The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of thoroughly examining the evidence, including cross-examination, and granting the benefit of doubt to the accused in case of material discrepancies and inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J. - This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the applicant challenging the judgment and order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Berasiya District Bhopal passed in Criminal Appeal No.02/2022 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.12.2021 passed by JMFC, Berasiya District Bhopal in RCT Case No.1023/2016 whereby learned JMFC convicted applicant for commission of offence under Sections 456 and 354 of the IPC and sentenced to six months R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- in the first count while One year R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/-in the second count with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution case, in short is that on 25.10.2016 at around 1.20 P.M. 18 years old prosecutrix Jyoti resident of village Bandikhedi lodged an F.I.R. in P.S. Gunga alleging that on 24.10.2016 at around 11.30 P.M of night she was sleeping in her house by closing the doors. At around 11.30 P.M. someone knocked the door of her house, she thought that her father has come, at this she switched-on the bulb and opened the door. But she saw her neighbour Vinod Ahirwar standing there; Vinod pushed her inside, trespassed into her house, caught hold her hand with bad intention and pressed her breasts. When she sounded alarm, he slapped her. Hearing her scream her cousin Rakesh Ahirwar (P.W.3) reached there, seeing him, applicant Vinod Ahirwar fled away from there. F.I.R was lodged next day. On the basis of said F.I.R. offence under section 456 and 354 of IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. The learned JMFC framed the charges against the accused/applicant for commission of offence under Section 456 and 354 of IPC. Accused/ applicant pleaded not guilty. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses, while accused/applicant in his defence examined Jitendra Kumar Ahirwar (D.W.1). In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused/applicant stated false implication. On appreciation of evidence, learned JMFC came to the conclusion that both the charges under Section 456 and 354 of IPC were proved against the applicant but acquitted him for commission of offence under section 323 of IPC. Thus, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment as mentioned hereinabove.

4. Applicant challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by filing criminal appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Bhopal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found no fault with the findings of the learned trial court and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.12.2021 passed by learned JMFC, Berasiya District Bhopal vide impugned judgment dated 06.12.2022 passed in Cr.A.No.02/2022.

5. Being aggrieved, the applicant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 06.012.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by filing this criminal revision mainly on the following grounds :-

(i) The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence of complainant Jyoti (P.w.1) and his cousin Rakesh (P.W.3) in proper perspective. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also not considered the evidence of defence witness Jitendra Kumar Ahirwar (D.W.1) and admission of prosecutrix Jyoti (P.W.1) and Rakesh (P.W.3) that Article A-1 & A-2, the photographs, are of Jyoti and applicant/accused, which shows that they were having love affairs but as father of the prosecutrix Jyoti wanted to marry her somewhere else, they have falsely implicated him by lodging a false and manufactured report.

(ii) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not appreciated the fact that in the room in which alleged incident is stated to have taken place, three brothers of prosecutrix Jyoti were sleeping. Out of them, one was around 25 years old but none of them have been produced before the court as witness which itself falsifies the veracity of prosecution story.

(iii) The learned Additional Se