An acquittal may be upheld if prosecution evidence is inconsistent and does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Viramgam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2011 on 30.06.2012, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Viramgam, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court), in Criminal Case No. 1723 of 2006 on 18.05.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the respondent - original accused to simple imprisonment of 1 year and fine of Rs.700/-, and in default, simple imprisonment of 7 days for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’).

1.1. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. On 16.09.2006 at around 2:00a.m., the complainant, Savitaben, wife of Baldevbai, was sleeping with her children in front of her house at village Thuleta, and at that time, the accused came and caught the hand of the complainant and told her that he wanted to outrage her modesty and tried to do so. As the complainant shouted, her daughters got up and started shouting and the accused fled from the spot. The complainant filed the complaint at the Viramgam Rural Police Station under Section 354 of the IPC, which came to be registered as Viramgam Rural Police Station I-C.R.No.55 of 2006.

2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the charge sheet came to be filed against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Viramgam and came to be registered as Criminal Case No, 1723 of 2006.

2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.3 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.4, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 07 witnesses and produced 06 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence on record. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.05.2011, was pleased to convict the accused for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.

2.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2011 before the learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Viramgam, whereby, the appeal preferred by the accused came to be allowed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Viramgam quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 18.05.2011 in Criminal Case No. 1723 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Viramgam and acquitted t