The reliability of the victim's testimony in sexual assault cases and the explanation for delay in filing the FIR are crucial in determining the guilt of the accused.

ORDER :

This criminal revision has been filed by the accused under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-1-2008 passed by the Fourth Addl. Session Judge, Katni confirming the judgment and conviction dated 12-12-2005 passed by the JMFC in Criminal Case No. 639/2003 for offence under section 354 of Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence for one year RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

2. In short, the prosecution case is that, the prosecutrix is a married woman residing at village Mawai. On 1-6-2003 at about 6:00 pm when the prosecutrix was doing domestic work at her premises, the applicant/accused came there and caught hold of her hand with intention to outrage her modesty and pulled her. When the prosecutrix started shouting, the applicant/accused left her. The applicant/accused is her brother-in-law. At the time of the incident, the husband of the prosecutrix was not at home. When he came back, the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station, Sleemanabad, District Katni. Crime under section 354 of Indian Penal Code has been registered against the applicant.

3. Learned trial Court convicted the applicant/accused for offence under section 354 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of testimony of the prosecutrix which is corroborated by PW-2/Dhaniram and PW-3/Purushottam. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the applicant/accused for 1 year RI with fine of Rs. 500/-.

4. Learned lower Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the learned trial Court. Learned Courts below did not agree with the defence contention of the applicant, that the evidence produced by the prosecution was contradictory. Learned Appellate Court also found no material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The prosecutrix had no enmity with the applicant/accused. The Courts below found no property dispute for which the applicant/accused could have been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix or her family members. Thus, the conviction and sentence of the applicant/accused was maintained by the learned Appellate Court.

5. This revision has been filed on the grounds that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt against the applicant/accused. The statement of prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions and omissions, hence, no implicit reliance could be placed on such testimony. There is delay in filing of FIR. Findings of the lower Courts are illegal and contrary to law therefore, the applicant/accused prays that the appellant be acquitted from the charges under section 354 of Indian Penal Code.

6. Heard. Perused the record.

7. It is not disputed that the complainant/prosecutrix and the applicant/accused both are neighbours and related to the same family. Father of the prosecutrix’s husband is the brother of father of the applicant/accused. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there was a dispute over the property between the parties, hence, the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated. In this regard, no suggestion has been given by learned counsel for the applicant/accused to the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) in their cross-examination, which was very essential for challenging their testimony. Therefore, the testimony of DW-1 Balmukund Kushwah is not found reliable, who stated about the enmity of the parties.

8. PW-3 Purushottam was the eye witness. During the incident when the prosecutrix shouted, he came to the spot and saw applicant/accused. He also denied any enmity between the families of the applicant and the prosecutrix with regard to property and that the applicant/accused was falsely implicated by them, through their daughter-in-law (prosecutrix). The applicant/accused is a relative of the prosecutrix. Naturally, it cannot be possible that a woman made up false story as an after thought particularly in respect of her modesty. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted