( 1 ) THE State had preferred this criminal appeal as against the order of acquittal dated 22-12-1997 recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bapatla, in S. C. No. 212 of 1996. Crime No. 49 of 1995 on the file of Kakumanu P. S. was registered as against the accused under Section 354 of the Indian Penal code and the same was numbered as P. R. C. No. 5 of 1996 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Ponnur, which was committed to the Court of Session, wherein the same was taken on file as S. C. No. 212 of 1996 and was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bapatla, who tried the case and recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, marked Exs. P-1 to P-3, Mos. 1 and 2 recorded an acquittal. Hence, the appeal. ( 2 ) THE episode of the prosecution is that P. W. 1 and the accused are residents of Bandlavaripalem and that certain disputes between the families also had been specified and the accused bore grudge against the family of P. W. 1. On 22-09-1995 at 5-00 a. m. , when the de facto complainant-P. W. 1 was going outside to answer calls of nature, the accused came in the opposite direction. After just passing ahead, the accused came behind the de factor complainant-P. W. 1, gagged her mouth, embrassed her and dragged her. Then, the de facto complainant-P. W. 1 raised cries. On hearing the cries of the de factor complainant, one Suseelamma-P. W. 2 came there and on seeing Suseelamma, the accused pushed the de facto complainant-P. W. 1 into bushes and ran away. During the struggle, the saree and jacket of he de facto complainant became torn. After receiving the report, the Sub Inspector of Police-P. W. 3 registered a case and investigated the same and filed charge sheet under Section 354 I. P. C. P. W. 1 is the victim, P. W. 2 is the sister-in-law of PW-1 and P. W. 3 is the Investigating Officer. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor while taking this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge commented that the contradictions pointed out while recording the acquittal are only minor contradictions. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor while taking this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge commented that the contradictions pointed out while recording the acquittal are only minor contradictions. The evidence of P. W. 1 alone is sufficient to convict the accused under Section 354 I. P. C. The lapse on the part of the investigation also cannot be taken advantage of and hence, the acquittal recorded is bad in law. ( 4 ) SRI. T. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel representing the respondent-accused , had drawn the attention of this Court to para 16 of the judgment where the contradiction relating to the very topography in between the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 had been pointed out. The counsel also had submitted that the evidence of P. W. 1 is that she had no connection at all with her husband and he is residing at Mutlur for the last 12 years, but the Investigating Officer- P. W. 3 deposed that at the time of P. W. 1 giving Ex. P-1, she had accompanied her husband and this would show any amount of doubt relating to the version of the prosecution. ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that the finding had been recorded by the learned Judge that P. W. 3 deposed to the effect that P. W. 1 came to police station along with her husband Edukondalu-L. W. 3 at the time of presenting Ex. P-1. A further finding had been recorded that there is a serious lapse in the conduct of investigation. In Sukhdev Yadav And Others Vs. State of Bihar 2002 (1)A. L. D. (CRL) 36 (SC), the Apex Court held hereunder: true as noticed above there are lapses, but the question that arises for consideration is whether any prejudice has been caused by reason of such a lapse, if the answer thereto is in the affirmative obviously it will have a serious impact on to the trial but if in the event however, it is on the negative, no prejudice can be said to have been caused and correspondingly question of the trial being vitiated would not arise. The eye-witnesses account as available on record cannot but be termed to be trustworthy and by reason therefore, the lapses stand over-shadowed by the testimony of the eye-witnesses. The eye-witnesses account as available on record cannot but be termed to be trustworthy and by reason therefore, the lapses stand over-shadowed by the testimony of the eye-witnesses. The observations above obtain support from the decision of this Court in Baleshwar Mandal and another Vs. State of Bihar A. I. R. 1997 SC 3471. ( 6 ) IT is no doubt true that every lapse of investigation may not enure to the benefit of the accused unless prejudice is shown. It is pertinent to note that this is not the only ground on which acquittal had been recorded. In relation to seizure of Mos. 1 and 2, none had been examined. Ex. P-1 is the report, Ex. P-2 is the original F. I. R. in Crime No. 49 of 1999 and Ex. P-3 is the rough sketch. P. W. 2 is not an eyewitnesses to the incident, but it is stated that she reached the spot on hearing the cries. The evidence of P. W. 1 alone is available on record. It is no doubt true that even on the solitary testimony of P. W. 1 if believable and acceptable, conviction can be given in relation to a charge under Section 354 I. P. C. The evidence of P. W. 1 relating to topography and also the evidence of P. W. 2 had been discussed in detail at para 16 by the learned Judge and if these contradictory versions are taken into consideration, the very scene of offence appears to be doubtful. Apart from this aspect of the matter, even as per the version of the prosecution, there is enmity between the families. This aspect also had been taken into consideration. In view of the contradictory versions given by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and also the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer P. W. 3 and the nature of evidence which had been given by P. W. 3 and in the absence of any other independent witnesses relating to seizure of Mos. 1 and 2, the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be found fault. And accordingly, the said findings are hereby confirmed. The criminal appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed.