The admissibility of the victim's statement, the reliability of police witnesses, and the sufficiency of the petitioner's defense were central legal points established in the judgment.

Hima Kohli, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for setting aside the judgment dated 31.5.2013 passed by the appellate court in Appeal No. 81/2012, whereby the judgment on conviction dated 21.8.2012 passed by the learned MM was upheld and the order on sentence dated 19.11.2012 was modified. By the impugned judgment, the appellant court had concurred with the trial court and held that the petitioner is liable for the offence punishable under Sections 354/34 IPC. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year imposed on the petitioner by the trial court was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment of three months.

2. The petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment dated 31.5.2013 mainly on the ground that the learned ASJ had failed to take into consideration the fact that the victim herein spoke only Telugu language which could not be understood by the police officers and therefore there was no ground available to presume that she was mentally ill. He points out that the victim who was arrayed by the prosecution as PW-11 had been partly examined before the trial court but later on, she was dropped from the array of witnesses and yet the learned M.M. had relied upon her testimony for convicting the petitioner. He states that the judgment of the trial court is unsustainable and the learned ASJ has committed an error in upholding the order of conviction whereas he ought to have set aside the said order solely on the aforesaid ground. Lastly, he has submitted that a material witness, i.e., the police officer who had translated the statement of the victim from Telugu language during the course of the investigation, had not been arrayed by the prosecution as a witness in this case and the said oversight ought to have been treated as fatal to the case of the prosecution.

3. This Court has perused the records including the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court, the order of conviction and the order on sentence passed by the learned M.M. As per the impugned order, the incident in question had occurred on 18.10.2004, when Ct. Lalit Yadav (PW2) and Ct. Raj Kumar (PW1) who were present at the police picket at Samta Sathal, were informed by a passerby that two persons were committing obscene acts with a female behind the Samta Sathal. PW1 and PW2 had reached the spot and found that two accused persons were forcing themselves upon a woman and trying to outrage her modesty. Both of them were apprehended and in the meantime, I.O. Ram Swaroop Singh along with a Head Constable had reached the spot.

4. On making enquiries, it was revealed that the victim in question was mentally retarded as she was unable to disclose her name and her particulars. On the statement of Constable Raj Kumar(PW1), the present FIR No.547/04 was registered under Section 354/34 IPC. Both the petitioner and the other accused had pleaded not guilty and they had claimed trial. The prosecution had cited thirteen witnesses. During the course of the trial, the co-accused had stopped appearing and he was declared as a proclaimed offender. As for the present petitioner, the trial court considered the evidence placed on record and concluded that the petitioner was guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354/34 IPC and accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year.

5. Aggrieved by the orders of conviction and sentence, the appellant/petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. By the impugned judgment dated 31.5.2013, the learned ASJ had upheld the order of conviction but reduced the sentence imposed on the petitioner from rigorous imprisonment for one year to RI for six months alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default thereof, simple imprisonment for three months.

6. It is a settled law that while exercising its power under Secti