The testimony of victim girls, if found credible and reliable, is sufficient to convict an accused for offences involving outrage of modesty without needing additional corroborative evidence, and revisional courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 14.10.2015 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.991/2011 AND CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2018 PASSED BY THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59), AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1371/2015 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 354 AND 509 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri S.P.Kulkarni, learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader.

2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C No.991/2011 for having misbehaved with the two young girls, while he was working as an Officer in Child Welfare Committee, Bengaluru.

3. Based on the complaint, police registered the case and after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet.

4. After due trial, accused was convicted by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and sentenced as under:

“Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable u/S 354 and 509 of IPC.

Accused is convicted u/S 248(2) Cr.P.C with simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to pay the fine amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for another one month.”

5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.1371/2015. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the Appeal of the accused inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.26 to 40 as under:

“26. By considering the evidence produced on record and reappreciation of the same, this court is of the opinion that the participation of the accused in the crime is proved by unimpeachable evidence of P.W.3 and P.W. 4 the two victims of the crime and the evidence of other prosecution witnesses.

27. With regard to arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is concerned the first argument is delay in lodging of the first information report after the commission of the alleged crime.

28. The apex court of the land in a decision reported between A.Joseph V/s.State of Kerala reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1 has held that

No duration of time in abstract can be fixed as reasonable for giving information of crime to the police, the question of reasonable time being a matter of determination by the court in each case. Mere delay in lodging FIR with the police is therefore not necessarily as a matter of law, is fatal to the prosecution case.

29. Further the apex court of the land in another decision reported between State of H.P. V/s.Gianchand reported in AIR 2001 SC 2075 has held that

Delay in lodging first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging first information report.

30. In light of the above ratio of cited decisions, a perusal of the contents of Ex.P.1 first information statement discloses that though the alleged i