The physical impossibility for one person to be present at two places at the same time was a key legal principle established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is therefore prayed that revision petition so filed on behalf of petitioner-plaintiff may kindly be allowed and order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ratangarh district Churu dated 25-9-2002 may kindly be quashed and set aside and same be declared illegal and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dungargarh dated 18-10-2000 may kindly be ordered to be restored looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the accused-non-petitioner No. 1 Moola Ram may kindly be punished and convicted for the offence under Section 454 and 354 I.P.C. and he be awarded sentence."

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner are that on 03.07.1999, at about 07:15 p.m., the complainant-petitioner Mena Devi lodged a written report at Police Station Sandwa with the allegation that on 02.07.1999 at 06:30 p.m. while her husband was not at home, Moola Ram, Respondent no. 1, molested her and attempted to sexually assault her. That upon lodging of said report, the S.H.O. Police Station Sandwa registered an F.I.R. and filed the chargesheet under Sections 454 and 354 I.P.C. against Moola Ram. Subsequently, charges were framed against him by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sri. Dungargarh, and after trial, vide judgment dated 18.10.2000, the Court found Moola Ram guilty, thereby convicted him for the offences under Sections 454 and 354 I.P.C. and awarded him a sentence of 3 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo a sentence of 6 months, and 2 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which he was to further undergo an imprisonment of 1 month, respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently. However, on an appeal filed by Moola Ram, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ratangarh District Churu, vide the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2002, acquitted him of the aforementioned charges and set aside the conviction.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court rightly passed the judgment dated 18.10.2000 after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the evidences placed on the record before it, and that the learned Appellate Court has grossly erred in overturning the conviction of Moola Ram.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2002 passed by the learned Appellate Court suffers from non application of mind, as there was clear evidence available, in the form of eye witness testimony, corroborating the version of the prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner also submits that although the State did not prefer an appeal against the acquittal of Respondent No. 1, Moola Ram, the complainant, being the revisionist-petitioner, seeks to overturn the acquittal of Moola Ram, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in A.I.R. 2000 (SC) 3418 and the judgment of this Court reported in Cr.LR. Page 860 in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. State of Rajasthan.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner also submits that there was delay in filing of the F.I.R., which has been adequately explained and rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Court, being that the F.I.R. was lodged after father-in-law of the revisionist petitioner (the complainant), returned home and that she could not go alone to the Police Station.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the learned Trial Court rightly observed that Moola Ram is habitual offender, and that he was also once granted the benefit under the Probation