Judgment : 1. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, in S.C.No. 307 of 2009 before the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc)-II, Kottayam, the defacto complainant has come up in revision. 2. PW1 is the victim in this case. She is a house wife. On the date of incident it is alleged that after washing clothes she had gone inside the house and on her way to open the front door which she had bolted earlier. At that time, it is alleged that some one caught her from behind and tried to pull her into the bedroom. She resisted the move and also says that she had inflicted a bite on the assailant. Bite helped her to extricate from the clutches of the assailant and she ran outside and then she saw PW6 and her mother-in-law were coming to the house. She narrated the incident to them. She was taken to the hospital and she was examined by PW3 who issued Ext.P4 certificate. The First Information Statement, Ext.P1 was recorded from the Government Hospital, Pala. It was recorded by PW8, who also made the body note namely Ext.P1(a). He was thereafter returned the Station and as per Ext.P9, FIR, registered crime against the accused. Investigation was taken over by PW9. He took MOs 1 and 2 in custody as per Ext.P7 Mahazar and he also filed Ext.P10, report incorporating Section 506(i) of IPC. After completing investigation, he laid charge before the court. It so happened that a complaint was filed before the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam who ordered re-investigation and therefore a memo indicating to the court that further investigation was being carried on was filed by PW10 who conducted further investigation. After further investigation, he filed the charge showing Sections 454, 360, 354 and 506(i), 323 and 511 of 376 of IPC. 3. The court before which the final report was laid took cognizance of the offence. Finding that the offences are exclusively triable by a court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kottayam. The said court made over the case to Additional District and Sessions Court, Adhoc-II, Kottayam for trial and disposal. 4. The latter court on receipt of records and on appearance of the accused, framed charges for the offences already made mention of. To the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The said court made over the case to Additional District and Sessions Court, Adhoc-II, Kottayam for trial and disposal. 4. The latter court on receipt of records and on appearance of the accused, framed charges for the offences already made mention of. To the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore had examined PWs 1 to 10 and had Exts.P1 to P11 marked. MOs 1 and 2 were got identified and marked. The defence had D1 and D2 marked through the prosecution witness. 5. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. He also pointed out that there is a 'bund' about 5 feet width passing in between his property and the property belonging to the defacto complainant's family property. As per the re- survey conducted, that 'bund' fell within the property to which he is entitled to. He would say that he had enclosed the said portion 2 = years before. That portion was trespassed upon and agricultural operations were conducted by the father-in-law of PW1. That resulted in bitterness between the two families and in order to wreak vengeance, it is claimed that he has been falsely implicated. 6. Finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. He chose to adduce no evidence. The court below, on an appreciation of the evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the evidence of PWs 1 and 6 regarding the actual incident and the medical evidence furnished by PW3 are not convincing enough to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt should go to that of the accused and he was acquitted of all charges. The said acquittal is assailed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner pointed out that the court below was not justified in ignoring the convincing evidence furnished by PWs 1 and 6 which would clearly show that the accused had committed the offence. The accused was very familiar to both of them. In the evidence of PW1 it is sufficiently corroborated in at least in some of the material particulars by the evidence of PW6. The accused was very familiar to both of them. In the evidence of PW1 it is sufficiently corroborated in at least in some of the material particulars by the evidence of PW6. There is no reason to disbelieve PW1 at all. It is also pointed out that the medical evidence furnished by PW1 and that certainly drawn up by her namely Exts. P4 and P5 to a large measure support the testimony of PW1. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the incident had taken place inside the house of PW1 and therefore it is virtually impossible to have other direct evidence in the matter. But for the timely intervention of PW6 and her mother-in-law, she says that she would have been ravished. The learned counsel went on to point out that none of the reasons given by the court below is justifiable in law for an acquittal of the accused. There has been mis-appreciation of the evidence in the case that has resulted in miscarriage of justice also. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused on the other hand contended that the court below has analysed the evidence in considerable detail and has come to the conclusion that there has been manipulations and developments so as to deliberately rope in the accused for reasons best known to the prosecution. It was pointed out that the defence taken at the time of 313 Statement is not without basis as could be seen from the materials on record. The court below has come to the conclusion according to the learned counsel that if the accused had to enter to the rear door, it cannot be without notice of PW1 and the very entry itself is doubtful. The court below has also considered the over enthusiasm on the part of the Police to have a second medical examination which is unknown in law and that would show that there was concerted move on the part of the complainant's family and the police to some how implicate the accused. The learned counsel also drew attention of this Court to Ext. P5 and going by Ext.P5, the victim was examined at 5.45 pm and going by Ext.P1, it came into existence only at 6.30 pm. If that be so, it is difficult to understand how Ext.P5 could have contained the crime number. This also shows manipulation done by the authorities concerned. P5 and going by Ext.P5, the victim was examined at 5.45 pm and going by Ext.P1, it came into existence only at 6.30 pm. If that be so, it is difficult to understand how Ext.P5 could have contained the crime number. This also shows manipulation done by the authorities concerned. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that PW1 is categoric and definite that she had inflicted a bite on the accused leaving a mark on his limb. The medical examination showed otherwise. These suspicious items of evidence is sufficient to be create a reasonable doubt in the mind of court and that is what had weighed the court below in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also reminded this Court that this Court is sitting in a revisional jurisdiction where scope of interference is considerably limited. Unless it is shown that the order of the court below suffers from any irregularity, impropriety and illegality merely because this Court is inclined to take a different view may not be a ground for interference or of acquittal. More so, it is acquittal by the court below. The learned counsel went on to point out that it could not be said that the findings entered into by the court below are not based on evidence or that it is perverse. It is a possible view and if that be so, that should sustain. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused is perfectly justified in her submission that the jurisdiction of this Court sitting in revision is considerably limited in its scope and power. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/ accused, unless it is shown that the findings are so very perverse or are contrary to the evidence on record, interference by this Court may not be justified, even assuming that the different view is possible. One has to remember that the court below which had the opportunity to watch the demeanor of witness, if has chosen to disbelieve or believe the witness, the Appellate Court or the Revision Court must be very careful in interfering with those findings unless there are convincing and cogent reasons to do so. Normally, when revisional jurisdiction is exercised, interference is only when some illegality, impropriety or irregularity is pointed out in the findings of the court below. 10. Normally, when revisional jurisdiction is exercised, interference is only when some illegality, impropriety or irregularity is pointed out in the findings of the court below. 10. Bearing the above principles in mind, an attempt shall now be made to exercise where there the order of the court below suffers from any such infirmities. 11. PW1 is the victim in this case. She has given evidence regarding the incident. She would say that after washing the clothes, when she went inside the house and was about to open the front door which had bolted earlier, she was attacked. She would say that there was an attempt on the part of the assailant to drag her into the bedroom and to ravish her which she successfully resisted. She would also say that she had inflicted a bite on the assailant which let her escape from the clutches of the assailant. In Ext.P1 furnished by PW1 from the hospital, what is stated is that escaping from the clutches of the assailant, she ran outside and then she had occasion to meet PW6 and her mother-in-law. But at the time of evidence, there is a shift in this stand. She says that while the attack was being made, PW6 and the mother-in-law had already come and she could see them through the window. They entered in the house through the back door when PW6 claims to have seen the accused running away from the same door itself. The further statement is that PW6 tried to catch hold of the accused but he managed to escape. 12. Of course, PW6 also says about the later portion of the incident. But the question is whether these items, evidence of PW1 and PW6 could be readily accepted and believed. Apart from the above deviations in the testimony of PW1 regarding the arrival of PW6 and the mother-in-law, there are other suspicious circumstances also as rightly noticed by the court below. 13. One should remember that the accused is a close neighbour of PW1 and both families are very familiar to each other. If that be so, when PW1 goes to the hospital immediately after the incident, she must have known who the assailant was. However, to PW3, the doctor, the history given is that a person who is identifiable on sight had attacked her. If that be so, when PW1 goes to the hospital immediately after the incident, she must have known who the assailant was. However, to PW3, the doctor, the history given is that a person who is identifiable on sight had attacked her. It is curious to note that subsequently at 5.45 p.m., another examination of the victim is conducted and there, the name of the accused figures. On fails to understand what was the occasion for the second examination of the victim. It is interesting to note that there is no change in the injuries noticed by the doctor, PW3 who had examined the victim on both the occasions. It is also significant to notice that in Ext.P4, the definite assertion on behalf of PW1 is that there was no attempt of sexual assault on her. That is given a go bye and that the victim come forward with totally different version at the time of second examination. 14. The above incongruity in the evidence certainly creates a doubt in the mind of court. 15. Then again, as rightly noticed by the court below, if as a matter of fact, the victim was washing the clothes on the western side of the house where the washing stone is placed, the assessment of the court below that if it was during that time, the accused had entered the house, it could not have been without the notice of PW1 seems quite a possible view. The victim has no case that she had left the front door open to enable the accused to come in or that he was already inside while she had gone out. Whatever that be, the court below has considered the evidence and has come to the conclusion that normally and usually, it would not have been possible for anyone to enter through the rear door without PW1 noticing the same since the washing stone was placed close nearby to that door. 16. One may recall that the definite case of PW1 is that she had inflicted bite on the assailant. She is definite that it was a severe one. If that be so, it would have left its mark. But when the doctor examined the accused, there was no mark found on his body. It is here, one has to recollect the entry in Ext.P4 to the effect that 'a person who is identifiable on sight'. She is definite that it was a severe one. If that be so, it would have left its mark. But when the doctor examined the accused, there was no mark found on his body. It is here, one has to recollect the entry in Ext.P4 to the effect that 'a person who is identifiable on sight'. Apart from the reason already given which makes the version on PW1 doubtful, the fact that there was no bite marks seen on the body of the accused also makes the prosecution case open to serious doubt. 17. There was no attempt from the side of the Investigating Agency to find out to whom the MO2 spectacles belonged. At any rate, there is no case for the prosecution that it belonged to the accused. One may here again recall that the accused is very very familiar to the victim and their family. If as a matter of fact, the spectacles were usually worn by the accused, there would have been no difficulty for PW1 to identify the same as that belong to the accused. 18. It was the above factors which had weighed by the court below in analyzing the evidence of PW1 and coming to the conclusion that it could not be said that her evidence passes scrutiny. May be that the defence has not been able to establish as to why the accused was implicated. But that is not a ground to say that he should be found guilty. It is well established that the burden is always on the prosecution to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 19. Viewed from that angle also, the findings of the court below seems to be possible and probable one and it could not be said that it is either perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. It is not as if that the evidence of PW1 is of a sterling character so as to inspire confidence in the mind of court. The two medical examination, the absence of bite marks etc., which have already been discussed cast a doubt on the prosecution version of the incident. The court was therefore justified in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. There is no impropriety, illegality or irregularity established in the findings of the court below in acquitting the accused. The result is that this revision should fail. The court was therefore justified in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. There is no impropriety, illegality or irregularity established in the findings of the court below in acquitting the accused. The result is that this revision should fail. It is dismissed by confirming the acquittal passed by the court below.