V.K. Bali, C.J. (Oral)

Petitioner - Vasudevan was tried for the offences under Sections 451 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. After the trial on the offences mentioned above, he was held guilty and convicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was also held guilty and convicted under Section 451 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. There was a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- under Section 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. out of the final realized. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18th February, 1995 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikara, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikara vide order dated 9th August, 1996. It is against these two orders, the present criminal revision petition has been filed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that even if one is to go by the statement of the prosecutrix Saraswathy, examined as PW1 and take her entire statement as gospel truth, no case under Section 354 IPC can be made out against the petitioner. There appears to be considerable merit in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel. The statement of PW1, the prosecutrix in the present case when translated into English would read as follows:

"Examination in Chief:

I know the accused Vasudevan. I was manhandled in the incident involved in this case. The incident occurred inside the kitchen of my house. The incident occurred at 6.00 PM on 5-4-1991. Myself along with my children were taking food at the time of the incident.

The accused caught hold of my hair and slapped on my left cheek. I was slapped by asking as to whether you need a way. The beating was on the left cheek. Pain developed on the portion where I was slapped. My brother's son was present at the time of the incident. He was standing outside the house. Hearing my cry, he came to the spot. Apart from him, Maniyal also saw the incident. He was collecting coconut in the neighbouring house. At the time of incident, there was nobody in the house other than myself and my children. I felt humiliated by the act of the accused entering into my house and assaulting me. The accused has assaulted me because of the dispute regarding the way. After the incident, I went to the police station at 8'O clock on the next day morning. My husband had gone for his work on a bus. There was nobody else in the house. The statement which I had given was recorded by the police. This is my signature F.I.S. is marked as Ext.P1.

Cross Examination:

I know the accused for the last 4 years. Making local alcohol, drinking it and creating trouble, are his main activities. I don't know as to whether he is having any other job. I don't know about his source of income. It is not known to me as to whether the accused is going for any work. My husband is working as the cleaner of G.P. Bus. The accused is the conductor of that Bus? No it is not true (Answer). The incident took place at about 6.00 PM. My husband who goes for work in the early morning returns to house by 9'O clock or 10'O clock in the night. I had revealed everything to my husband. I asked him to complain about the incident to the concerned authorities. He replied to me to wait till the next day morning. The accused is residing on my adjacent north. Our way is through the immediate north of the property of the accused. We are using that way. The accused had entered the house by asking me as to whether you need a way. The Panchayath had given the way through the property of Plamoottil Baby. The way had not been created through the property of the accused. The way had been arranged had not been taken for the purpose of the way. I had not stated to the police that the