Judgment : This revision is against the order of conviction and the fine imposed against the revision petitioner by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli in C.A.No. 169 of 1990confirming the conviction imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Tiruchirapalli in C.C. No.2377 of 1989 for the offences under Secs. 448 and 354 of Indian Penal Code to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and Rs. 200 respectively. .2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11. 1988 at about 9.00 p.m. this revision petitioner entered into the house of P.W.1 with an intention to outrage her modesty and when he pulled her hands she came out shouting against him and again outside the house also he caught her blouse which was torn and hearing the shouting of P.W.1 the neighbours and others who came there, beat the revision petitioner. The prosecution examined seven witnesses of whom P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses. P.W.1 the victim has stated in her evidence that on the occurrence night at about 9.00 p.m. as her husband who is a tractor driver had gone out, she was lying down in her house with her child that the door was closed without bolting that as me revision petitioner entered into the house, she questioned as to who was that but the revision petitioner who caught hold of her hands, attempted to outrage her modesty, that when she shouted and protested, he asked her whether she is a woman of virtues. She also would state that, even when she came out of the house, the revision petitioner again caught hold of her hands and attempted to pull her inside the house and she threw the stones at him and the people who assembled also man handled him by beating him with stick. The message has reached the police station and the Sub Inspector of Police hearing the breach of peace in the village came to the occurrence place and recorded the statement Ex.P-1 from the complainant P.W.2 father-in-law residing separately away from the house of P.W.1 and P.W.3 who is the resident of the opposite house had corroborated the version of P.W.1 for the alleged attempt of the revision petitioner. Both the courts below have accepted the testimony of the witnesses and found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences mentioned above. .3. Both the courts below have accepted the testimony of the witnesses and found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences mentioned above. .3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Mr.Basha submits that there are number of infirmities in the prosecution case and he points out that neither in the complaint of P.W.1 nor in her evidence she has mentioned the name of P.Ws.2 and 3 though P.Ws.2 and 3 would state that they were present and witnessed the occurrence. Secondly he would mention that though the F.I.R. was registered against this revision petitioner alleging that he was under the influence of Alcohol, for the offence under Sec. 4(i)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, later on when the forensic report was received that section was not included in the charge sheet, that as there is enmity between the revision petitioner and the husband of P.W.1 as certain stolen articles were seized from the house of P.W. 1 and the revision petitioner as a constable accompanied the Sub Inspector of Police to the house of P.W. 1 for such a seizure, he has been implicated in the offences and the prosecution case cannot be accepted. One another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that P.W. 1 has simply stated that her signature is found in Ex.P-1, but she has not specifically accepted the contents of Ex.P-1 and this circumstance itself is sufficient to prove that she-could not have given to the complaint Ex.P-1. Taking into consideration these points raised by him, with regard to the first point viz., the omission of the names of P.Ws.2 and 3 in the complaint and also in the evidence of P.W.1, this Court has already hold in several cases that the complaint is not an encyclopedia to give all details with regard to the occurrence. In this case, the occurrence took place at 9.00 p.m. and P.W.1 would state her evidence in that when the revision petitioner attempted to outrage her modesty she came out shouting and hearing her shouting the people gathered there. So she has specifically mentioned that so many persons assembled there hearing their voice. 4. When so many persons have assembled there, it was not necessary for her to mention the names of each and every individual. Hence, she has simply stated that the persons in her street had assembled there. So she has specifically mentioned that so many persons assembled there hearing their voice. 4. When so many persons have assembled there, it was not necessary for her to mention the names of each and every individual. Hence, she has simply stated that the persons in her street had assembled there. P.Ws.2 and 3 also are residents of the same street and P.W.3 is in the opposite house. Further it is not possible to note down each and every individual assembled there to give the details in the complaint and also in her evidence. Therefore, this cannot be treated as a defect to disbelieve or reject the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 holding that they could not have witnessed the occurrence. P.Ws.2 and 3 have corroborated the testimony of P.W. 1 stating that the revision petitioner even while he came out had caught hold of the hand of P.W. 1 and pulled her inside the house. The next circumstance pointed out by the learned counsel is the registration of the case for the offence under Sec. 4(1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act also. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as P.W. 1 has stated that the revision petitioner was under the influence of Alcohol the case registered for under Sec. 4(1)(j) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act also falsely and only subsequently when the Forensic Report reached the court stating that no Alcohol contents were seen in the blood, this charge was not pressed against him and the prosecution without ascertaining the truth has registered the case against the revision petitioner. In this case after the occurrence, the revision petitioner was taken to Government Hospital. Doctor P.W.4 examined him by about 11.10 p.m. on the same night. The Doctor has found his eyes conjected and there was smell of Alcohol in the breath. Therefore, the Doctor also was of the opinion that this revision petitioner had consumed liquor but was not under its influence. Ex.P-2 is the certificate issued by the Doctor. Therefore, it is very clear that the revision petitioner had consumed something which smelt that of alcohol and the Doctor also was mislead that the revision petitioner has consumed liquor. When the Doctor himself was mislead, we cannot find fault with P.W. 1 for having stated so in Ex.P-1 that the accused/revision petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, it is very clear that the revision petitioner had consumed something which smelt that of alcohol and the Doctor also was mislead that the revision petitioner has consumed liquor. When the Doctor himself was mislead, we cannot find fault with P.W. 1 for having stated so in Ex.P-1 that the accused/revision petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. It appears to be a bona fide mistake and the Doctor also had smelt the alcohol in the breath of the revision petitioner. Hence, this cannot be taken as a circumstance to accept that the prosecution was simply acting upon the complaint of P.W. 1. petitioner. 5. Normally when a victim wastaken to a Doctor if he is fully conscious, the manner in which he sustained injuries will be questioned only to the victim for recording the details about the injuries. In this case it is not the case of the accused that he was unconscious when he was taken to the Doctor. Therefore, in the normal circumstances, the revision petitioner himself would have explained to the Doctor as to how he sustained injuries. If the statement given to the Doctor is taken into consideration, there is inconsistent version as to how he sustained injuries. To the Doctor who examined the injuries, it was told that by 11.00 p.m. on that night he fell from moped and sustained injuries, but on the next day when remanded before the Magistrate it was stated by the revision petitioner that he was assaulted by his enemies as he was responsible for seizure of the stolen articles. Anyhow, the initial version is inconsistent from the later version of the revision petitioner. 6. Even on a careful consideration of the alleged enmity it appears to be myth because there is nothing to show that the revision petitioner herein was responsible for the seizure of the Tharpaulin cover from the house of P.W. 1, it appears from the evidence that one Ravi lodged a complaint for the theft of his scooter Tharpaulin cover and on the arrest of one Raju who made a confession for keeping this Tharpaulin in the house of P.W. 1, the same was seized from the house of P.W.1. D.W.2 the Sub Inspector of Police who seized this article from the house of P.W.1, has stated that this revision petitioner was present when Raju gave the confession for the theft of the article. D.W.2 the Sub Inspector of Police who seized this article from the house of P.W.1, has stated that this revision petitioner was present when Raju gave the confession for the theft of the article. There is nothing to show that the husband of P.W. 1 Subramani also was a party to the theft or he had knowledge that this Tharpaulin which was handed over to him was a stolen article. However, on the confession of Raju this Tharpaulin cover was seized from the house of P.W. 1 and D.W.2 has not mentioned anywhere that this revision petitioner also was present with him when the Tharpaulin was seized from the house of P.W. 1. Even assuming that the revision petitioner was present the seizure was only at the instance of Raju and therefore, there is no possibility for developing grudge against the revision petitioner when especially the seizure was made by D.W.2 the Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore, the alleged grudge of husband of P.W.1 is nothing but a myth as mentioned above and the version that the revision petitioner was beaten by the friends of the husband of P.W. 1 also appears to be improbable. 7. One thing is clear and that is the presence of the revision petitioner infront of the house of P.W. 1 at 9 a.m. on 11. 1988 is admitted by the revision petitioner also. The revision petitioner has stated that he was beaten by the men of husband of P.W. 1 infront of her house. According to him as he was returning from his duty, and while he was passing through that way, he was manhandled by those persons. But the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would show that this revision petitioner was in the threshold of P.W.1’s house. The evidence of P.W.3 is that the revision petitioner was standing in the threshold of P.W. 1 and was pulling her blouse. If really the revision petitioner was walking along the street, P.W.3 would not state that this petitioner was standing in the threshold of P.W. 1. Therefore, from the evidence of these witnesses, it is because of the misbehaviours of the revision petitioner with P.W.1, the persons residing close to the house of P.W. 1 got enraged and attacked the revision petitioner, on account of which he sustained injuries which are mentioned by P.W.4 the Doctor. 8. Therefore, from the evidence of these witnesses, it is because of the misbehaviours of the revision petitioner with P.W.1, the persons residing close to the house of P.W. 1 got enraged and attacked the revision petitioner, on account of which he sustained injuries which are mentioned by P.W.4 the Doctor. 8. No doubt P.W. 1 in her chief examination itself has stated that she did not know the contents of Ex.P-1. But that cannot be taken for denying the contents of Ex.P-1. From the evidence it does not appear that she is a literate woman. She has signed in Ex.P-1 and she admits her signature also. It appears that as Ex.P-1 was shown to her by the Assistant Public Prosecutor she has stated that she did not know the contents of this document though she has identified her signature and an illiterate woman may not know the content of a document, unless it was read over to her. But her evidence in court is not contrary to the contents of Ex.P-1 Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1 that she did not know the contents of Ex.P-1 would reveal only her illiteracy. 9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) points out that there is a mistake in the evidence of Investigating Officer who was examined as P.W.5, and he has stated that during the investigation P.W.3 did not say to him about the attempt of the revision petitioner on P.W.1 by catching her hands and according to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) the version now stated by P.W.3 in court for catching the hands of P.W.1, is found in the statement under Sec. 161, Crl.P.C. also and he also read out that portion of statement under Sec. 161, Crl.P.C. Even though the said version was found in Sec. 161, Crl.P.C. statement, the Investigating Officer has wrongly stated in the evidence that no such statement was made by P.W.3 during investigation. When such version is found in the statement of P.W.3 under Sec. 161, Crl.P.C., the defence counsel also ought not have put such a question to mislead the witness. Any how it is confirmed that P.W.3 have actually seen the attempt of the revision petitioner on P.W. 1, outraging her modesty. When such version is found in the statement of P.W.3 under Sec. 161, Crl.P.C., the defence counsel also ought not have put such a question to mislead the witness. Any how it is confirmed that P.W.3 have actually seen the attempt of the revision petitioner on P.W. 1, outraging her modesty. As mentioned above, the revision petitioner was found in the threshold of the house of P.W. 1 and the people around her rushed there on hearing her voice by about 9.00 p.m. and there was no reason for the revision petitioner to go to the house of P.W.1 in the late hours, in the night time. When these circumstances were taken into consideration, the evidence of P.W. 1 which has been amply corroborated by P.W.2 and P.W.3 cannot be rejected for any reasons whatsoever. Therefore, I find that the courts below have rightly appraised the evidence and courts below have rightly appraised the evidence and the finding that the revision petitioner is guilty of the offences mentioned above is perfectly correct. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.Basha represents that the revision petitioner who is a police constable will be put to serious problems in his life if he is convicted by this court and he will be dismissed from service leading to starvation with his family members, and therefore sympathy might be shown in the punishment. When it is found out that a police constable who belongs to a disciplined force, has misbehaved with a woman who was alone in her house and attempted to outrage her modesty, I feel that such person should not be allowed to continue in the service of police department as this will encourage such person in the police force, tarnishing the image of the police department. I feel that no sympathy shall be shown to such persons. Further the punishment is only Rs. 100 and Rs.200 of fine which cannot be considered to be very heavy. Therefore, I find no reasons to interfere with the findings of the court below and the revision deserves to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the revision is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of the courts below.