JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge This revision is directed against judgment dated 4.7.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, in Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 2006 affirming judgment dated 27.12.2005/3.1.2006 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, in Police Challan No. 27-II of 2005 convicting the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 506 IPC and sentencing him for various terms including fine. 2. The prosecution case is that PW-1 complainant alongwith her father Dhani Ram reported the matter against the petitioner, who is father in law of the complainant. The allegations are that on 4.2.2005 at about 11.00 a.m. the complainant was feeding her children in a tent in absence of her husband. In the meantime, the accused came near the tent, complainant came out of tent with her children. The accused caught hold the complainant from her neck and started molesting by pressing her breasts. The complainant pushed the accused and raised alarm. The accused laid her on the ground and her shirt was got torn and she sustained injuries on her neck, right leg, knee and upper portion of left leg. 3. On hearing the cries of the complainant, Chandervati reached the spot. The accused left the place and threatened the complainant to do away with her life. The incident was witnessed by some others also. It has been alleged that accused outraged the modesty of the complainant in the absence of her husband. On these allegations, the case was registered. The complainant was got medically examined. On completion of investigation, challan was submitted in the Court. 4. The notice of accusation was put to the accused for offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 506 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case. The accused examined DW-1 Dharam Singh in defence. On completion of trial, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on 4.7.2006, hence revision. 5. I have heard Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State. I have also gone through the record. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the two Courts below have mis-construed and mis-interpreted the evidence. 5. I have heard Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State. I have also gone through the record. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the two Courts below have mis-construed and mis-interpreted the evidence. The inference drawn from the evidence is wrong. There is perversity in the impugned judgment. The Courts below have not appreciated that the case against the petitioner, who is father in law of the complainant is false. He has been falsely implicated, the petitioner is entitled to acquittal. In any case the sentence imposed is excessive. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment. She has submitted that the petitioner took advantage of the absence of the husband of the complainant and molested the complainant. The two Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The petitioner is not entitled to any leniency, she has supported the impugned judgment. 7. Ex.PW-1/A is the FIR dated 5.2.2005, Ex.PW6/A is the spot map showing tent of Som Krishan at place Safal, in front of tent is point ‘B’ showing the place of occurrence, at point ‘C’ at a distance of about 40 feet is the house of Nikka Ram. On the other side of the path is the house of Shyam Dass. Ex.PW-1/B is the recovery memo of torn shirt Ex.P-1 of the complainant. Ex.PW-4/A is the MLC of the complainant showing simple injuries with blunt weapon. 8. PW-1 complainant has stated that on 4.2.2005 at about 11.00 a.m. she was in the tent alongwith her children aged 3, 4 years. The accused pushed the children on the ground and caught her from neck and told her that she will have to agree. He threatened to kill her. The accused was asking her for sexual intercourse. The accused laid her on the ground, he put one hand on her neck and other hand on her string. She struggled to get her free, the accused caught her from breasts, as a result of which her shirt was torn. 9. PW-1 continued that accused pushed her and she fell on stones and bushes. The incident was witnessed by Nikka Ram and Chandavati. The accused earlier also made similar attempts and for that reason they (she) left him and started living in the tent. 9. PW-1 continued that accused pushed her and she fell on stones and bushes. The incident was witnessed by Nikka Ram and Chandavati. The accused earlier also made similar attempts and for that reason they (she) left him and started living in the tent. The report was made to Sub Divisional Magistrate, who directed the Police Station and, therefore, FIR Ex.PW-1/A was registered. She identified shirt Ex.P-1 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/B. 10. In cross-examination, she has stated that she submitted a written complaint to Sub Divisional Magistrate. She has stated that her children were attached to the accused, who is their grand-father. She denied that on seeing the accused her two children ran towards the accused and for that reason she picked up quarrel with the accused. She denied that both the children had gone with the accused. She admitted that her husband met the accused and brought back the children. She denied that she had not told the police that accused put his hand on her string. She denied that she had not disclosed the name of Nikka Ram in her statement to the police. Chandervati is the daughter in law of Nikka Ram. 11. PW-2 Nikka Ram has stated that on 4th of the month in the year 2005 at about 11.00 a.m. he was going for collection of wood, the accused was going to the forest. He took the tea offered by the complainant and he had hardly covered some distance when he heard the cries of the complainant. He returned and saw the accused had laid the complainant on the ground and he had caught hold the complainant from neck. The shirt of complainant had torn. The accused pushed the complainant as a result of which she fell over stones and accused ran away. In cross-examination, he has stated that six months earlier complainant and her husband were living with the accused. He said when accused lifted younger child of the complainant she pelted stones on him. Rupi Devi is the mother of the accused, who for 35 years remained his (PW-2) wife and gave birth to Keshav Ram. Rupi Devi has been granted Nautor. He denied that he demanded said Nautor from Rupi Devi. He said when accused lifted younger child of the complainant she pelted stones on him. Rupi Devi is the mother of the accused, who for 35 years remained his (PW-2) wife and gave birth to Keshav Ram. Rupi Devi has been granted Nautor. He denied that he demanded said Nautor from Rupi Devi. He denied that he is not on good terms with accused but admitted that he is not on visiting terms with accused for the last 2 ½ - 3 years. 12. PW-3 is the witness of recovery memo Ex.PW-1/B of shirt Ex.P-1. PW-4 Dr. Jiya Lal has proved MLC Ex.PW-4/A of complainant who was examined on 5.2.2005. He has stated that injuries mentioned in MLC can be caused if a person slide on slope and stony surface. He has admitted that injuries mentioned in MLC Ex.PW-4/A cannot be caused by beating. 13. PW-5 Som Krishan is the husband of the complainant. He has stated that on 4.2.2005 he was not in his home. On return his wife told him that his father entered his tent. He mis-behaved with her, accused caught hold the complainant from neck and laid her on the ground and put his hand on her string, but complainant gave him kick blow. The accused pushed her and she fell on the stone and sustained injuries. In cross-examination, he has stated that because of some dispute he alongwith his family separated from his father 3-4 months ago prior to the incident. He has stated that in presence of Heeru and the accused had stated that no such incident had taken place and report was false. He has stated that he has not seen the incident. 14. PW-6 Ram Asra has stated that on 5.2.2005 complainant came alongwith her father and lodged FIR Ex.PW-1/A. He conducted the investigation and prepared site plan Ex.PW-6/A. He has stated that it has come in the investigation that children had gone with Shyam Lal but volunteered that they were taken forcibly by him. 15. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case. DW-1 Dharam Singh has stated that on 4.2.2005 he was going to Nanj. He was sitting in the house of the accused, he heard the cries from the direction of jungle. He had seen two children with Shyam Dass. The complainant was pelting stones. Som Krishan took the children with him. DW-1 Dharam Singh has stated that on 4.2.2005 he was going to Nanj. He was sitting in the house of the accused, he heard the cries from the direction of jungle. He had seen two children with Shyam Dass. The complainant was pelting stones. Som Krishan took the children with him. In cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know that on 4.2.2005 the accused misbehaved with the complainant. 16. In FIR Ex.PW-1/A it has been stated that the complainant was caught from the neck and the children were thrown on the ground. It has also been stated that on hearing her cries a neighbour Chandervati came there, the incident was seen by the other persons also. In the FIR it has not been stated that Nikka Ram was also present on the spot. Chandervati has not been examined. 17. The defence of the petitioner is that the relations between petitioner, his son and daughter in law (complainant) were strained but children of complainant were very much attached to the petitioner. On the relevant date, the petitioner took one of the small child of the complainant in his lap which was not liked by the complainant, who pelted stones, raised hue and cry. The complainant of her own fell down on stony surface and sustained some abrasions, but she has falsely implicated the petitioner at the instance of his son as well as father of the complainant. The incident took place on 4.2.2005 at about 11.00 a.m. PW-1 complainant has stated that she had submitted a written complaint to Sub Divisional Magistrate, who directed the police for registration of the case. The first version of the incident of the complainant must have been given by her in the complaint given to Sub Divisional Magistrate but that complaint has not been brought on record by the prosecution, therefore, adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution. 18. The complainant has admitted that her children were very much attached to the petitioner. She denied that both the children had gone with the accused but on this point she has been belied by PW-2 Nikka Ram. He has stated that when petitioner lifted younger child of the complainant, she pelted stones on him. 18. The complainant has admitted that her children were very much attached to the petitioner. She denied that both the children had gone with the accused but on this point she has been belied by PW-2 Nikka Ram. He has stated that when petitioner lifted younger child of the complainant, she pelted stones on him. PW-1 has stated that her children aged 3, 4 years were in the tent on 4.2.2005 at about 11.00 a.m. She denied that both the children had gone with the petitioner, but admitted that her husband met the accused and brought back the children. This means the children had gone with the petitioner at the time of the incident. 19. PW-1 has stated that petitioner caught hold of her from neck with one hand and put the other hand on her string for sexual intercourse. He pressed her breasts also. On resistance, petitioner threw her on stones and bushes as a result of which she sustained injuries. In FIR Ex.PW-1/A it has not been stated that petitioner put his hand on the string of complainant for sexual intercourse. In FIR Ex.PW-1/A the complainant has stated that the incident was witnessed by Chandervati, who has not been examined. On the contrary, the prosecution has examined PW-2 Nikka Ram, who claimed his presence on the spot. But in FIR Ex.PW-1/A the complainant has not stated that Nikka Ram was present on the spot. Nikka Ram is the previous husband of Rupi Devi, mother of the petitioner. He has admitted that he is not on visiting terms with accused for the last 2 ½ -3 years. It means the relations between petitioner and Nikka Ram are not good. The petitioner has taken the plea that Nikka Ram wanted Nautor land of Rupi Devi which she refused and due to this reason, Nikka Ram had not good terms with the petitioner with whom Rupi Devi his mother was living. 20. The complainant in the FIR has stated that incident was witnessed by several villagers but except interested person Nikka Ram, no other independent witness of the incident has been examined by the prosecution. No reason has been given for not examining Chandervati. PW-5 Som Krishan husband of the complainant has stated that incident had not taken place in his presence. PW-4 Dr. No reason has been given for not examining Chandervati. PW-5 Som Krishan husband of the complainant has stated that incident had not taken place in his presence. PW-4 Dr. Jiya Lal has stated that injuries mentioned in MLC Ex.PW-4/A can be caused if a person slide on slope and stony surface. He has stated that the injuries mentioned in MLC Ex.PW-4/A cannot be caused by beating. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant of her own fell on the stony surface and sustained injuries mentioned in MLC Ex.PW-4/A. 21. The relations between the petitioner, his son and daughter in law were strained. The complainant, her husband were living in a tent away from the house of petitioner where earlier complainant, her husband used to live alongwith their children when their relations with the petitioner were not strained. The statement of PW-1 complainant does not inspire confidence. No independent uninterested witness has been examined to corroborate the testimony of PW-1. The incident took place on 4.2.2005 at about 11.00 a.m. whereas FIR was lodged on 5.2.2005 at 4.00 p.m., the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained properly. 22. The two Courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence on record. The inference drawn by the two Courts below while convicting and sentencing the petitioner is not correct. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. 23. In view of above, the revision is allowed. The judgment dated 4.7.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, in Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 2006 affirming judgment dated 27.12.2005/3.1.2006 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, in Police Challan No. 27-II of 2005 are set-aside. The accused is acquitted of the accusation. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him, his bail bonds are discharged.