IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that consistent witness testimonies, despite minor discrepancies, can substantiate a conviction under IPC provisions.

ORDER :

Assailing the judgment dated 15.02.2010 in Crl.A.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 30.04.2008 in S.C.No.52 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram, for the offences under section 447, 353, 354 and 510 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 28.04.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1320 of 2010.

3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:

(i). On 01.04.2005 at about 11.00 a.m., while P.W.1 had been discharging duties as Senior Assistant in the District S.C. Society Limited at Vizianagaram, accused came to the said office in drunken state and asked her to give proceedings immediately, she informed that she had been preparing office copy, after preparation of the same, obtain the signature of the Executive Director and then proceedings will be issued and it will take four days.

(ii). On that, accused pounced upon her, pressed her cheeks stating that she was looking for so beauty, caught hold her hands, sat by the side of her on a bench and demanded to give the papers. He visited the office for four times on that day till 04.00 p.m. in drunken state and continued his attitude.

(iii). Basing on Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, on the same day i.e., 01.04.2005, P.W.4-A.S.I of Vizianagaram I Town Police registered a case in Cr.No.04 of 2005 under Section 448, 353, 354 and 510 of IPC and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, P.W.5-S.I of Police, laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as P.R.C.No.03 of 2005 on the file of Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vizianagaram, committed to the Court of Sessions, numbered as S.C.No.52 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram, after full-fledged Trial, vide judgment dated 30.04.2008, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 447, 353, 354 and 510 of IPC, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three (3) months, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three (3) months, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of five (5) years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (3) months and also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of one day, for the respective offences. All the sentences imposed against the accused shall run concurrently.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.22 of 2008, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 15.02.2010, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

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

7. Heard Sri V.Santhisree, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing 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 first Appellate Court?”

9. Sri V.Santhisree, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submits that there are so many material contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3; that prosecution has not sent the accused for medical examination to prove that whether he is in drunken state or not; that in the absence of medical evidence and in view of the omissions and contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3, the trial Court as well first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the m