The legal standard for reversing an acquittal requires clear evidence of trial court error or perversity in findings.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is initiated by the petitioner / State, challenging the findings rendered by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5010/2017 dated 06.12.2017, confirming the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in C.C.No.644/2010 dated 09.01.2017 and praying the set aside the same, for the ground urged in the petition.

2. Heard the learned HCGP for the State namely Shri Vinay Mahadevaiah and the learned counsel Shri Aniketh K.U. who is appearing for the learned counsel Shri Sachin B.S. who is on record for the respondent / accused. Perused the judgment rendered by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5010/2017 as well as the judgment rendered by the Trial Court in C.C.No.644/2010 in respect of the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC, 1860.

3. Factual matrix of the petition is as under:

PW-1 who is the complainant had initiated criminal prosecution against the accused by filing a complaint stating that she was working at Sri. Durga Marriage Bureau run by the accused at Ambethadka of Sullia Kasaba Village as a Computer Operator. It is stated that the accused used to extend sexual harassment to PW-1. As on 17.02.2010 when she was working in the aforesaid office, the accused with an intent to outrage her modesty, had put his hands on her body. In the meanwhile, when she had resisted the accused, he is said to have extended intimidation by giving life threat saying that she is not supposed to disclose this fact to anyone. In pursuance of a complaint filed by her on 05.03.2010 before the Sullia Police, a case in Cr.No.40/2010 came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC, 1860.

4. Subsequent to laying of a charge-sheet against the accused, the case in C.C.No.644/2010 was registered and the accused was secured by complying with the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. and charges were framed against the accused and thereafter the accused had faced trial. During trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequent to framing charges against the accused, the prosecution in all, examined PW-1 to PW-9 and so also got marked documents at Exhibits P1 to P5. No material object was got marked on the part of the prosecution. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused was subjected to examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for recording incriminating statement / evidence appearing against him, wherein the accused had denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far. Subsequently, the accused was called upon to enter into defence evidence if any. But on the part of the defence side, they had not subjected to examination any evidence but got marked Exhibit D1, that is Spl.Case No.13/2010, the statements of PW-2 in the special case.

5. Subsequent to closure of the entire evidence on the part of the prosecution and also recording incriminating statements that appeared against the accused, the Trial Court heard the arguments advanced on the part of the prosecution as well as on the part of the defence side. The FIR was recorded based upon the filing of a complaint by the complainant being the gravamen of the incident. But particularly coming to the delay in lodging the complaint relating to initiation of FIR, the Trial Court had made an observation that it is obvious that the alleged act of the accused is committed on 17.02.2010 but the First Information has been lodged by the gravamen of the incident on 05.03.2010 and there is no proper explanation either in Exhibit P1 or in Exhibit P5 as to the d