THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1043 OF 2005 DATED 8th DECEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : Peram Madhukar ..Petitioner-A.2 and The State of A.P. ..Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1043 OF 2005 ORDER: This is a revision arising out of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2003 on 12.04.2005. Initially, petitioner-A.2 was prosecuted along with A.1 by the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala, in C.C.No.39 of 2001 in which petitioner-A.2 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. Case against A.1 was ended in acquittal in view of the compromise between de facto complainant and A.1. Challenging the said judgment, A.2 filed an appeal. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on A.2 by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, present revision has been preferred by the petitioner. Heard. Originally, as stated above A.1 and A.2 are arrayed as accused and case against A.1 was compounded by the complainant and case against the present petitioner was proceeded. Accused was convicted on the basis of the evidence adduced by P.W.1. P.W.1 in her evidence specifically has not stated the date of occurrence and the manner in which accused committed the offence and also any filthy words used by the accused. Without mentioning any of them, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the Police and also she has not deposed anything in that connection. It is also the further case of P.W.1 that on 19.01.2000 A.2 caught hold of her saree and asked her to fulfil his sexual desire. But, it is seen from the cross examination that she has not stated the same at the time of examination by the Police, which is clearly an improvement and a material omission amounting to contradiction. In such a situation, convicting a person by placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 is highly unsafe. Hence, the impugned judgment needs interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court is hereby set aside. Petitioner-A.2 is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Fine amount paid by the petitioner- A.2, if any, be returned to him. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 08.12.2010 sur