The importance of material evidence and consistency in the prosecutrix's statements in establishing the intent to outrage modesty.

M.L. Singhal, J. - Facts have been given in detail at the time of admission of this Criminal Revision. Those need not be repeated now. As laid in the F.I.R., case of Ms. Kailash (prosecutrix) is that on 13.8.96 at about 9 A.M. she was cutting grass with her uncle near the dol in her field. Someone snatched her chunni from behind. When she looked back, she saw that they were Krishan Kumar son of Shamsher Singh and Bobby son of Vijay Pal. She wielded darati towards Krishan. He remained unhurt. Bobby caught hold of her both hands from back side. Krishan Kumar tied the chunni on her mouth. She tried her best to rescue herself. Both of them threatened to kill her. They gave blows with their hands on the breast. She succeeded in freeing her hands and removed chunni from her mouth and cried for help. Her uncle Parkash came from the side of tubewell. Both of them ran away towards the village.

2. From these facts it is not made out that there was any outrage on her modesty by them. It they gave blows with their hands on her breast that would not satisfy their carnal pleasure. If they had fondled her breast that might have satisfied their carnal pleasure. At the trial, she stated that when she was cutting the grass in the fields, Krishan Kumar closed her mouth from the back side. When she looked back, Bobby was also found standing there. She showed darati on which Bobby caught hold of her by her both hands and wrapped chunni on her mouth and when she cried for help, her uncle replied that he was coming. Both of them touched her breast. At the trial, she thus improved upon her earlier version. If they touched her breast that was with intent to gratify their lust. Act of gratifying their lust would be an outrage on her modesty. Parkash PW is her uncle. He stated that on 13.8.96 at about 9 A.M. he came to his fields for starting tubewell. There, he heard the noise of a woman, who was crying for help saying Bachao-Bachao. On hearing her cries, he went to the spot and found that Hans Kumar had caught hold of the hands of his niece and Krishan was having chunni. On seeing him, they touched her breast and threatened that in case they told any one, her brothers would be killed. Defence of the accused was that she was committing theft of Jawar and Bajra from the fields of Shamsher Singh father of Krishan Kumar and when they saw her carrying Jawar and Bajra, they snatched her jholi in order to recover their jawar and bajra. There was exchange of hot words between the families of both regarding stealing of crop and this case was got registered the following day. Probability of the defence version being true cannot be ruled out. There was substantial improvement on the first version lodged by her before the police, which did not disclose any attempt at outraging her modesty. If they meant to outrage her modesty, they would not have given blows on her breast. They would have touched the vulnerable parts of her body and derived carnal pleasure. There is no appeal against this acquittal by the State. It is only a revision against the order of acquittal by the prosecutrix. In revision, there can be no interference with the order of acquittal when it is not shown that some material evidence has either not been considered or some material evidence has been misread, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. For the reasons given above, this revision fails and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.