The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in the accused's acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral):- Present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 02.01.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga upholding the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala, whereby respondent No.2 (herein) was acquitted from the charges under Sections 458 and 354 of IPC.

2. For the sake of brevity, convenience and to avoid any confusions the revisionist-petitioner, who was the original complainant informant in the FIR, will be referred to as ‘complainant’, and respondent No. 2, who was accused in the FIR, will be referred to as ‘accused’, respectively, in the present judgment.

Facts germane to the adjudication of the present revision petition are that FIR No.27 dated 23.03.2016 was registered against accused, resident of village Daudhar Garbi, District Moga under Sections 458 and 354 of IPC at Police Station Badhni Kalan. The trial of the said case was concluded by the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala, and vide its judgment 07.09.2017, the accused was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Aggrieved, by the acquittal of the accused (respondent No.2 herein), the complainant preferred an appeal challenging his acquittal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide the judgment dated 02.01.2019, upheld the order dated 07.09.2017 by holding that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused after appreciating the evidence in correct perspective and hence does not require any interference.

3. Feeling dis-satisfied by the acquittal of the accused (respondent No.2 herein) by both the Courts below, the complainant (revisionist) has preferred the present revision petition challenging his acquittal before this Court.

4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution, in brief, as set up in the FIR is that the complainant namely XXXX, resident of village XXXX, stated that during the intervening night of 15/16.03.2016, following a death in the extended family of her husband, XXXX, who were also their next-door neighbors, her husband requested her to prepare tea around 12:15 am. While, she was preparing tea, the accused, XXXX, silently entered into the kitchen, hugged her from behind and started outraging her modesty. She immediately raised a hue and cry, prompting her husband, her brother-in-law, XXXX, and their neighbor, XXXX, to rush to the scene. A scuffle ensued between her husband and the accused. However, the accused managed to flee from the spot. Due to the shame and distress caused by the incident, she felt compelled to leave her marital home and was unable to report the matter immediately. Subsequently, the complainant, along with her husband and the witnesses, approached the local police station to file a formal complaint regarding the incident, whereinafter the FIR in question was registered. During investigation, the Police recorded the statements of the complainant (petitioner herein), her husband and the witnesses which corroborated her version of events. The accused, XXXX (respondent No.2 herein), was later apprehended by the Police based on the evidence and statements provided by the complainant and other witnesses.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has argued that both the Courts below have erred in acquitting the accused and the impugned orders are contrary to the law, facts and evidence on record. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution witnesses had fully established the case against the accused during the trial, but both the Courts below had failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record in correct perspective. Furthermore, the Courts below gave undue weightage to the minor contradictions in the testimonies, leading to an erroneous acquittal of the accused. The learned counsel has further asserted that the prosecution had adequately explained the delay in lodging the FIR, but the trial Court did not give any credence to the explanation furnished by the prosecution in this rega