JUDGMENT : 1. State has filed this Criminal Appeal against the acquittal of A-1 Kasappagari Krishna Reddy, A-2 Kasappagari Ramachandra Reddy and A-3 Kasappagari Anjan Reddy for the offence under Section 354 IPC and inadequate sentence imposed on them for the offences under Sections 323 and 447 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is: P.W. 1 K. Janakamma is a married woman and she was aged about 29 years as on the date of occurrence. P.W. 2 K. Ranga Reddy is her husband and P.W. 3 K. Kantamma is her mother-in-law. A-1 to A-3 are brothers and they are sons of K. Narayana Reddy P.Ws. 1 to 3 and A-1 to A-3 belong to Pullalarevu village. On 13-12-1997 at about 4 P.M. while P.W. 1 was proceeding to her house from hayrick yard A-1 came in the opposite direction and asked her “Na Daggaraku Vastava”. Thereupon, she took out her chappal and showed at A-1. A-1 went away hurling threats that he would see her end. P.W. 1 returned to the hayrick yard and informed the same to P.W. 3. P.W. 3 told her that the matter would be placed before the village elders. While so, A-1 to A-3 tresspassed into the hayrick yard of P.W. 1, A-2 abused her and beat her with a chappal on her head, shoulder and on both hands. When she raised her hands to avert the beatings, her bangles broke. It is alleged that A-1 caught hold of her breast and pulled out her sari. She felt insulted and sat down there itself. P.W. 3 raised cries which drew the attention of P.W. 2, husband of the victim P.W. 2 intervened and thereupon A-1 beat him with a stick. It is further alleged that A-2 and A-3 caught hold of the victim and beat her with chappals indiscriminately. P.W. 4-Venkatesu and P.W. 5-Rami Reddy also witnessed the incident. P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to Rapthadu Police Station where P.W. 1 presented Ex. P-1 report. P.W. 6-G. Krishna Moorthy, SI to Police, Rapthadu Police Station received Ex. P-1 report and registered a case in Cr. No. 108 of 1997 under Sections 447, 354 r/w 34 IPC and issued Ex. P-2 FIR, He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also seized M.O. 1-jacket under the cover of Ex. P-3 police proceedings. P-1 report. P.W. 6-G. Krishna Moorthy, SI to Police, Rapthadu Police Station received Ex. P-1 report and registered a case in Cr. No. 108 of 1997 under Sections 447, 354 r/w 34 IPC and issued Ex. P-2 FIR, He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also seized M.O. 1-jacket under the cover of Ex. P-3 police proceedings. He sent P.W. 1 to Government Hospital, Anantapur, P.W. 7- B.V.N. Choudary, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Anantapur medically examined P.W. 1 and found the following injuries. (1) Contusion right fore arm 1 inch diameter. (2) Contusion left fore arm 1 inch diameter. (3) Contusion back of chest right 1 × 1 inch. (4) Abrasion on right palm 1? × 2?. (5) Abrasion on the front of the chest 1? × 2?. 3. He classified the injuries as simple in nature Ex. P-5 is the medical certificate issued by him P.W. 6 inspected the scene and effected seizure of broken bangle pieces (M.O.2) under the cover of Ex. P. 4 police proceedings. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene. He examined P.Ws. 3 to 5 and recorded the statements. He arrested the accused on 16-12-1997 and sent them for remand. After completing investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapur. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as PRC No. 11 of 1998 and committed the case to Sessions Division Anantapur. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C. No. 470 of 1998 and made over the same to the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur for disposal according to law. On hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge framed three charges against the accused. Firstly:— Against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 447 IPC; Secondly:— Against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 323 IPC; and Thirdly:— Against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 354 r/w 34 IPC. 4. The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge read over and explained the charges to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and proved 5 documents and exhibited 2 material objects. 4. The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge read over and explained the charges to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and proved 5 documents and exhibited 2 material objects. On behalf of the accused, they examined one Kistaiah as D.W. 1 and marked the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 as Exs.D-1 to D-4. On appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 447 and 323 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer SI for three months for the offence under Sections 447 IPC; and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer SI for one year for the offence under Section 323 IPC while finding the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC acquitted them accordingly, by the judgment dated 10th June, 1999. Hence, this Criminal Appeal by the State. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of P.W. 1 is cogent and consistent to the fact that A-1 caught hold of her breast and pulled out her sari and thereby she felt insulted and that thereafter A-1 to A-3 dragged her and beat her with chappals indiscriminately and therefore the accused are liable for the offence under Section 354 IPC. He took me to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and the contents of Ex. P-1 report to show that the version of P.W. 1 with regard to A-1 pressing her breasts and pulling out her sari is cogent and consistent and trustworthy. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused submits that P.Ws. 1 to 3 are interested witnesses and therefore no implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony. A further submission has been made that mere act of A-1 pulling the sari of P.W. 1 does not attract Section 354 IPC and therefore the trial Court is justified in recording acquittal of respondents/accused for the offence under Section 354 r/w 34 IPC. A further submission has been made that mere act of A-1 pulling the sari of P.W. 1 does not attract Section 354 IPC and therefore the trial Court is justified in recording acquittal of respondents/accused for the offence under Section 354 r/w 34 IPC. He also submits that the trial Court ought not to have convicted the respondent/accused basing on the interested testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 323 and 447 IPC. He refers to Section 377(3) IPC to butter his submission that in an appeal by the State for the enhancing the quantum of sentence the accused are entitled to plead for acquittal or for reduction of sentence. 7. In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has the same powers which the trial Court has in examining the evidence and if it comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial Court was unreasonable or against the weight of evidence, it could reject finding recorded by the trial Court. 8. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which and order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused if further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. The principle to be followed by the appellate Court against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If tugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. 9. A charge under Section 354 IPC of one which is very easy to make and is very difficult to rebut. If tugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. 9. A charge under Section 354 IPC of one which is very easy to make and is very difficult to rebut. A careful approach has to be adopted by the Court while dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are as under: (a) That person assaulted must be woman; (b) That the accused must have used criminal force on her; and (c) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty. 10. In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 IPC, mere knowledge that the modesty of woman likely to the outraged is sufficient without deliberate intention of having such outrage alone for its object. Knowledge and intention are essential things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is said to have been committed. A victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight. 11. P.W. 1 is the victim, She testifies that on the date of the incident at 4 P.M. while she was proceeding to her house, A-1 came in the opposite direction and asked her “Na Daggaraku Vastava” viz., would she come to him, and thereupon she took out her chappal and showed at him. She further stated that she went back to the hayrick yard and informed her mother-in-law P.W. 3 who told her that the matter would be placed before the elders. She would further testify that A-1 to A-3 tresspassed into the hayrick yard and thereafter A-2 abused her and whereas A-1 caught hold of her breast and pulled out her sari and thereby she felt insulted and sat down there itself. Her version that A-1 caught her breast and pulled out her sari and thereby she felt insulted and sat down there itself. Her version that A-1 caught her breasts and pulled out her sari is consistent and cogent right from presenting Ex. P-1 report before the police. The same is fully corroborated by P.Ws. 3 and 5. P.Ws. Her version that A-1 caught her breast and pulled out her sari and thereby she felt insulted and sat down there itself. Her version that A-1 caught her breasts and pulled out her sari is consistent and cogent right from presenting Ex. P-1 report before the police. The same is fully corroborated by P.Ws. 3 and 5. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are independent witnesses and they substantially corroborate the testimony of P.W. 1 in all material particulars. P.W. 7 is the doctor who medically examined P.W. 1 and issued Ex. P-5 medical certificate. In a way, the testimony of P.W. 1 is corroborated by the medical evidence also. The trial court recorded acquittal of A-1 for the offence under Section 354 IPC on some flimsy grounds. One of the grounds for recording acquittal was that P.W. 2 who is the husband of the victim resorted to take her to the police station without allowing her to wear sari. In order to elucidate as to how flimsy the reason for acquittal of A-1 for the offence under Section 354 IPC, it is useful to extract the relevant portion of the judgment of the trial Court and it is thus: “……According to the prosecution case, A-1 to A-3 tresspassed into the hayrick yard of P.W. 1 and beat with chappal by catching hold of her tuft and pulled down her sari, to prove this offence there must be clear suggestive of sex, according to the common notion of mankind. According to the prosecution this offence was taken place in the hayrick yard of P.W. 1 in the presence of P.W. 3 in broad daylight. According to the evidence of P.W. 4 every thing will be visible to the bus stand where pial is visible what was happening in the hayrick yard. Under such circumstances, A-1 to A-3 who are brothers together may not be tried to outrage the modesty of a woman. So it is only an assault made on P.W. 1 due to some quarrel. On the other hand the evidence of P.W. 2 who is husband of P.W. 1 is that he deposed in his chief examination that on hearing the cries of P.W. 1 he went to hayrick yard and saw P.W. 1 was only with her petty coat and on seeing the same somebody gave sari to her. On the other hand the evidence of P.W. 2 who is husband of P.W. 1 is that he deposed in his chief examination that on hearing the cries of P.W. 1 he went to hayrick yard and saw P.W. 1 was only with her petty coat and on seeing the same somebody gave sari to her. In his cross-examination, he categorically deposed that he wanted to take P.W. 1 with petty coat itself to police station. When such is the conduct of P.W. 2 he wanted to take his wife to police station from his house with a petty coat and jacket it shows that whether P.W. 1 got any modesty or not. The immediate action of any modesty or not. The immediate action of any husband is to protect the modesty of a woman, if not it is the immediate action of an Indian woman to protest her modesty by wearing sari. Surprisingly in this case P.W. 2 who is husband of P.W. 1 wanted to take his wife to police station with petty coat, it shows that how they are with deep routed vengeance to file a false case against the accused under Section 354 IPC. Keeping aside the conduct of P.Ws. 1 and 2 accused beat P.W. 1 with chappal and there is no other evidence that A-2 pressed her breast and pulled down her sari. So the offence is not proved under Section 354 IPC against A-1, A-2 and A-3, Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal under Section 235 for the Section 354 IPC.” The observation made by the trial Judge that there is no evidence against A-1 that he caught hold of the breast of P.W. 1 and pulled out her sari is contrary to the material brought on record. Merely because P.W. 2 intended to take P.W. 1 to the police station clad in petty coat does not indicate that P.W. 1 has no modesty. The reasons offered by the trial Judge for recording acquittal of A-1 under Section 354 IPC are perverse and the same are liable to be rejected. The testimony of P.W. 1 is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5 with regard to A-1 outraging her modesty. Therefore, A-1 is liable for the offence under Section 354 IPC. The reasons offered by the trial Judge for recording acquittal of A-1 under Section 354 IPC are perverse and the same are liable to be rejected. The testimony of P.W. 1 is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5 with regard to A-1 outraging her modesty. Therefore, A-1 is liable for the offence under Section 354 IPC. With regard to A-2 and A-3 there is no evidence that they tried to outrage the modesty of P.W. 1. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the acquittal of R-1/A-1 Kasappagari Krishna Reddy for the offence under Section 354 IPC and accordingly R-1/A-1 is found guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC and he is convicted of the same and is sentenced to suffer R-1 for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer S-1 for six months. The acquittal of A-2 and A-3 for the offence under Section 354 IPC is confirmed. The sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Court with regard to the offences under Section 323 and 447 IPC shall remain undisturbed. R-1/A-1-Kasappagari Krishna Reddy is directed to surrender himself before the trial Court to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him for the offence under Section 354 IPC. In case of A-1 Kasappagari Krishna Reddy not surrendering, the trial Court shall issue NBW against him and on execution of the same, he shall be committed to prison to serve the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 354 IPC.