THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Criminal Revision Case No. 550 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 20.11.2000 on the file of court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in S.C.No.476 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the sole accused was acquitted of the offence charged against him under Section 354 IPC. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that on 25.2.1998 at about 1.00 p.m. while PW.1-Sukka Jayamma was collecting fire wood in the field of one Laxmi Narasiah, the accused went there and caught hold of her saree and dragged towards trees, and when she raised cries, PW.3- Errolla Veeraiah and PW.4-Sukka Pedda Lingaiah rushed there and on seeing them the accused ran way. Then PW.1 went to her house and informed her husband-PW.2- Sukka Butchaiah, about the incident. On 28.2.1998, PW.1 went to the Police Station along with PW.2 and lodged Ex.P.1- complaint before PW.6, the then A.S.I. of Kattangur Police Station, who registered crime by issuing F.I.R.- Ex.P.3 and started investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and conducted Panchanama in the presence of PW.5 and another and seized broken bangle piece-M.O.1 and prepared rough sketch. He examined PWs 3 and 4. Subsequently, PW.7, the then Sub- Inspector of Police, Kattangur took up the case and verified the investigation done by PW.6 and caused enquiry for the accused and found the accused absconding. PW.7 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC before the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal. 3. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nalgonda as the offence under Section 354 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions, in turn, made over the case to the Assistant Sessions Judge at Nalgonda. 4. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.4 were marked in support of the prosecution case, besides marking M.O.1- broken bangle pieces. 5. After conclusion of the trial, the trial court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC and accordingly acquitted him. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-defacto complainant contended that the court below without appreciating the prosecution evidence on record, acquitted the accused and as such the impugned order does not stand legal scrutiny. 7. It is seen that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1 on the one hand and PWs 3 and 4 on the other with regard to the circumstances, informing PWs 3 and 4 about the incident by PW.1 and the timing of the alleged offence. PW.1 in her cross- examination admitted that a criminal case is pending against her son Ramalingaiah for outraging the modesty of the daughter of the accused. The wife of the accused filed a defamation case before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal, against her husband and the same ended in conviction and against the conviction, an appeal is preferred before the II Additional District & Sessions Court, Nalgonda and the same is pending. It is stated by PW.1 that S.C.No.278 of 1999 is pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda against her son in the suicide case of the daughter of the accused. PW.1 admitted that she got foisted this case against the accused with a view to compel the accused to compromise in the cases against her son which are now pending. PW.2, the husband of PW.1 also admitted about filing of defamation case against him by the wife of the accused and his conviction therein. He also admitted about filing of another case against his son for outraging the modesty of the daughter of the accused. Further, on perusal of the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 5, it appears that they have personal grudge against the accused, and as such their evidence cannot be relied on. 8. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly admission of PW.1 in her cross- examination that she foisted this case against the accused with a view to compel him to compromise in the cases against her son, this court has no hesitation to hold that a false case is foisted against the accused. As such, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference from this court. 9. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed ________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J .03.2010 Stp