ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed by the accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore District (for short the 'Trial Court) in C.C.No.438/2009 dated 01.06.2010 and the judgment and order passed by the II Additional Sessions & Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District (for short the 'Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.38/2010 dated 27.12.2013.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.

3. Facts leading to filing of this revision petition narrated briefly are, on 02.10.2008 at 11:45 p.m, the accused- petitioner allegedly trespassed into the house of the complainant - Sakshi Gowda PW1 and thereafter he also assaulted the complainant, outraged her modesty and also assaulted her daughter PW4. With regard to this incident on the basis of complaint lodged by PW1, jurisdiction police had registered a criminal case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 448, 427, 323, 324, 354 and 506 of IPC and after investigation police had filed charge sheet for the said offences and the case was numbered as C.C.No.438/2009.

In the said proceedings, the petitioner had appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution to prove its case against the petitioner had examined 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6, got marked 3 documents as Ex.P1 to P3 and also got marked 2 material objects as M.O.1 and 2. The petitioner who had denied the incriminating circumstances available against him on record during the course of his section 313 of Cr.P.C statement, however did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The trial court thereafter heard the arguments addressed on both sides and by judgment and order dated 01.06.2010 convicted the petitioner for the offences for which he was charged and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC. In respect of offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and in respect of offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. In respect of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and in respect of offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1½ months. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for ½ months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. All the above sentences were directed to run concurrently. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was confirmed by the appellate court in Crl.A.No.38/2010 on 27.12.2013 and it is under this factual background the petitioner is before this court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. He submits that the prosecution has not produced medical records relating to the injury suffered by the victims in the incident in question nor the doctor who had treated the victims was examined before the Court. He submits that the evidence on record does not prove that the petitioner had any intention either to outrage the modesty of PW1 or to damage the teapoy in her house and therefore even the conviction for the offences punishable under section 354 and 427 of IPC is bad. He submits that there is no material available on record