The judgment reaffirms that credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative circumstantial evidence are sufficient to substantiate a conviction under Section 354 IPC.

O R D E R

Revision petitioner was found guilty for offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg in C.C.No.939/1994. He was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,500/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A.No.172/1998 before the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod. By the impugned judgment dated 22.6.2002, the learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nileshwar Police Station in Crime No.221/1994 prosecuted the revision petitioner accusing offences under Sections 354 and 506 (ii) of : 2:

the IPC with a plea that at 7.25 a.m on 3.11.1994 while PW1, an Assistant in Nattakkal L.P.School, walking lonely through a pathway at Maramkuzhi on her way to the school, the revision petitioner after covering his face with a bathing towel suddenly jumped in front of the defacto complainant from a nearby property and she was caught hold of. When she attempted to make noise, she was intimidated at knife point. Following that, there was a scuffle. During the scuffle, the towel covering the face, fell down and the revision petitioner was identified. The defacto complainant cried allowed. Hearing her cry, locals gathered. Thereupon the revision petitioner took to his heels. PW1 returned home. Her husband, who was a Priest, was away at Bangalore. He returned on 5.11.1994. PW1 narrated the incident to her husband. Thereafter they went to the police station and PW1 gave Ext.P1 First Information Statement. PW5, the Sub Inspector recorded the same and registered the case for which Ext.P4, First Information Report was prepared. PW5 took over investigation and submitted the charge sheet. After trial the revision petitioner was found guilty only for offence u/s 354 , convicted and sentenced as : 3:

above. For offence u/s 506 (ii) he was acquitted.

4. I have heard Smt. B. Beena, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Ms. Madhu Ben, the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgments impugned. The learned counsel took me through the evidence of PWs1 to 4.

5. In support of the prosecution case, there is only the evidence of PW1. PW1 had given evidence in support of the prosecution case. PW2, a coolie, would depose that while he was going for work, the revision petitioner came across running from the opposite direction. When PW2 proceeded a little ahead, he saw PW1 and others and came to know about the incident. PW3 is an an attestor to Ext.P2 scene mahazer prepared by PW5. From the scene of occurrence, MO1 slipper of the revision petitioner was recovered. PW1 also had identified MO1 as the slipper of the revision petitioner. PW4 is an attestor to Ext.P3 seizure mahazer whereby MO2 towel and MO3 knife produced by the revision petitioner were seized by the investigating officer.

6. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the : 4:

averments in Ext.P1 as well as by the circumstantial evidence. Critically going through the evidence of PW1, a primary school teacher, I find little reason to disbelieve her. Though it was suggested to PW1 that the revision petitioner was implicated due to political motive, it was denied by PW1. There is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that PW1 had falsely implicated the revision petitioner. There is nothing to show that PW1 was any way motivated to cook up a case of this nature. It is crucial to note that, PW1 had specifically deposed that, while the revision petitioner running away, MO1 slipper fell down. The ownership of MO1 was not at all denied. It was seized as mentioned earlier from the spot of occurrence when Ext.P2 scene mahazer was prepared by PW5. The seizu