The revisional court upheld convictions for criminal trespass and sexual offenses based on sufficient supporting evidence despite claims of procedural errors and delays by the defense.

ORDER

This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in CC No.988/2010 dated 29.09.2012 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru confirmed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru sitting at Puttur in Criminal Appeal No.299/2012 dated 24.08.2015.

2. Parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience.

3. The brief and relevant facts leading upto this revision petition are as under:

One Smt.Lolakshi, W/o. Janardhana Sapalya, a resident of the address so stated in the complaint filed a complaint alleging that on 11.08.2009, at about 2.30 p.m., alleging that, the accused/petitioner herein committed criminal tresspass into the house bearing No.3-1(4) of Kudlumbladi of Kedila Village, Bantwal Taluk and removed the chudidar of her minor daughter who was suffering from mental illness and tried to outrage her modesty. At that time, the complainant was not there in the house. She went to attend her work. When she returned from her work place to her house and entered the house, seeing her, the accused ran away by jumping the compound wall. She informed the same to CW.3. She was given a threat stating that if this incident is intimated to others, she has to face the consequence.

4. With the above allegations, she filed a complaint before PW.6 Smt.Archana K., the then PSI of Puttur Town Police Station. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.220/2009 and the criminal law was set in motion.

5. After completion of the investigation and after following all the formalities of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused person for the offence under Sections 448 , 354 and 506 of IPC .

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined six witnesses from PWs. 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 with respective signatures.

7. The learned trial Court on hearing the arguments of both the side and on evaluation of the evidence, found the accused guilty of committing the offence under Sections 448 and 354 of IPC and acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 506 of IPC . The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 448 of IPC and Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 354 of IPC . Out of the said fine amount, accused was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the victim girl.

8. This judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court was challenged by the accused/appellant before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru sitting at Puttur in Criminal Appeal No.299/12. The learned first appellate Court, on hearing the arguments of both side and on re-appreciation of evidence, dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 24.08.2015. This is how, now the petitioner is before this Court challenging the judgments of Courts below.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rithik Y.M., in addition to narrating the facts of the case submits that, the judgments of the Courts below are contrary to law, illegal and liable to be set aside. He further submits that, none of the ingredients of aforesaid offences are proved by the prosecution. He submits that, alleged incident has taken place on 11.8.2009 but, the complaint was lodged on 13.10.2009. There is exorbitant delay in filing the complaint. This delay itself shows that the story put-forth by the prosecution is concocted so as to take revenge of civil dispute against the family of accused. He submits that, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have failed to appreciate the evidence in p