THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CRL.R.C.NO. 213 of 2007 ORDER Challenge in this appeal is the judgment of the two courts below sentencing and convicting the Revision Petitioner-accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 354 IPC. In that Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2006, dated 8.2.2007 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar confirmed the said judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Manthani in S.C. No. 920 of 2004, dated 30th June, 2006. The background facts in nutshell are as follows: P.W-1 husband of P.W.4. He gave a complaint Ex.P-1 on 1.9.2002 at 4 p.m. while his wife P.W.4 was alone in the house, the accused caught hold of her hand, dragged her into the bed room and pushed her on the bed. On the report lodged by P.W.1, the police registered the same as a case in Crime No. 77 of 2002 under Section 354 of IPC. After following due procedures as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. After due trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC and convicted him and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years(3) and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Appellate Court also confirmed the said sentence and the present revision is filed challenging the said order. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner argued that the lower court committed grave error in accepting the interested testimony of P.W-1 and P.W-4; and that adverse inference can be drawn for non-examination of material witnesses by the prosecution; that the findings of the lower Courts is bad in law against the facts of the case and settle principles of law. Now the point for consideration is whether the finding of the Courts below is sustainable? Before going in to the merits of the case, it is necessary to go through the case of the prosecution in nutshell. One Bommana Srinivas Reddy(P.W-1), husband of the victim by name Bommana Aruna (Pw-4) lodged a complaint before the police on 1.9.2002 at 4p.m. alleging that on that day at 10 a.m. he went to the telephone exchange and complained that his telephone in his house is not functioning and requested him to repair the telephone. Thereafter, he went to his shop. When he returned to the house for lunch at 2 p.m. he noticed his daughters weeping, rushed into the house and found the accused caught hold of his wife, dragging her into the bed room and pushed her on the cot and on seeing him and his children, the accused ran away and same was informed to the neighbors also. On the report of Ex.P-4 by P.W.1, police registered a case in Crime No. 77 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. According to P.W-1, he lodged report before the police at 4p.m. on 1.9.2002. Ex.P-1 is the report which was lodged at the earliest before the police about the offence. A cursory reading of the said report “it is recited that on 1.9.2002 at 10 a.m. P.W-1 went to the telephone office and complained about the non-functioning of the telephone. In the afternoon, when he came to the house, he noticed his children were weeping and while rushing into the house, he found Ramesh(accused) dragging his wife to the bed room by caught hold of her hands and pushed her on the bed and on seeing him, accused pushed him and ran away. P.W-4 is the victim, P.Ws.2 and 3 are relatives, P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. Therefore, for better adjudication of the matter, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 is material as they being wife and husband. As per the version of P.W.1, P.W-4 is the victim, P.W-1 is the husband of the victim. It is very strange to note that P.W-4 victim did not lodge any complaint before the police for the alleged offence. She is the proper person to lodge any complaint, since it is alleged that she was molested by the accused. Reason for not lodging report by P.W-4 against the accused is not explained. It is also borne out by the evidence that P.W-4 did not sustain any injuries in the hands of the revision petitioner. P.W-4 is also silent for non-lodging the report against the accused. Therefore, non-lodging of any complaint against the accused by the P.W-4 is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W-1 is that he noticed the accused dragging his wife by caught hold of her hands and pushed her on the bed and on seeing him, the accused ran away by pushing him aside. P.Ws-2 and 3 are the alleged neighbours, who were admittedly not the direct witnesses to the incident. Therefore, their evidence is of no consequence to prove the offence under Section 354 IPC. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 4 is to be scrutinized with caution. According to P.W-1, he noticed the accused by caught hold of the P.W- 1 hand and pushed on the cot and on seeing him, the accused ran away. In his cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he deposed that on 1.9.2002 he returned to his house in between 12 noon and 2 p.m. He again volunteers that he returned home between 12 noon and 2 p.m. Thereafter, he further deposed that he did not observe the correct time. In the latter part of his cross-examination, he deposed that on seeing him, the accused took to his heals and there is no scope for him to catch the accused and at the time while he was going to the stair-case, the accused rushed towards him and ran away and that prior to the incident he has no acquaintance with the accused. The evidence of P.W-1 is that while he was going to the stair case, the accused rushed towards him and ran away. If the said admission is taken into consideration, the theory of his witnessing that accused caught hold of the hand of P.W-1 and dragging her towards the bed cannot be believed. Further more, as per the evidence of P.W-1, he had no acquaintance with the accused and that there is material discrepancy regarding the alleged time of the occurrence. Further more, he categorically admitted in the cross examination that he is not the scribe of Ex.P-1, but it was scribed by one P. Veera Reddy, his uncle, who is not examined as a witness in this case. Now let us see the main evidence of P.W-4. According to her chief examination, she has seen the accused on the day of the incident. While she was preparing food, the accused caught hold of her hand and dragged her to the bed to have sexual intercourse and she raise hue and cry, and that neighbours came to the spot and that she started weeping and came out of the house. Thereafter, P.Ws-2 and 3 came to her house. She further deposed that on seeing them, the accused ran away and her husband also came into the house. She positively asserted that she saw the accused for the first time on the date of the incident only. During the course of cross examination, she admitted that the accused entered her house between 12 noon and 1 p.m, Ex.D-1 is the material contradiction which was marked during the course of her cross examination. As per Ex.D-1, P.W-4 stated to the police that at 10 a.m., the accused outraged her modesty. In the later part of her cross examination, she deposed that at the time when the accused entered the house, she was alone in the first floor of the house and her children were playing in the ground floor and that her husband came to her house after accused left the house. This part of evidence of P.W-4 cuts the prosecution story at the gross root level. On combined reading of evidence of P.Ws-1 and 4, it is an admitted fact that the accused is not known to them earlier and they had seen the accused on that day only. If the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 4 is correct, any ordinary prudent man can believe that a stranger in the first moment of his sight venture to molest the lady that too in a broad day light under the guise of repairing a telephone that too being an employee in Telephone Department. Admittedly, the house where the alleged offence took place is a busy locality and either side of the road there are shops. If that be the case, is it believable that the accused committed this type of offence and it is very easy for any one to caught hold of the accused soon after the incident. Therefore, in my honest view, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 is not corroborative, convincing and trustworthy. In cases of this nature, the corroborative evidence is very much essential. It is also decided in catena of decisions, that the Court can lay conviction on the sole testimony of a single witness, if the said testimony is true, genuine, reliable and trustworthy. The evidence of P.W-1 in any manner convincing, natural, trust worthy in view of the material contradiction and improved version before the Court. Further more, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution, as they are close and intimate that apart their evidence is discrepant and not corroborative. Viewed from any angle in the totality of circumstances the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 354 IPC and I find the accused not guilty for the charges framed against him. Therefore, the findings of the two courts below are not sustainable and accordingly set aside. In the result, the Revision is allowed. Bail bonds shall be cancelled and the fine amount if any paid shall be refunded. ____________________ 11.2.2011 CHV