ORDER : Heard the arguments of the appellant’s counsel, and also the respondents counsels. 2. The brief material facts of the case are that, at about 11.30 p.m. , on 12.06.2003, when the complainant went to attend nature cal l, at that time, the respondent came and made an attempt to rape her and when she screamed at the spot, the persons who were there near the place, rushed to the spot and chased the respondent and he fell down and he was apprehended and information was sent to the police and police came and took the respondent and complaint is given to the police and police have registered a case for the of fence punishable under sections 376, 511, 506 of IPC and under section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police after the investigation have filed the charge sheet against the respondent herein for the of fence punishable under sections 354, 506 of IPC and under section 3(1) (xi) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and left out the of fence of 376 and 511 of IPC. The Court below has framed charge for these three offences and examined the witnesses PWs.1 to 11 and also got marked the documents exhibits P.1 toP.6 and exhibit D.1, portion of complaint exhibit P.1. The prosecution also relied upon M.O.No.1 white dhoti. The Court below after hearing both the parties, acquitted the respondent/accused for the of fences alleged against him. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the appellant/complainant has filed this appeal before this Court. 3. The grounds of the appeal are that the Court below has given more importance to minor contradictions and failed to consider the evidence available before the Court and the same amounts to miscarriage of justice. The other contention that looking to the entire evidence on record, the lower Court ought to have convicted the accused for the charges framed against him holding that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and presumptions have not been drawn by the Court below and the observation made by the Court below in respect of the injuries to the accused to the effect that the villagers must have assaulted him and used criminal force on him is totally wrong and not acceptable. There are so many jerks and jolps occurred in the evidence of prosecution and the said finding is totally wrong and untenable and hence the Court below has committed an error in acquitting the respondent. 4. The counsel appearing for the appellant in his arguments he vehemently contended that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the victim and her son and also the independent witnesses of PWs.1, 8 and 9 is consistent who came to the spot immediately after hearing the screaming sound and they witnessed this respondent was dragging the victim and when they came to the spot, by seeing them, he started to run away from the place and in that process he fell down and he was caught hold of and thereafter intimation was given to the police and police came and took him in the midnight and the complaint was given in the morning and there is no any delay and the very evidence of PWs.1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 is very consistent and the trial Court by giving more importance to minor contradictions, given the benefit of doubt in favour of the respondent/accused and erred in acquitting the respondent/accused and hence the judgment of acquittal requires interference and the respondent/accused has to be convicted for the offence invoked against him. 5. Per contra, the respondent’s counsel in his arguments he contends that the complaint averment is contrary to the evidence of PW.1 and the evidence of other witnesses is also contrary to their own statement. PW.1 says that they went to the police station in the morning and gave complaint in the morning and the case of the prosecution is that the accused was taken on the very same night and PW.1 says in the cross-examination that she is not aware of the accused and only in the further cross-examination she says that she is having acquaintance with the accused which are contrary to each other. He further contends that it is the al legation that the accused made an attempt to commit rape on the complainant and there was a scuffle between them and the bangles were broken and the same was not seized and also the complainant says that she went to attend nature cal l with water taking the pot and the same is also not seized and each circumstances show that it is a case of false implication and further contended that the witnesses who have deposed before the Court are relatives of the complainant and the independent evidence has been assessed by the Court below and the Court below taking note of the contradictions elicited in the cross-examination, given benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and there are no grounds to come to other conclusion to reverse the finding of the lower Court and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the arguments of the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent/accused, this Court has to re-appreciate the evidence available before the Court since it is the first appel late Court and after perusing both the oral and documentary evidence, the question arises before this Court is whether the Court below has committed an error in acquitting the accused for the offence al leged against him. 7. Having heard the arguments of the appellant’s counsel and also the respondent’s counsel , in keeping the contentions urged by the appellant’s counsel and the main contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the Court below has given more importance to minor contradictions and in respect of in equivocal evidence of PWs.1, 2, 7, 8 and 9, the Court below has committed an error in not considering their evidence and their evidence before the Court establishes the circumstances under which the incident was taken place and apart from that the accused was also apprehended at the spot and given to the custody of police. The other contention that the Court below in respect of the injuries to the accused to the effect that the villagers must have assaulted him are totally wrong and could not be accepted and failed to take note of the fact that he has sustained injuries while attempting to ran away from the place and he has sustained injuries and the accused also did not dispute with regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by him when he has been produced before the Court below. 8. In keeping the contentions of the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel for the respondent, this Court has to re-appreciate the evidence available on record. The complainant in her chief evidence she has reiterated the incident and she was subjected to cross-examination and in the cross-examination she admits that the house of the accused is at the distance of two roads from her house but she claims that she is not having any acquaintance with him and also she did not inform the fact of going for nature cal l and also she claims that no ill will against the complainant and the accused and also she says that while going to attend the nature cal l she took water with pot and she has not given the same to the police during the time of conducting the mahazar and also claims she was wearing bangles and claims that the bangles were also broken and she has sustained the injuries but the police did not seize the broken bangles and her son was not in the house and the other witnesses PWs.7, 8 and 9 were also sleeping in the pial of the temple and further she admits that Irappa, who is PW.7 is her brother and the Hanumanth-PW.9 is her brother-in-law and they came to the spot hearing the screaming sound and at that time the accused ran away from the place and he was apprehended and she claims that where he was apprehended there itself the MO.1 was lying and thereafter he was brought near the Durgadevi Temple and her husband was not in town at that time and later he came to village and one Irappa was sent to the police station and he informed the police and on the same day the police came to the village but she claims it was midnight. Herself and her husband went to the police went to the police station in the morning at 8-9 a.m. She further says that dhoti was lying in between the house of Irappa and Duragappa and she only showed the same to the police and the said place is at the distance of 5-6 feet from the place of incident and he did not inform the police about the breaking of bangles. 9. PW.2 is none other than the son of PW.1 and he claims that he came to the spot hearing the screaming sound along with PWs.7, 8 and 9 and caught hold the accused. In the cross12 examination he categorically admits that he himself and CWs.6 to 8 were sleeping on the pial of the temple. In the cross-examination he claims that the dhoti was came in contact with bush which was in between the house of Irappa and Durgappa and a suggestion was made that his mother has committed the wrong and in order to suppress the same, a false complaint is given. PWs.7, 8 and 9 according to the prosecution are the witnesses who rushed to the spot. PW.1 also reiterates the evidence of PW.2. In the cross-examination he says that he cannot say which hand of the accused was holding the complainant since the accused was running at that time and he alone went to the police station in cycle and he claims that one and half an hour time is required to go to police station and at that time the police were not there and he came to the village at around 3.30 to 4.00 a.m. and he informed the police about the incident and he came back to village around 5.00 a.m. and by that time the police have already taken the accused to the station. 10. The other witness is PW.8 according to the prosecution is the witness who came to the spot and he reiterates the statement of PWs.2 and 7 and in the cross-examination he admits that written complaint was not given and he claims that Irappa i.e. PW.7 came to the village in the night itself at around 2.00 p.m. and after that the police came after one and half hour. The PW.7 returned to the village and the police came to the village and further he claims that the police did not take the accused and so also did not take the complainant. 11. PW.9 also says that he went to the spot hearing screaming sound and apprehended the accused and he claims that the accused was holding her saree. In the cross-examination he says that the police came to the village at around 3.30 to 4.00 p.m. and took the accused to the police station and the complainant, al l of them went to the police station and no villagers went to the police station along with the accused. 12. PW.10 who is the doctor who examined the injured and in his evidence he says that the injuries sustained by the accused are simple in nature and he issued wound certificate in terms of Ex.P.4. In the cross-examination he admits that the injuries he found may occurred during the course of assault and the oozing of blood stopped after five minutes and when he examined him at that time blood was oozing and further says that the accused might have sustained those injuries 5-10 minutes earlier to his examination and the said type of injuries may cause when he fisted with hand. A suggestion was made that if he fell down suddenly this type of injuries may cause and the same was denied. PW.11 is the I.O. who conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 13. For having taken note of the evidence of the prosecution, no doubt PWs.1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 have spoken with regard to the alleged incident and the PW.1 in her statement she says in one breath that she was not having any acquaintance with the accused and in further cross-examination again she says that she was having acquaintance with the accused and further she claims that when she went to attend nature call at 11.00 p.m. with the water pot and admittedly the pot was not seized and further evidence that the bangles were broken and the same was also not seized and she claims that when the bangles were broken she has sustained injuries. On perusal of Ex.P.6-wound certificate of the victim there are no injuries and on perusal of the wound certificate-Ex.P.4 the accused has sustained injuries. 14. On perusal of Ex.P.6-wound certificate of the victim there are no injuries and on perusal of the wound certificate-Ex.P.4 the accused has sustained injuries. 14. The counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to my notice that when the accused was produced before the Magistrate on 13.06.2003, the accused says he has sustained injuries in the incident and hence the jail authorities were directed to provide medical assistance. It is important to note that the complaint is filed at 7.30 a.m. as per the endorsement available at Ex.P.1 and PW.1 claims that she went to the police station along with her husband on the next day in between 8-9 a.m. and the evidence of this witness discloses that the accused was taken to the police station in the midnight itself i .e. the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 7 and 9 but PW.8 says that the accused was not taken to the police station and further on perusal of the evidence of PW.10-doctor, when the injured was taken to the hospital at 7.30 a.m. he says the injuries which he found are fresh in nature and those injuries may occurred just 5-10 minutes before his examination and those type of injures would be caused if any person is fisted with hand and categorically denied if any person fell down suddenly he may sustain this type of injuries and hence the very statement before the Magistrate that injured has made the statement before the Magistrate that he has sustained the injuries during the time of the incident cannot be accepted since the very evidence of PW.10 categorically says that the injuries are fresh in nature and that too he was taken to the hospital at 7.30 a.m. Hence, it is clear that the Court below has considered the injuries with regard to the accused is concerned that those injuries may occurred due to the assault and I do not find any error committed by the Court below in coming to such a conclusion that the injuries found on the accused are injuries of assault. 15. 15. The other contention of the appellant that there were minor contradictions are given importance to the acquit the respondent, I have already pointed out that no water pot which was taken according to PW.1 was seized and also no broken bangles were seized and these are the important materials to come to a conclusion that an attempt is made to outrage the modesty of a woman which was reiterated by PW.1 and it is also important to note that PWs.2, 7, 8 and 9 who have been star witnesses of the prosecution, al l were sleeping in the pial of the temple and according to the prosecution all of them suddenly rushed to the spot and these witnesses are none other than the relatives of PW.1 and PW.1 categorically admits that one witness is the brother and another is the brother-in-law of the PW.1. PW.8 who has spoken before the Court below says that the accused was not taken to the police station but others claim that the accused was taken to the police station and according to the evidence of witnesses also the accused was taken in the midnight itself but the complaint was registered in the morning by 7.30 a.m. and there are discrepancies with regard to the taking of the accused in the night itself and the case was registered later at 7.30 a.m. and the Court below also given consideration with regard to the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. When the witnesses PWs.7, 8 and 9 are the relatives of the PWs.1 and 2, the Court has to examine the evidence available before the Court with due care and caution. When the witnesses PWs.7, 8 and 9 are the relatives of the PWs.1 and 2, the Court has to examine the evidence available before the Court with due care and caution. PW.1 in one breath says that she is not having any acquaintance with the accused and in another breath she claims that she is having acquaintance with the accused and he was staying just two roads after her residence and she has not informed with regard to having acquaintance with the accused in the complaint which is marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.D.1 is also marked with regard to her husband came to village and the police came to the spot immediately after some time and al l of them came to police station but the evidence is contrary to Ex.D.1 and the witness PW.7 says he went to the police station and he came back to village at around 5.00 a.m. since no one was there in the police station when he went to the police station and PW.8 says that PW.7 came to village during night at 2.00 a.m. and police came to the village after one and half hour after the PW.7 came to the village and al l these are the material contradictions and it cannot be held that these contradictions are minor contradictions. 16. The Court below also given importance to the evidence of PW.1 and other independent witnesses which have been named as independent witnesses i.e. PWs.7, 8 and 9 and also considered the contents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.D.1 and having considered the evidence of PWs.7 and 9 who al l of them have deposed that the accused fell down and at that time he was apprehended and I have already pointed out that the evidence of PW.10 is contrary to the case of the prosecution and the doctor says that he has sustained injures fresh in nature that too five minutes prior to production of him before the doctor. 17. 17. For having taken note of the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 and also the evidence of the doctor who is examined as PW.10 which is contrary to each other, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the Court below when there are material contradictions available with regard to the incident and the important materials were also not seized when an allegation of outraging of modesty of a woman is alleged against the accused and with regard to support the evidence that a forcible attempt is made to outrage the modesty of a woman, there is no material and the wound certificate also does not disclose any injury on the victim and also the other medical evidence at Ex.P.6, the doctor specifically given the evidence before the Court that those injuries might have occurred before five minutes prior to his examination and the blood was also oozing when he was produced before him and those injuries are also fresh in nature, I do not find any material to come to other conclusion which has been arrived by the Court below with regard to forming of the opinion that the contradictions which have been occurred in the evidence of the witnesses is suffice to come to a conclusion that there was an incident of outraging of the modesty of a woman and hence I do not find any merit in the appeal to set aside the order of the Court below. 18. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.