ORDER : V. Srinivas, J. Assailing the judgment dated 15.02.2010 in Crl.A.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 30.04.2008 in S.C.No.52 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram, for the offences under section 447, 353, 354 and 510 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 28.04.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1320 of 2010. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that : (i). On 01.04.2005 at about 11.00 a.m., while P.W.1 had been discharging duties as Senior Assistant in the District S.C. Society Limited at Vizianagaram, accused came to the said office in drunken state and asked her to give proceedings immediately, she informed that she had been preparing office copy, after preparation of the same, obtain the signature of the Executive Director and then proceedings will be issued and it will take four days. (ii). On that, accused pounced upon her, pressed her cheeks stating that she was looking for so beauty, caught hold her hands, sat by the side of her on a bench and demanded to give the papers. He visited the office for four times on that day till 04.00 p.m. in drunken state and continued his attitude. (iii). Basing on Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, on the same day i.e., 01.04.2005, P.W.4-A.S.I of Vizianagaram I Town Police registered a case in Cr.No.04 of 2005 under Section 448, 353, 354 and 510 of IPC and investigated into. 4. He visited the office for four times on that day till 04.00 p.m. in drunken state and continued his attitude. (iii). Basing on Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, on the same day i.e., 01.04.2005, P.W.4-A.S.I of Vizianagaram I Town Police registered a case in Cr.No.04 of 2005 under Section 448, 353, 354 and 510 of IPC and investigated into. 4. After completion of investigation, P.W.5-S.I of Police, laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as P.R.C.No.03 of 2005 on the file of Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vizianagaram, committed to the Court of Sessions, numbered as S.C.No.52 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram, after full-fledged Trial, vide judgment dated 30.04.2008, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 447, 353, 354 and 510 of IPC, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three (3) months, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of three (3) months, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of five (5) years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (3) months and also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of one day, for the respective offences. All the sentences imposed against the accused shall run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.22 of 2008, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 15.02.2010, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 7. Heard Sri V. Santhisree, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?” 9. Heard Sri V. Santhisree, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri V. Santhisree, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submits that there are so many material contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3; that prosecution has not sent the accused for medical examination to prove that whether he is in drunken state or not; that in the absence of medical evidence and in view of the omissions and contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3, the trial Court as well first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the material on record in proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very much consistent and cogent; that no material omissions or contradictions elicited by the accused to discard the testimony of prosecution witnesses; that Ex.P.1 report was given on the date of offence itself; that the place of offence is a public place and no enmity or otherwise established by the accused to depose false against him by P.Ws.1 to 3; that both the Courts below rightly appreciated the material on record to come to a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt and convicted the petitioner for the said offences. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that as on the date of alleged offence, P.W.1 is working as Senior Assistant in S.C. Corporation at Vizianagaram. 12. The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 shows that the accused was in intoxicated condition on the date of offence, entered into the offence of P.W.2-Administrative Officer, S.C. Corporation at Vizianagaram, accused caught hold the hand of P.W.1, uttered some words, then she gave complaint to P.W.2, he obtained written complaint from P.W.2 on the instructions of Executive Director and sent it to the police with a covering letter under Ex.P.2. P.W.2 in all material facts supported the testimony of P.W.1 as well P.W.3-Section Writer. 13. In fact, before the Trail Court it is urged on behalf of the accused that he has been questioned the employees of S.C. Corporation as he is a leader in S.C. community and since he has been questioning them, they have foisted Ex.P.1 false report by P.W.1. When the said defense is put to P.Ws.1 to 3, while cross examination, they consistently denied the same and it is also specifically stated that the application of loan will not be refused, except in case of no banker is coming forward. They forwarded the loan application in two or three days to the Bank and after receiving the consent letter of the Bank, they sent the same to the District Collector in five or six days and obtained sanction order. 14. In the present case on hand, as could be seen from the material on record, a written report covered under Ex.P.1 was given, in which, narrated the entire incident, the same was sent to police by P.W.2 with Ex.P.2 covering letter, on the same day at 09.30 p.m. it was registered, at about 10.30 p.m. and it was reached to the learned Magistrate concerned. As well, P.W.5 investigating officer categorically testified about the receipt of Ex.P.1 report through the attender of P.W.2, recording of statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and investigation done by him. 15. As could be seen from the testimonies of prosecution of witnesses, this Court could not find any omissions or contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 and the same is cogent and convincing, which clearly shows that accused fell on P.W.1, used criminal force on her with the intent to outrage her modesty and also obstructed her in discharging her official duties. It is also to be noted that, in fact, P.W.1 in her report sought protection from the accused, even she did not ask any penal action with regard to the misbehavior and obstruction in discharging her lawful duties. 16. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 3 are public servants and responsible persons in the society and there is no animosity against the petitioner/accused to speak false against him. 17. 16. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 3 are public servants and responsible persons in the society and there is no animosity against the petitioner/accused to speak false against him. 17. The so-called omission said to be elicited in the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not at all material and it is settled law that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses are not of substantial character, which is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 4 SCC 491 . 18. On close perusal of the entire material on record, this Court could not find any material contradictions and omissions as pointed out by the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even in the Judgment of the first Appellate Court at length discussed the evidence on record, appreciated the material in a right perspective and came to the conclusion that the very incident was proved by the prosecution and also found that there was no delay in reporting the matter to police and that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very clear, no acceptable contention was put forth by the accused either before the trial Court or first Appellate Court except denying the prosecution case. Both the Courts below consistently held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt. 19. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard findings recorded by the trial Court as well first Appellate Court. 20. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the well-articulated judgment of the first Appellate Court and thereby, this revision has no merits. Consequently, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 15.02.2010 in Crl.A.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram. Consequently, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 15.02.2010 in Crl.A.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram, to serve the sentence imposed, if not, the learned Sessions Judge concerned shall take steps against the petitioner. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.