The absence of independent witnesses does not negate the reliability of a victim's testimony, and minor discrepancies do not undermine the core of the case.

ORDER :

Accused Nos.1 and 2 who were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter) in C.C.No.371/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, had approached the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta by filing Crl.A.No.11/2023 and by judgment dated 31.8.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence. Challenging the concurrent verdicts, this revision has been filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. I shall refer the parties in this revision as ‘prosecution’ and ‘accused’ for easy reference, hereafter.

4. The prosecution case is that, in furtherance of common intention shared by the accused to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant, at about 8.00 p.m. on 18.9.2011 while the de facto complainant was travelling in an Autorickshaw along with accused Nos.1 and 2 through Nellikala-Vattakavu public road, the 1st accused pressed on the left breast of the de facto complainant and the 2nd accused caught on her belly and thereby, outraged her modesty. Thus, offence under Section 354 r/w Section 34 of the IPC was alleged by the prosecution against the accused. Initially, crime was registered alleging commission of the said offence and on completion of investigation final report also filed accordingly.

5. The trial court took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Thereafter, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, highlighting the incriminating circumstances against them found in evidence and they denied the same. Although opportunity was provided to the accused to adduce defence evidence, no evidence adduced.

6. The trial court addressed the question as to whether the prosecution succeeded in proving commission of offence under Section 354 r/w Section 34 of the IPC by the accused and the trial court relied on the evidence of PW1 supported by PW4, her mother in a case where PW2-the Autorickshaw driver, PW3-the neighbour and PW6-the husband of the de facto complainant, were turned hostile to the prosecution. Relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW4, the trial court found that the prosecution succeeded in proving commission of offence under Section 354 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, by the accused. Accordingly, the accused were convicted for the said offence and in consideration of the fact that the occurrence was on 18.9.2011, which is before amendment of Section 354 of the IPC which enhanced punishment as “shall not be less than one year”, and in consideration of the fact that the unamended provision provided punishment upto two years or with fine or with both, the accused were sentenced to undergo for rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 354 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Although the verdict of the trial court was challenged before the appellate court, as per judgment in Crl.A.No.11/2023 dated 31.8.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also concurred the finding of the trial court.

7. The learned counsel for the accused would submit that there are contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW4 and the same were not considered by the trial court as well as the appellate court. According to the learned counsel, PW1 gave evidence in excess of what she had stated before the police in the First Information Statement. Further, PW4 is not an occurrence witness. She had only hearsay knowledge. It is pointed out that PW2-the Autorickshaw driver and PW3-