THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.NO.126 of 2006 ORDER: The sole accused was convicted for the offence under Section 354 IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kandukur. The sole accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.200/- with appropriate default sentence. In the appeal, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole reversed the finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kandukur. The appellate Court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC. The accused consequently was acquitted. Aggrieved by the same, t h e defacto-complainant preferred the present revision. The revision petitioner is P.W.1. 2. The case of the prosecution is that during the small hours of 26.06.2004, the accused entered into the house of P.W.2 and outraged the modesty of P.W.1, daughter of P.W.2 and thus committed the offence under Section 354 IPC. P.W.1 is the victim. P.W.2 is her father. P.W.3 is the mother of P.W.1. P.Ws.4 to 6 are the neighbours. Apart from P.Ws.1 to 6, the prosecution examined P.Ws.7 and 8, who are police officials. They were not eyewitnesses for the incident proper. 3. It is the case of Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the defacto-complainant/revision petitioner, that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 4. The case of P.W.1 is that the accused entered into the house, where P.W.1 was sleeping, woke up P.W.1, gagged the mouth of P.W.1 and more or less tried to molest P.W.1 and that the accused thus outraged the modesty of P.W.1. Her further case is that when P.W.1 raised alarm, P.Ws.2 to 6 came into the house and caught hold of the accused. The accused then allegedly ran away from the clutches of P.Ws.2 to 6. 5. P.W.2 claimed that after attending a Communist part meeting, he returned home at about 2.30 a.m. on 26.06.2004 and that while he was at a short distance from his house, he heard the alarm of P.W.1. It is his case that he then rushed into the house and found the accused in the company of P.W.1 and was in the process of trying to rape P.W.1. P.W.2 further contended that he caught hold of the accused on witnessing the incident and that while he was questioning the accused about his behaviour with P.W.1, P.Ws.4 to 6 and others came into the house. The accused allegedly took to heels when P.Ws.4 to 6 entered the house of P.W.2. 6. P.W.3, mother of P.W.1 deposed that she was sleeping outside the house while P.W.1 was sleeping inside the house at the time of the incident, that the accused outraged the modesty of P.W.1 by laying himself over P.W.1 and by gagging her mouth and that P.Ws.2 and 3 questioned the accused about his conduct. P.W.3 thus deposed that P.W.2 as well as P.W.3 questioned the accused about his conduct towards P.W.1. On the other hand, P.W.2 deposed that he alone questioned the accused about his conduct. P.W.1, in her turn, does not speak about the questioning of the accused either by P.W.2 or by P.W.3. 7. P.Ws.2 and 3, however, claimed that P.Ws.4 to 6 came on to the scene of offence after the incident, on hearing the alarm of P.W.1 only. 8. P.W.4 deposed that he found the accused in the bedroom of P.W.1 and that when P.Ws.4 to 6 entered the house of P.W.2, the accused took to heels. P.W.5 and another neighbour deposed that they found the accused in the house of P.W.2 and that P.Ws.4 to 6 and others questioned the accused about his presence at that hour at the house of P.W.2. P.W.5 further deposed that the witnesses tried to hold a mediation before the elders and that the accused at that juncture took to heels. P.W.6 and another eyewitness deposed that he and other witnesses found the accused with P.W.1 inside the house and that when the witnesses questioned the accused about his presence at the house of P.W.2, the accused ran away. While P.W.5 speaks about the mediation, P.Ws.4 and 6 do not speak about the same. While P.Ws.5 and 6 speak about questioning the accused for his explanation why he was present at the house of P.W.2 at that hour. P.W.4 does not speak about the same. 9. Thus, there is any amount of contradictions between the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on the one side and the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 on the other side as well as between the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 on the whole. Taking these contradictions into consideration, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole considered that the offence was not made out by giving benefit of doubt to the accused. 10. In view of the contradictions referred to above, I see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, I see no merits in this revision. 11. The Criminal Revision Case, accordingly, is dismissed. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. The fine amount, if paid by the accused, shall be refunded to him. __________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J 10th March 2011 KSP