JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The petitioner has been convicted u/s 354, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khurda, and on appeal the said conviction and, sentence have been affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Puri. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 25-8-1977 at 2 p. m. one Tukuna, was. going to her master's house when the accused called her and embraced her. When the victim raised alarm the accused gagged her mouth. Ultimately the girl could release herself. A report to this effect was lodged at the police station orally which was reduced to writing and was treated as F. I. R. and the Police then investigated into the offence. After completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet. The defence plea is one of denial and further according to the defence a false case has been foisted as there was a party faction in the village and the accused belonged to the rival faction. 3. The victim girl was examined as P. W. 4 and the conviction of the accused is based on her evidence alone. Though P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and deposed in Court to the effect that they have seen the occurrence but before the police they had not stated so and the defence has elicited the same from the Investigating Officer, P. W. 5 and in that view of the matter, the Courts below have rightly discarded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 P. W. 3 is a witness to the seizure but in his cross-examination he stated that he cannot say if anything was at all seized in the case. Thus the seizure of the torn frock alleged to be the frock of say if anything was at all seized in the case. Thus the seizure of the torn frock alleged-to be the frock of the victim girl at the time of the occurrence has not been proved. Both the Courts below, however, relying upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim girl have convicted the accused-petitioner in this case. 4. Mr. Thus the seizure of the torn frock alleged-to be the frock of the victim girl at the time of the occurrence has not been proved. Both the Courts below, however, relying upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim girl have convicted the accused-petitioner in this case. 4. Mr. Mohanty appearing for the petitioner contends that though he does not dispute as to the legal position that a conviction can be based on an uncorroborated testimony but he contends that such testimony must be above board and the witness must belong to the category wholly reliable. According to Mr. Mohanty if the evidence of P. W.4 is scrutinised, she cannot be dubbed as a wholly reliable witness and, therefore, unless there is some corroboration to her statement either by oral or circumstantial evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained in eye of law. He further submits that rule of prudence always requires that the solitary witness must be corroborated. The learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that since Courts of fact have relied upon the evidence of the victim girl, it would not be proper for the revisional Court to re-appraise the evidence and come to a different conclusion. 5. It is no doubt true that ordinarily this Court does not re-appraise the evidence but where the Courts below have totally misconceived the evidence and have arrived at a conclusion which is obviously wrong, there is no bar for the High Court in revision to look to the evidence and come to a different conclusion. If a finding has been arrived at contrary to well-established principles of law then the High Court in revision must interfere with the same. Where the revisional Court comes to a conclusion that there has been miscarriage of justice and the element of doubt as to the prosecution case is so very strong, then the High Court has power to re-examine the evidence and to cone to the conclusion whether the conviction on the evidence is justified or not This being the position of law, I think it appropriate to examine the evidence of P W. 4 to find out her credibility since the conviction is based solely on her testimony. According to her evidence when she was coming from her house she saw the accused sitting on the ridge of a tank and the accused called her. According to her evidence when she was coming from her house she saw the accused sitting on the ridge of a tank and the accused called her. But as she did not come near him the accused caught hold of her frock and then she herself pulled down her frock and escaped from his clutches where after the accused followed her and again caught should of her but when she cried, the accused left her. But her version in the F. I. R. was to the effect that while she was coming out of her house, the accused called her near the banion tree and when she replied that she cannot go, the accused forcibly caught hold of her Thereafter the accused embraced her and forcibly wanted to take her and asked her to be naked, but when she refused to obey, the accused gagged her mouth but she got herself released and in the process the frock has been torn. Thus the F. I. R. version is something different from the version given in the Court. According to her evidence in Court, the accused caught hold of her near a stream which is 500 yards from the tank, but this fact has not been stated to the Investigating Officer while she was examined u/s 161, Cr. P. C. According to the evidence of P. W. 4, she narrated the incident to her parents, but her parents have not been examined. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are her grandparents who stayed at a distance of two miles and neither the victim nor her parents stayed with them, but they have been examined and have been held to be unreliable. There is no reason why the parents of the victim girl have not at all been examined in the case This being the evidence of P. W. 4, in my opinion, it would be hazardous to, base a conviction solely relying on her testimony. By no stretch of imagination she can be held to be a wholly reliable witness. Without any corroboration to her evidence, her evidence cannot be acted upon. As I have stated earlier, there is not even an iota of corroboration from any quarter to the evidence of P. W. 4. Consequently the conviction of the petitioner solely relying on such unworthy evidence cannot be sustained. 6. Without any corroboration to her evidence, her evidence cannot be acted upon. As I have stated earlier, there is not even an iota of corroboration from any quarter to the evidence of P. W. 4. Consequently the conviction of the petitioner solely relying on such unworthy evidence cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, therefore, I would set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the two Courts below and acquit the petitioner of the charge levelled against him. This criminal revision is accordingly allowed. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner shall stand cancelled. Final Result : Allowed