ORDER : V. Srinivas, J. Assailing the judgment dated 18.12.2009 in Crl.A.No.103 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused by the judgment dated 09.07.2008 in S.C.No.73 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, for the charges under section 448 and 354 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 23.12.2009 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3066 of 2009. 3. The shorn of prosecution case is that : (i). On 29.08.2007, in the morning hours, P.W.2 went to Mylavaram for purchase of medicines as he is practicing as P.M.P. doctor and P.W.1, who is wife of P.W.2, was alone present in the house. Then the accused went to her house and asked her to give some tablets for his mother and P.W.1 given some tables. Few minutes thereafter, accused again came to her and asked to give another tablet. While P.W.1 was going inside the house, accused followed her and caught hold her hand, took her into her bedroom and outraged the modesty demanding her to satisfy his lust. On that P.W.1 resisted and raised crimes and then the accused escaped from the place by threatening her with dire consequences. On hearing her cries, neighbors came there. (ii). Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.6-A.S.I., Mylavaram Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.139p of 2007 for the offences under Section 448 and 354 of IPC and investigated into. 4. On that P.W.1 resisted and raised crimes and then the accused escaped from the place by threatening her with dire consequences. On hearing her cries, neighbors came there. (ii). Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.6-A.S.I., Mylavaram Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.139p of 2007 for the offences under Section 448 and 354 of IPC and investigated into. 4. After completion of investigation, P.W.6 filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as P.R.C.No.44 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, committed to the Court of Sessions, numbered as S.C.No.73 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, after full-fledged trial, vide judgment dated 09.07.2008, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 354 and 448 of IPC, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in-default to suffer simple imprisonment of one week and also sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one week, for the respective offences. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.103 of 2008, before the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 18.12.2009, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Against the said judgment of the Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 7. Heard Sri Md. Ismail, learned counsel representing Smt. D. Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel 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 Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri Md. 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 Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri Md. Ismail, learned counsel representing Smt. D. Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that prosecution failed to establish the ingredients to constitute the charge alleged against the petitioner; that there is abnormal delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that the sole testimony of P.W.1 is interested in nature and same cannot be relied upon; that none of the neighbours were examined to support the prosecution version, which is fatal to the prosecution case; that there is material discrepancy in 161 statement and Ex.P.1 with regard to date of incident, which is not considered by the Courts below; that the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the material on record in proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner for the said offences and thereby, prays to consider the present revision. 10. As against the same, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of prosecution witnesses categorically shows that the accused outraged the modesty of P.W.1; that sole testimony of P.W.1, which is consistent and cogent, is sufficient to come to conclusion that accused has committed the offence; that the minor discrepancies regarding dates in the statement, while appreciating the evidence in criminal cases, cannot be a ground to discredit the entire testimony and they can be ignored; that prosecution categorically established the guilt of the petitioner beyond all doubt; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the material on record, convicted the petitioner for the said charges and that there is no material on record to discard the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. To prove the charges leveled against the petitioner, prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 6. P.W.1 is the victim, P.W.2 is husband of P.W.1, who came to know the incident through P.W.1, P.Ws.3 and 4 are neighbours, who said to be present immediately after the incident on hearing the cries of P.W.1, P.W.5 is the mediator to the observation of scene of offence and P.W.6, who registered the F.I.R. and investigating officer. 12. P.W.1 is the victim, P.W.2 is husband of P.W.1, who came to know the incident through P.W.1, P.Ws.3 and 4 are neighbours, who said to be present immediately after the incident on hearing the cries of P.W.1, P.W.5 is the mediator to the observation of scene of offence and P.W.6, who registered the F.I.R. and investigating officer. 12. It is the prosecution version that on hearing the cries of P.W.1, P.W.3 and 4 went to the scene of offence and found the accused escaped from the scene of offense by jumping he wall. But, during cross examination, P.W.4 categorically testified that she did not hear the cries, she was inside the house and watching the green gram and the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not visible where she was sitting and she found accused at the house of Gowda people. Thereby, the testimony of P.W.4 is of no use to the prosecution case. 13. Admittedly, the testimony of P.W.2 is hearsay in nature and to corroborate the testimony of P.W.1/victim, the only testimony available to the prosecution is P.W.3. He testified that he heard the cries of P.W.1 from her house, rushed to main gate of P.W.1, found the accused while he was escaping from the house of P.W.1 and he chased him to some distance by questioning about the reason for escape. 14. To appreciate the same, the testimony of P.W.1 is that after the incident, accused came out from the house and while jumping the wall P.W.3 questioned him and followed him. But the testimony of P.W.3, as stated supra, all-together different that he chased the accused for some distance by questioning about the incident. More so, during cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that there are two entrances to her house, accused came out of the house from the eastern entrance and she came out of the house on the northern entrance, which is front of the kitchen. On perusal of Ex.P.4 rough sketch, there is a compound wall to the house of P.W.1 and there is a main road in front of the house of P.W.1, which is northern side. But nothing was stated in the testimony of P.W.3 regarding the alleged jumping of compound wall by the accused while escaping from the house of P.W.1. On perusal of Ex.P.4 rough sketch, there is a compound wall to the house of P.W.1 and there is a main road in front of the house of P.W.1, which is northern side. But nothing was stated in the testimony of P.W.3 regarding the alleged jumping of compound wall by the accused while escaping from the house of P.W.1. On the other hand, he categorically testified that he rushed to main gate of P.W.1, found accused and cashed him to some distance. This inconsistency goes to show that his testimony became unreliable. Thereby, the testimony of P.W.3 also is of no use to the prosecution case. As such, to establish the charges leveled, the only testimony available to the prosecution is P.W.1/victim. 15. No doubt, in a case of outrage the modesty of a women, the testimony of the victim is sufficient, however, it should be free from improvements, contradictions, or exaggerations. To determine whether the testimony of victim is trustworthy, wholly reliable and sufficient to prove the charges, the Court will carefully evaluate the victim’s testimony by considering the four factors i.e., consistency, corroboration, credibility, and reliability. 16. As discussed supra, there is no corroboration to the testimony of P.W.1. Regarding credibility and consistency in the testimony of P.W.1, it is the main contention of the petitioner that there is material discrepancy in respect of date of alleged offence. As per the prosecution version, the incident said to be happened on 29.08.2007 and she presented Ex.P.1 report at 05.00 p.m., but on perusal of Ex.D.1/relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, the entire incident was taken place on 28.08.2007 itself. More so, as per the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of other witnesses, including P.W.1, the incident said to be taken place on 28.08.2007 itself. Furthermore, the date put underneath the signature of the investigating officer, who recorded the said statement of prosecution witnesses on date of incident itself, also shows that the same was recorded on 28.08.2007 itself. If that is so, the entire testimony of P.W.1 that the incident said to be happened on 29.08.2007 cannot be believed. The said discrepancy is not explained by the prosecution, which cut the root of the case. 17. If that is so, the entire testimony of P.W.1 that the incident said to be happened on 29.08.2007 cannot be believed. The said discrepancy is not explained by the prosecution, which cut the root of the case. 17. More so, it is the testimony of P.W.1 that when the accused taken the PW1 to the bedroom and lifted her saree, bed sheet was scattered in that scuffle and she bites the hand of accused and raised cries. But no medical record or otherwise produced by the prosecution to prove the said fact. More over in the complaint and statement of PW1 stated her bed sheet was scattered in that scuffle, but the same is not noticed by the police while observing the scene offence nor stated by PW1 and that there are no two gates as suggested and if there are two gates why the accused jumped from the wall, all it goes a long way to doubt the testimony of PW1. 18. Thereby, viewing from any angle, as discussed supra, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the said charges. The Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the above said aspects, mechanically proceed with the prosecution version and erroneously made the findings against the petitioner. As such, the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court miserably failed to appreciate the lacunas in the prosecution case, which cut the root of the case and convicted the petitioner for the said charges, which is not tenable under law. 19. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the material on record in proper perspective, there is manifest error of law and flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the trial Court as well first Appellate Court, thereby, the present criminal revision has merits and liable to be considered. 20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused, vide judgment dated 09.07.2008 in S.C.No.73 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, as confirmed in the judgment, dated 18.12.2009 in Crl.A.No.103 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, are hereby set aside. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charges under Section 448 and 354 of IPC. The fine amount paid by the petitioner/accused, if any, shall be refunded to him. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.