THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2034 of 2004 ORDER: 1 Questioning the judgment dated 07.11.2003 passed in S.C.No.114 of 2003 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki, the de facto complainant in the said case preferred this revision. 2 The facts that led to filing of the present revision are that on 16.12.2002 at 6.00 PM, when the petitioner went to back yard located on the back side of her house for attending calls of nature, the accused / respondent, taking the advantage of her loneliness, came there and caught hold of her and tried to outrage her modesty and push her on the ground to fulfill his evil desire. In the meantime when L.W.7 Kaki Kotamma arrived there, the accused left the place. In that connection a case in Cr.No.89 of 2002 under section 354 of IPC was registered by the Station House Officer, Santhamangalur P.S. and investigated into. After completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet, which was taken on file as PRC No.2 of 2003 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Addanki and after committal the same was numbered as S.C.No. 114 of 2003. 3 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. However, the defence could succeed in getting marked Ex.D.1 a portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. The trial court having assessed the entire evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the respondent for the charged offence and accordingly acquitted him by judgment dated 07.11.2003. As stated supra, questioning the said judgment, the de facto complainant preferred this revision. 4 Heard both sides. 5 Having gone through the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the view that the said findings given by the court below needs no interference. The learned trial Judge while appreciating the entire evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent is not guilty of the said offence punishable under section 354 of IPC and, which in my considered view, needs no interference. Further, this is a revision filed against an order of acquittal under sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, under which the scope and jurisdiction of this court is very much limited. The said jurisdiction can be invoked by this court in rarest of rare cases when the lower court has committed a gross error or not followed the relevant provisions of law in proper perspective. That too, even if the court below commits any error apparent this court at best can remand the matter to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law, but cannot give an altogether different finding. Here in this case, the finding of the court below is based on sound appreciation of the evidence available on record, and hence, the said finding needs no interference. 6 Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. -------------- 28.01.2011 Kvsn