13.03.2024 Savitri Ratho, J This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 16.12.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2004 by the learned Additional District Judge, Nuapada dismissing the Appeal and confirming the judgment dated 10.11.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., CRLREV No. 21 of 2006 Page 2 of 9 Nuapada in 1CC Case No. 35 of 2001, convicting the petitioners of the offences under Section 354 of the IPC, while acquitting them from the offences under Section 324 of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 354 of the IPC. PROSECUTION CASE 2. The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 08.05.2001 at about 9.00 AM, the complainant had gone to the village tank. When she was about to take a bath, both the petitioners came and pulled her saree and made her naked. They also attempted to rape her. When the complainant resisted, she was attacked with a knife by Petitioner No.1 Manu Rout. Petitioner No. 2 Jayaram Rout gagged her mouth. The complainant continued to struggle and was able to escape and when she raised alarm, her mother came to the spot. Seeing her mother, the accused persons fled from the spot. The complaint lodged FIR at the Police Station. The Police submitted final form stating that the occurrence had not taken place. Thereafter, the complainant filed a protest petition and the learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada took cognizance of offences under Section 341,354,324,34 of the IPC against the petitioners, and they stood trial charged for the said offences. CRLREV No. 21 of 2006 Page 3 of 9 DEFENCE PLEA 3. The plea of the petitioners was one of denial. WITNESSES 4. The prosecution examined three witnesses to prove its case and no witness was examined by the defence. P.W.1 is the complainant-victim. P.W.2 is her cousin sister and P.W.3 is her sister. No witness was examined by the defence. TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT 5. The learned Trial Court had framed four points for determination in the trial. It did not find sufficient evidence to make out the offence under Section 341 of the IPC against the petitioners and acquitted them from the said charge. The learned Magistrate accepted the evidence of P.W.1 and convicted the petitioners for offence under Section 354/34 of the IPC. The plea of enmity was not considered sufficient to discard the evidence of P.W.1. As regards the offence under Section 324 of the IPC, the learned Magistrate did not find sufficient evidence to prove the charge against the accused persons as no doctor had been examined to prove the allegation that P.W.1 had been assaulted with a knife CRLREV No. 21 of 2006 Page 4 of 9 by Petitioner No.1 on her left hand and acquitted them from the charge under Section 324/34 of the IPC. APPELLATE COURT JUDGMENT 6. The learned Appellate Court did not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court. convicting the petitioners of the offence under Section 354/34 of the IPC and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. It specifically observed that enmity is a double-edged weapon and rejected the contention of false implication of the accused. The learned Appellate Court also held that non-examination of mother of the victim was not fatal to the prosecution and sole evidence of the victim was sufficient to convict the petitioners. SUBMISSIONS 7. Mr. Abhisek Pradhan, learned counsel submits that the impugned judgments are vulnerable, for the following reasons. i) The allegations against the petitioners are false ii) That mother of