IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to the acquittal of an accused in cases of alleged sexual offenses.

ORDER :

V. Srinivas, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 18.12.2009 in Crl.A.No.103 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused by the judgment dated 09.07.2008 in S.C.No.73 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, for the charges under section 448 and 354 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 23.12.2009 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3066 of 2009.

3. The shorn of prosecution case is that :

(i). On 29.08.2007, in the morning hours, P.W.2 went to Mylavaram for purchase of medicines as he is practicing as P.M.P. doctor and P.W.1, who is wife of P.W.2, was alone present in the house. Then the accused went to her house and asked her to give some tablets for his mother and P.W.1 given some tables. Few minutes thereafter, accused again came to her and asked to give another tablet. While P.W.1 was going inside the house, accused followed her and caught hold her hand, took her into her bedroom and outraged the modesty demanding her to satisfy his lust. On that P.W.1 resisted and raised crimes and then the accused escaped from the place by threatening her with dire consequences. On hearing her cries, neighbors came there.

(ii). Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.6-A.S.I., Mylavaram Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.139p of 2007 for the offences under Section 448 and 354 of IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, P.W.6 filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as P.R.C.No.44 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, committed to the Court of Sessions, numbered as S.C.No.73 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, after full-fledged trial, vide judgment dated 09.07.2008, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 354 and 448 of IPC, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in-default to suffer simple imprisonment of one week and also sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one week, for the respective offences.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.103 of 2008, before the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 18.12.2009, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

6. Against the said judgment of the Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

7. Heard Sri Md. Ismail, learned counsel representing Smt. D. Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?”

9. Sri Md. Ismail, learned counsel representing Smt. D. Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that prosecution failed to establish the ingredients to constitute the charge alleged against the petitioner; that there is abnormal delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that the sole testimony of P.W.1 is interested in nature and same cannot be relied upon; that none of the neighbours were examined to support the prosecution version, which is fatal to the prosecution case; that there is material discrepancy in 161 statement and Ex.P.1 with regard to date of incident, which is not c