HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.312 of 2005 ORDER: The defacto complainant aggrieved by the orders in S.C.No.52 of 2004 on the file of the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District whereby and whereunder the sole accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 354 IPC by the said court by its order dated 30.12.2004, filed the revision inter alia on the following grounds: That the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material on record in general, and the evidence of PW.2-victim in particular in proper perspective. The trial court ought to have seen the ingredients of Section 354 IPC were made out and that the trial court erred in acquitting the first respondent-accused for the said offence. 2. The facts in brief are that on 1.7.2004, PW.2, wife of PW.1 was at her parents’ house and at about 2.00 p.m., the first respondent-accused entered the house, dragged PW.2 into room, with an intention to outrage her modesty. On her raising hue and cry, her husband PW.1 entered the room and rescued her. PW.1 preferred complaint, basing on which, PW.6-Sub-Inspector of K.Kotapadu P.S. registered a case in Crime No.17/04 against the first respondent-accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC and after completing the investigation laid charge sheet, and the same was committed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chodavaram in PRC No. 8 of 2004 . The District Court after treating the case as SC No.52 of 2004, had made over the same to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge for trial and disposal in accordance with law. On the accused not pleading guilty to the charge, he was put on trial. 3. In respect of its case, the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3, however, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the first respondent-accused. 4. The trial court considering and appreciating the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and other material on record, formed an opinion that the evidence was highly suspicious and it could not be taken as gospel truth and gave a finding that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 354 IPC and accordingly acquitted the accused of the said charge. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-defacto complainant raised contentions as have been raised in the grounds of revision. It is further contended that the trial court ought to have believed the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 since PW.1 is none other than the husband of PW.2 (victim) and PW.3 is her younger sister. Moreover, PW.1 was an eye witness to the incident. It was he who went to the rescue of PW.2 when the first respondent-accused was trying to outrage her modesty inside the room. It is also further contended that PW.3 was also an eye witness to the incident. 6. On the other hand, it is the case of the first respondent that he had talking terms with PW.2 (victim), as such he entered the house to enquire about her since she had come to her parents’ place. That taking advantage of his presence in the house, PW.1- husband of PW.2 falsely implicated him. It is submitted that in the beginning of cross examination itself PW.2 had admitted that the lands of her husband (PW.1) and the lands of the first respondent-accused are abutting each other. However, in the last paragraph of the cross examination, PW.2 denied that there was altercation between her husband-PW.1 and the first respondent-accused a day prior to the alleged incident. Therefore, it is the case of the first respondent-accused that her (PW.2) evidence was rightly not considered by the trial court since she tried to play hot and cold in the same breath. It is also submitted that as per charge sheet, the accused on hearing the sounds of PW.2 entered the house and pushed the door and PW.1 came out, whereas PW.2 has stated in her cross examination that she and the accused were inside the room for about 30 minutes and that she sustained no injuries on any part on her person, though it is her case that taking advantage of her presence in the house, the accused entered the house and forcibly dragged inside the room. It is in the evidence of PW.1 that on hearing the sounds of his wife (PW2) he entered the house, pushed the door and then PW.2 came out. It is further submitted that the version given by PW.3 in this regard is altogether a different. She has stated in her evidence that she saw her sister, PW.2 being dragged by the accused into the room gagging her mouth with his hands and latched the door from inside and that she was weeping to the cries of her sister from inside. On seeing her weeping, PW.1 came there and asked as to why she was weeping and then she informed about the incident. Thereupon PW.1 pushed the door and PW.2 came out. As such, it is the case of the first respondent-accused that PWs 1, 2 and 3 have given different versions and none of them finds place in the charge sheet. Therefore, their evidence is inconsistent with each other and as such it cannot be said that they corroborated each other’s evidence in support of the prosecution case. It is also further submitted that the room measuring 10’x8’ in which the incident alleged to have been taken place is small enough and it is her evidence that so many household articles stored therein. If such is the situation, she might have resisted the aggressive acts on the part of the first respondent-accused and as a result, some of the articles would have been disturbed in the room and there would have been traces of injuries on her person. The absence of injuries on her person and none of the articles being disturbed in the room goes to show that the alleged incident had never occurred. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of acquittal as passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference from this court and the revision may be dismissed. 7. Having regard to the evidence brought on record and the submissions made by both sides, this court is of the view that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not consistent with regard to material facts. Further, the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 is varied from each other. Under these circumstances, the trial court found that the respondent-accused is not guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC and acquitted him therefor. As such, the impugned order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this revisional court. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 08-04-2011 Stp HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.312 of 2005 08 -04-2011