Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting manifest errors, perversity, or illegality in findings, and cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence when lower courts have reached concurrent findings based on credible testimony, especially in sensitive cases like outraging the modesty of a child.

Revision filed under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the revision setting aside the judgment of conviction passed in Crl. Appeal No.47/2013 dated 06/07/2015 on the file of Sessions Judge at Ongole confirming the Judgment passed in S.C.No.252 of 2012 dated 13/02/2013 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge at Chirala and acquit the revision petitioner of the all charges and refund the fine amount paid by the Revision petitioner and to pass necessary

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 2708 OF 2015)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Revision petitioner/Accused on bail by suspending the judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 47 of 2013 dated 06/07/2015 on the file of Sessions Judge at Ongole pending disposal of Criminal Revision Case and to pass necessary

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.Y NARAPA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1706 of 2015

ORDER:

1. The instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.07.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2013 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole, confirming the judgment, dt.13.02.2013, in S.C. No.252 of 2012 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chirala, whereby and whereunder the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has sentenced the present petitioner and directed to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of fine, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of conviction and sentence perverse and not tenable in law. He further submits that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are false and inconsistent and thereby the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.06.2012 at about 3:30 P.M., P.W.2, a student of an aided elementary school, returned from school and slept on the cot with fever. When P.W.1 (mother) questioned her daughter (P.W.2) as to what had happened, then P.W.2 had informed her that she went to the shop of the petitioner, located nearby the school, for purchasing eatables. The petitioner invited her to come to the house and gave her a guava fruit. At that time, the accused touched her private parts and behaved in an indecent manner. P.W.1, the mother of the victim girl, informed the elders in the vicinity and went to the house of the petitioner and questioned him. Then the accused picked up a quarrel with P.W.1 and abused her in filthy language. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint.

4. During trial, prosecution has examined eight witnesses and produced three documents. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hearing arguments from both parties, the learned trial court has found the petitioner to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C. and passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence. The said conviction was challenged before the appellate court. The learned appellate court has confirmed the se