, 448 and 509, the sentence imposed on him was same as was imposed in respect of applicant No.l mentioned hereinabove. Applicant No.2 was additionally convicted for offence under Section 426,for which he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days with fine of Rs.500/ - and with default stipulation for five days.

(iii) The applicant No.3 -original accused No.3 was convicted for offences under Sections 294 -B, 448 and 509, IPC. Sentence imposed on him was same for each of the offences as was imposed on applicant No.l mentioned herein above.

(iv) The original accused No.4, now deceased was also convicted for the offences under Section 294 -B, 448 and 509, IPC and was similarly sentenced for each of the offences as applicant Nos. 1 and 3 came to be sentenced.

(2.)The prosecution case as was revealed from the complaint (Exh.48) lodged by one Kavita Govindram, who at the relevant time was 21 years of age studying in the second year of Bechlor of Arts course and had been staying at the address 37, Bhagyalaxmi Society, Ranip. It was alleged in the complaint that when she was alone in the house, applicant No.l -accused No.l Ambalal was speaking filthy and was abusing, stating that why the stones were kept in open gutter. The complainant being alone in the house, she asked him not to speak in filthy language. It was further alleged that thereafter two sons of accused No.l, named Prashant and Bharat, also came and started hurling abuses. Another person Bharatbhai, accused No.4, too arrived and joined them. Accused No.2, it was alleged, caught the complainant from her shoulder and torn off her Kurta. All started pulling her out of house. It was stated further that at that time Shukla Parmanand and Virendra Dubey, the friends of the brother of the complainant reached and separated the complainant from the accused persons. While running away, the accused person. threw stones on the house of the complainant and broke the glasses of the windows. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint on the incident, Criminal Case No.93 of 1992 was registered and accused were subjected to trial, which culminated into the conviction and sentence as above.
(3.)In course of trial, the prosecution examined witnesses and led documentary evidence. The complainant gave her evidence at Exhibit 46. The other prosecutions witnesses were Parmanand Shukla (Exh. 67) and Virendrakumar Dubey (Exh.69). Panchnama of the place (Exh. 63) was sought to be proved by examining panch witnesses (Exh. 62 and 68). The investigating officer's testimony was recorded at Exhibit 73.