O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the revision petitioner (cid:150) de-facto complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.12.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2007 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 07.07.2006 in S.C.No.708 of 2005 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Siricilla.

2. The facts in brief, as per the record available before the Court are as under:

a) The de-facto complainant (PW1) has lodged a complaint before the Siricilla Police Station alleging that on 20.05.2005 while PW1 along with PWs 2 and 3 after having super at about 9.00 Pm slept on the terrace of their building. At about 00.30 hours in the midnight accused No. 1 and the revision petitioner herein i.e., accused No.2 went to PW1, pulled her by catching hold her hand with an intention to outrage her modesty by using criminal force. On hearing the hues and cries raised by PW1, PWs 2 and 3 woke up and saw accused Nos.1 and 2 forcing PW1 for sexual attack and when they tried to catch them, the accused Nos.1 and 2 escaped by leaving their chappals. Thus, PW1 went to Police Station on

22.05.2005 at 1.00 PM and lodged a complaint.

b) Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.108 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency has recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, they have filed charge sheet, which was numbered as PRC No.97 of 2005 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Siricilla. Since the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the said case was made over and numbered as S.C.No.708 of 2005 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Siricilla.

c) On appearance of accused before the trial Court, charge under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them by explaining the accusations levelled against them, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 to substantiate the cases against the accused. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the accused have denied the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses against them and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

d) The trial Court on hearing both sides, found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fourth months for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the same, the accused No.2 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2007 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the judgment dated 07.07.2006 in S.C.No.708 of 2005 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Siricilla.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner (cid:150) de-facto complainant has filed the present criminal revision case to set aside the judgment dated 17.12.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2007 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar on the following grounds:

i) The lower appellate Court erred in not relying the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 to the effect that the offence was committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 only, even though the appellate Court categorically held that the prosecution established that two male persons went to the terrace of PW1 and tried to outrage the modesty of PW1.

ii) The appellate Court erred in acquitting the accused even though they are identified by PWs 1 to 3 in the moonlight on the date of offence i.e., midnight of 20.05.2005 since 23.05.2005 happened to be Pournami, as well as electricity light through st