The court reaffirmed that minor contradictions in the complainant's testimony do not invalidate her account, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction focused on correcting miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

CRL.M.A. 5154/2022 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.REV.P. 155/2022 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 301/2022

3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 4th March, 2022 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-5 (ASJ), South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, dated 28th July, 2016 and 17th August, 2016 were upheld.

4. The facts as are relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated briefly.

5. The petitioner was employed in Bangkok Mart, Lajpat Nagar, where, the complainant also obtained a job as Accountant through `Monster.com'. On 7th July, 2014, the shop was to be closed early, as the owner's uncle had expired. The shift usually ended up at 7:30 PM, but on that day, the women staff occupying other rooms started to leave around 4 PM but the complainant got late due to heavy paper work. The complainant was able to wrap up to leave around 4:30 PM. At that time, the petitioner is alleged to have held her from behind and she could free herself after much struggle and came out from the back door after arranging the key. Since her initial complaint to Monster.com regarding the incident did not result in any action against the petitioner till 9th July, 2014, she lodged a complaint with the police which was registered as FIR No.455/2014 at Police Station Lajpat Nagar under Section 354 IPC.

6. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 7th August, 2014. Upon being summoned, the petitioner entered appearance on 8th December, 2014. He pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him on 30th November, 2015, whereafter, the prosecution examined four witnesses. The petitioner also examined himself as a defence witness. On conclusion of the hearing and upon consideration of the material, the learned Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the petitioner for having committed the offence under Section 354 IPC. This judgment was announced on 28th July, 2016. Vide order on sentence dated 17th August, 2016, the learned Mahila Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and directed him to pay the compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the victim.

7. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.204678/2016 which was heard by the learned ASJ-5, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi. Upon consideration of all the material as was before the Appellate Court, the learned ASJ found no infirmity in the judgment and order on sentence and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

8. This petition has been filed challenging the conclusions of the learned Appellate Court.

9. Mr. Puneet Khurana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that both the courts below have overlooked material flaws in the prosecution's case and therefore, the conviction and sentence was liable to be set aside. It was submitted by learned counsel that both the courts have overlooked contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix/complainant. It is the submission of learned counsel that in view of these contradictions, no reliance could have been placed on the sole testimony of PW-1/prosecutrix/complainant to convict the petitioner. It was submitted that whereas in the FIR, it was claimed that the petitioner had held her from behind and declared that he