AND

ORDER

OF

ACQUITTAL BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND TO

CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY

THE LEARNED PRINICIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC., IN C.C.

NO.1044/2006 DATED 16.11.2009, CONVICTING THE RESPONDENT

FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 354 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the State against the

Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Presiding

Officer,

Fast

Track

Court

at

Chikkamagaluru,

vide

Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2011 in Criminal Appeal

No.190/2009, whereby the Judgment and Order passed by

the

trial

Court

convicting

the

accused

for

offence

punishable under Section 354 of IPC was set aside and the

accused was acquitted of the said offence.

2.

Heard the learned High Court Government

Pleader for State and the learned counsel for respondent

and perused the material on record.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that, on

20.01.2006 at about 11.30 a.m., in Bombyle village,

Chikkamagaluru taluk, when P.W.1 was working in front of

her house situated near the temple, the accused came from

behind, embraced and pulled her saree with an intention to

outrage her modesty and when she screamed, on seeing

P.W.2-Mullamma, he ran away from the spot.

3

4.

In order to establish the guilt of the accused,

the prosecution got examined in all 7 witnesses as P.Ws.1

to 7 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.P1 to 4 as well as

M.Os.1 and 2.

5.

The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence

and material on record came to the conclusion that the

prosecution has proved its case and accordingly convicted

the accused for the charged offence punishable under

Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of `2,000/-,

in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

6.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and

Order, the accused preferred an appeal before the Fast

Track Court. The learned Presiding Officer allowed the

appeal and acquitted the accused vide Judgment dated

15.12.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.190/2009.

7.

According to the prosecution, the incident took

place on 20.01.2006 at about 11.30 a.m. P.W.1 is the

victim/first informant. Her complaint is marked as Ex.P1,

4

wherein she has stated that while she was working in her

land situated in front of the temple, the accused came from

behind and embraced her. He then pulled her saree and

attempted to commit rape and at that time, her 8Mangala

Sara9 fell down and she later found it. She has further

stated that she suffered pain and when she screamed, one

Mullamma [P.W.4] of the same village saw and on seeing

her, the accused ran away from the spot. She has further

stated that since her husband was not present in the

house, she lodged the complaint belatedly.

8.

Though P.W.1 in her complaint has stated that

the accused pulled her saree, dragged her and attempted

to commit rape, etc, in her evidence she has stated that

the accused tore her shirt and veil, which she was wearing.

She has deposed that on the very same day of the incident,

she lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1, which is contrary to

the statement made in Ex.P1 itself. It is relevant to see

that P.W.7-ASI who registered the case has deposed in his

evidence that on 21.01.206 at 1.30 p.m., the victim came

to the Police Station with a written complaint. Hence, the

5

evidence of the victim that on the very same day of the

incident she lodged the complaint is not corroborated by

the evidence of P.W.7. Further, in her evidence, P.W.1 has

stated that after she lodged the complaint, the Police

visited the spot and prepared a spot mahazar as per Ex.P2

and seized M.Os.1 and 2. i.e., blue colour shirt and one

veil. Even with regard to drawing of Ex.P2-mahazar and

recovery of M.Os.1 and 2, there is discrepancy. P.W.7 has

stated that he went to the spot and conducted mahazar on

22.01.2006. As