JUDGMENT :

The instant criminal revision petition is preferred by Dr. Anup Kumar Baruah (herein after referred to as the petitioner), challenging the judgment and order dated 17.08.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon in GR Case No.929/2009, convicting the petitioner under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment and order dated 03.03.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.33/2013 by the learned Sessions Judge Morigaon, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner and upholding the Judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon.

2. The genesis of the case was that on 05.09.2009, at about 1 pm, the victim ‘X’ went to Lily Medical Hall from her school to consult a doctor for her irregular menstrual periods. She was accompanied by two friends to the pharmacy and the petitioner was attending patients in his chamber in the pharmacy. The petitioner took the victim to his chamber for check-up and he unbuttoned the victim's blouse and started to grope her breasts. The victim protested, but the petitioner, a doctor tried to reassure her that such contact was not inappropriate. Thereafter, the petitioner removed the victim's panties and attempted to sexually assault her. The victim raised alarm and her friends entered into the doctor's chamber and brought her out. She narrated about the incident to her elder brother ‘Y’ (name withheld) who lodged the FIR on the same day. The Morigaon PS case No.155/2009 was registered and investigation commenced. On finding prima facie materials against the petitioner, charge sheet was laid against the petitioner under section 354 of the IPC.

3. Heard learned Senior counsel Mr.T.J.Mahanta assisted by learned counsel Mr. T. Gogoi for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. R.J.Baruah for the State of Assam.

4. Now, as this petition is under Section 397 / 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC for short), this Court is not required to delve into the nitty gritties of the evidence. The propriety and legality of the judgment is to be assessed by this Court. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner laid stress in his argument that an important medical officer was not examined and nor was the I.O. examined. The learned counsel delved into the intricacies of the evidence. The petitioner is prejudiced at present as argued. The contents of the FIR and the statement of the victim under Section 161 as well as 164 CrPC, and the depositions of the victim are contradictory. The conviction was based solely on the victim's statement. The victim’s brother ‘Y’ testified as PW1 that his sister informed him about the incident after she reached home, whereas his sister ‘X’ deposed as PW2 that after the incident, she came out of the pharmacy and informed Ujjal Nath about the incident and Ujjal Nath called her brother (PW-1) over phone and when her brother had arrived, she informed her brother about the incident. It is further submitted that while submitting charge sheet, 12 witnesses were enlisted in the charge sheet, but the prosecution examined only 7 witnesses, and thus the truth could not be properly unearthed by the prosecution. Two medical officers were examined by the prosecution, but one medical officer was not produced as a witness. It is submitted that the trial court had overlooked the admission of the petitioner. Trial court has ignored the admission of the petitioner who admitted that he had touched the victim's breasts as a part of the medical test, according to medical jurisprudence. It is further submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court ignored the contradictory evidence of the two friends of the victim. A woman police constable who had accompanied the victim to the court for recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC wa