Credibility of injured eyewitnesses is paramount; their testimony cannot be disregarded solely due to relationships with the complainant. Minor inconsistencies do not negate the prosecution's case.

ORDER :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.

Challenging judgment dated 21.11.2016 passed by Spl. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.A.no.24/2016 confirming judgment dated 21.03.2016 passed by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, in CC no.294/2015, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Manu Shankar S.S., learned counsel for petitioners submitted, this revision petition is by accused no.1 and 2, challenging concurrent erroneous findings leading to conviction of above accused for offences punishable under Sections 323 , 447, 504 and 354 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (‘ IPC ’, of short).

3. It was submitted, as per prosecution case, at 11.30 a.m. on 18.12.2014 victim was working in house list no.95 in Sirigondanahalli village of Hosadurga Taluk, when accused arrived there and began quarreling with complainant abusing him in foul language. At that time, accused no.1 pushed victim to ground and assaulted him with club, while accused no.2 to 4 assaulted her with their hands and legs and tried to outrage her modesty and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 447 , 323, 324, 354, 504 read with 34 of IPC and complaint was filed at 8:00 pm on 19.12.2014. Same was registered as Crime no.209/2014.

4. After investigation, prosecution filed charge sheet in CC no.294/2015. Since accused pleaded not guilty, matter was set for trial. Wherein, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and Exhibits P1 to 8. It was submitted, in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’, for short), accused denied material as false.

5. On consideration, trial Court acquitted accused no.3 and 4, but convicted accused no.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 323 , 447, 504 and 354 read with Section 34 of IPC , imposing sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months with pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for offence under Section 323 ; simple imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 354 and with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for offence under Section 504 of .

6. Aggrieved by same, accused filed Crl.Appeal no.24/2016. However, without proper consideration, same was dismissed, leading to this revision petition.

7. It was submitted, in support of its charges, prosecution examined nine witnesses. PW.1 was complainant, PWs.2 and 3 were mahazar witnesses, PWs.4 to 7 were injured witnesses, PW.8 was Doctor and PW.9 was Investigating Officer (‘IO’ for short). It was firstly submitted, impugned judgments of conviction were based on deposition of interested witnesses. In his cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that PW.2 was his close friend and PW.3 was his relative. He also admitted that incident occurred in public place in presence of 8-10 persons including independent persons. Despite same, there was failure to record their statements, casting doubt about prosecution case.

8. It was submitted there was unexplained delay in filing of complaint. Incident occurred at 11:30 am on 18.12.2014. Complaint was filed more than 24 hours later at 8:30 pm without proper explanation. Further, PW.1 admitted that PW.7 had informed doctors at Hospital about incident. And Police arrived within 2 hours on intimation by Hospital. Yet, there was no explanation why PW.7 had not lodged complaint. Thus, delay in filing complaint was unexplained and fatal.

9. It was submitted, PW.1 further admitted that there