The present petitioner was accused in the Criminal Case

No.22829/2009, in the Court of the learned 2^nd Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as <the Trial Court=), who, by the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated

18-04-2011 of the Trial Court, was convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as <the IPC=)

and was sentenced accordingly.

3

Aggrieved by the same, the accused (petitioner herein)

preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.351/2011, in the

Court of the XIII Fast Track Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as <the Sessions Judge9s Court=), which

after hearing both side, partly allowed the appeal filed by the

accused by its judgment dated 18.06.2013. Being aggrieved

by the same, the accused has preferred the present revision

petition.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the

Trial Court was that, on the night of 16.06.2009 at about 8.00

p.m, the complainant Smt.Sakamma (PW-1) (CW-1) while was

going to fetch water from borewell near to her house in

Vaddarapalya within the limits of complaint Police Station, the

accused sexually harassed her, abused her in filthy language,

threatened to her life and also assaulted on left feet with a

stone. Thus, he has committed the offences punishable under

Sections 341, 324 and 506 of IPC.

4

3. The accused appeared in the Trial Court and

contested the matter through his counsel. He pleaded not

guilty, as such, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the

accused, the prosecution got examined in all three witnesses

from PW-1 to PW-3, got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to

P-4 and got produced one Material Object at MO-1 (stone).

However, neither any witness was examined nor any

documents were got marked on behalf of the accused.

4. The respondent - State is being represented by the

learned High Court Government Pleader.

5. The Trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge9s

Court9s records were called for and the same are placed before

this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused

and

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

for

the

respondent - State are physically appearing in the Court.

5

7. Heard the learned counsels from both side. Perused

the materials placed before this Court including the impugned

judgments passed by both the Courts and also the Trial Court

and learned Sessions Judge9s Court9s records.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be

henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial

Court.

9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the

only point that arise for my consideration in this revision

petition is:

Whether the impugned judgments of conviction

and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court as

well the Sessions Judge9s Court holding that, the

accused (petitioner herein) has committed the alleged

offences punishable under Section 324 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at

the hands of this Court?

6

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner (accused) in

his brief argument submitted that, except stray admission in

the cross examination of PW.1, there is no evidence to prove

the alleged guilt against the accused. Even if the evidence of

PW.1 is believed that borewell was located at a distance of 20

feet from her house, had she really gone to fetch water at the

time of incident, the alleged incident would not have taken

place at a distance of 50 feet from her house, as such it

creates doubt in the case of prosecution.

11. He also submitted that according to PW.1 alleged

assault was on her feet whereas the medical evidence of the

doctor show that the alleged injury was on the left greater toe

of PW.1. Thus, there is discrepancy in the description of the

location of the injury. Finally stating that no independent

witness including panchas were examined by the prosecution,

as