Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting manifest errors, perversity, or illegality in findings, and cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence when lower courts have reached concurrent findings based on credible testimony, especially in sensitive cases like outraging the modesty of a child.

ORDER:

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

1. The instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.07.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2013 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole, confirming the judgment, dt. 13.02.2013, in S.C. No.252 of 2012 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chirala, whereby and where under the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has sentenced the present petitioner and directed to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of fine, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of conviction and sentence perverse and not tenable in law. He further submits that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are false and inconsistent and thereby the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.06.2012 at about 3:30 P.M., P.W.2, a student of an aided elementary school, returned from school and slept on the cot with fever. When P.W.1 (mother) questioned her daughter (P.W.2) as to what had happened, then P.W.2 had informed her that she went to the shop of the petitioner, located nearby the school, for purchasing eatables. The petitioner invited her to come to the house and gave her a guava fruit. At that time, the accused touched her private parts and behaved in an indecent manner. P.W.1, the mother of the victim girl, informed the elders in the vicinity and went to the house of the petitioner and questioned him. Then the accused picked up a quarrel with P.W.1 and abused her in filthy language.Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint.

4. During trial, prosecution has examined eight witnesses and produced three documents. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hearing arguments from both parties, the learned trial court has found the petitioner to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C. and passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence. The said conviction was challenged before the appellate court. The learned appellate court has confirmed the sentence by dismissing the appeal. Hence the instant revision case.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.2. He submits that, it has been stated by P.W.2 that she along with other students went to the shop of the accused for purchase eatables. But the prosecution has failed to produce any witness, who accompanied P.W.2 to the sundry shop of the accused. He further submits that, P.W.2 has stated that accused kept plaster on the mouth of the petitioner at the time of commission of the offence, but such plaster was not recovered by police. He again submitted that, there are full of exaggerations and improvements in the case of prosecution only to falsely implicate the petitioner in the alleged offence. He further argued the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 was not believed by the learned trial court, but the learned appellate court without any reason has believed their statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that there are no eye witnesses in the alleged incident. Thus the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the petitioner. He submits that, there are omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which were not taken into consideration by the learned trial court. He submits that, the evidence of P.W.2 (victim girl) is doubtful and cannot be believed to record the conviction.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that P.W.2 is a 10 years old girl upon whom the petitioner has committed torture. P.W.2 appeared before the court and from her evidence the entire fact is revealed. P.W.2 is not a tutored witness. No suggestion on behalf of the defence