Convictions under IPC 452 and 354 require credible witness testimony, which must be evaluated in the context of evidence presented during trial.

In this revision petition, the sole accused in S.C.No.31 of 2015 challenges the legality, propriety and correctness of his conviction and sentence concurrently had by the courts below.

He was tried for an offence punishable under Sections 455, 511 of 376 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ). The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge convicted him for the offences under Sections 457 and 354 of the . The appellate confirmed the conviction with a modification that conviction under Section 457 of the was converted to Section 452 . The sentence was maintained.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3.The allegations forming the basis of the charge are that at about 11.00 p.m. on 10.02.2013 the petitioner criminally trespassed into the house where PWs.1 and 3 were residing and attempted to commit rape on PW1 by laying on her and removing her dress.

4.Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. MOs.1 and 2 were identified as well. The trial court after an elaborate discussion on the evidence found that the evidence of PW1 as regards the outrage of her modesty by trespassing into the house could be believed. But her version that there occurred an attempt to commit rape on her was not believed. The appellate court re-appreciated the evidence and concurred with the findings rendered by the trial court. The appellate court differed only on one aspect that the offence constituted by the petitioner trespassing into the house was not one punishable under Section 457, but punishable under Section 452 of the IPC .

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a delay of two days in launching the prosecution, and that is fatal to the prosecution. According to the learned counsel identification of the petitioner by PW1 before the court cannot be trusted for, her version is that she could see the back and side of the assailant alone. In the circumstances of the case that is insufficient to prove the identity of the assailant. The incident was at about 11.00 p.m.

and while the assailant was leaving the room only light was switched on. It is further contended that in the additional statement PW1 significantly improved her version in the F.I.statement. Since such embellishment is concerning the essential overt acts, namely, the attempt to commit rape, said witness becomes totally uncreditworthy. Therefore, the courts below went wrong in placing trust on the evidence of PW1 to convict the petitioner.

6.I have had an anxious consideration of the evidence tendered by PW1 as well as PW3. Both PWs.1 and 3 were sleeping together inside the house. On making alarm by PW1, PW3 switched on the light. Although a contention was raised regarding electrification of the said house, the explanation offered by PW3 in that regard is quite sufficient and availability of electric connection and light in the room cannot be disputed. When PW3 switched on the light, the assailant was leaving the room. Immediately PW1 stated to PW3 as to what had transpired. Similar version is given by PW1 as well as PW3 while examined in court.

7.The statement of PW1 to PW3 soon after the incident is relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . The version of PW1 in Ext.P1 F.I.statement is more or less similar. Of course, the subsequent embellishment can affect trustworthiness of PW1. But on an overall consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 in the light of the attending circumstances, the said improvement in the subsequent statement of PW1 is not a reason sufficient to disbelieve her.

Hence, the concurrent findings entered into by the courts below leading to the conviction of the petitioner cannot be said to be perverse or incorrect. This Court is not expected to interfere with such concurrent findings in the exercise of the powers of revision of this Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).

8. The power of revisio