JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Petitioner stands convicted under Sections 323 and 354, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced thereunder to R.I. for 3 months on each count. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the night of 28/29-7-1974 while Suka-Bewa (P.W. 4) was sleeping in the kitchen of her house, the accused stealthily got into that room and forcibly embraced Suka Bewa while she was sleeping. At this Suka Bewa cried out, and on heating her cry her son (P.W. 2) and mother-in-law (not examined), who were sleeping in another room of the house, came near the kitchen. On seeing them the accused bit Suka's left cheek and ran away from that place. Suka then narrated the incident to her son (P.W. 2) and mother-in-law and other persons who gradually came to that place on hearing the hullah raised by her. On the next day she filed the F.I.R. (Ext. 2) in the Choudwar Police Station. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused for offences under Sections 457, 354 and 323, Indian Penal Code. 3. The trial Court, however, tried and convicted the Petitioner for charge under Sections 354 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to R.I. for six months on each count, but directed the said sentences to run concurrently. The appellate Court has upheld the conviction on both the counts, but has reduced the sentences passed thereunder as stated above. 4. It is contended by Mr. K.K. Jena, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that both the Courts below have not assessed the evidence on record in a careful and meticulous manner and have not taken into consideration the important discrepancies and frailties appearing in the prosecution evidence on material particulars, and thus have arrived at incorrect and illegal findings in this case. 5. The only witness to the occurrence proper is P.W. 4, the alleged victim woman. She was aged about 33-34 years at the time of the occurrence and had a son aged about 17 years. According to P.W. 4, in the night of occurrence she was sleeping alone in the kitchen of her house, and her mother-in-law and son (P.W. 2) were sleeping in the only other adjoining room of that house. She was aged about 33-34 years at the time of the occurrence and had a son aged about 17 years. According to P.W. 4, in the night of occurrence she was sleeping alone in the kitchen of her house, and her mother-in-law and son (P.W. 2) were sleeping in the only other adjoining room of that house. At about 2 in the night the Petitioner entered into the kitchen and forcibly embraced P.W. 4. At this she shouted out and her mother-in-law and son (P.W. 2), who were sleeping in the other room of the house, came to the kitchen. On seeing the mother-in-law and son, the accused bit the left cheek of P.W. 4 released her from his embrace and ran away from that place. In her cross examination she stated that when P.W. 2 and her mother-in-law came near that kitchen the Petitioner had embraced her and he bit her left cheek at that time. She further stated that all three of them tried to keep the accused confined inside the kitchen by closing and chaining the door of the kitchen from outside, but they failed in their attempt in that direction. On her evidence, it appears that the Petitioner's act of forcibly embracing P.W. 4 and his biting the cheek of P.W. 4 was witnessed by P.W. 2 and the mother-in-law of P.W. 4, and all three of them tried to keep the accused contained in the kitchen by closing and chaining the room from outside. But P.W. 2 does not state the above material facts about the alleged occurrence. According to him, on hearing the hullah raised by her mother (P.W. 4) from the kitchen, he and her grandmother came to the kitchen and at that time he saw the accused hurriedly getting down from the verandah of the house and going away from that place. So he did not see the Petitioner inside the kitchen or that he had embraced his mother or caused any injury to her by biting her cheek. His above evidence also falsifies the evidence of P.W. 4 about the attempt of P.Ws. 2, 4 and her mother-in-law to keep the Petitioner confined in the kitchen. The Courts below have not taken into consideration the above important discrepancy and unconvincing feature in the prosecution evidence. His above evidence also falsifies the evidence of P.W. 4 about the attempt of P.Ws. 2, 4 and her mother-in-law to keep the Petitioner confined in the kitchen. The Courts below have not taken into consideration the above important discrepancy and unconvincing feature in the prosecution evidence. As P.W. 4, the alleged victim of the criminal force, is the duly witness to speak about the entire occurrence the Courts below should have taken proper care to scrutinise the evidence on record with meticulous care. According to P.W. 2, he and some other persons who came to that place on hearing about the incident from P.W. 4, went in search of Dharani (the Petitioner), but nobody could find him out. But P.W. 3, who was the first outsider to come to the house of P.W. 4 on hearing the hullah, stated that nobody went out in search of the Petitioner in that night. According to P.W. 3, when he went to the house of P.W. 4 he saw Dharani going away from the house of P.W. 4. His evidence to that effect cannot be relied upon as he certainly could not have come to the place of occurrence before P.W. 2, and if P.W. 2, on coming near the kitchen, saw the accused going away from a place near about the verandah of the house, then how could P.W. 3 see the accused running away from the house of P.W. 4. The F.I.R. (Ext. 2) in the case was lodged at 6.30 p.m. on 29-7-1974. P.W. 4 states that she left for the police station at about 10 a.m. on 29-7-1974. There is no evidence on record to show who actually wrote out the F.I.R. The I.O. (P.W. 6) merely says that he received a written report from one Suka Bewa and treated the same as F.I.R. In cross-examination he could not say who had scribed the F.I.R. He did not say if he verified the truth about the contents of Ext. 2 from the woman from whom he received the same. Moreover, after registering the case on 29-7-1974 it is not known why he visited the spot on 3-8-1974 as admitted by him in cross-Examination, and not on any earlier date. 2 from the woman from whom he received the same. Moreover, after registering the case on 29-7-1974 it is not known why he visited the spot on 3-8-1974 as admitted by him in cross-Examination, and not on any earlier date. It is also not understood as to why he arrested the accused on 25-11-1974 when the allegation against him was of the above nature and he was the front door neighbour of P.W. 4, P.W. 6 does not say and there is nothing on record to show that the accused was absconding all the time and so he could not be arrested or apprehended before 25-11-1974 The above discrepancies and unconvincing and unsatisfactory features not only create doubt about the evidence led by the prosecution but strongly militate against the truth of the prosecution case. 6. On hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties and on a scrutiny of the evidence on record and perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, I am convinced that the Courts below while convicting or upholding the conviction of the Petitioner for the aforesaid offences have not taken care to consider and sift the evidence on record in a careful and proper manner. 7. On a perusal of the entire evidence, I am satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the Petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and so the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hence, his conviction on both the counts and the sentences passed against him thereunder are to he and are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of both the offences. He is relieved of the bail bond. The revision accordingly is allowed. Final Result : Allowed