ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment dated 03.12.2010 passed in Crl.A. No.48 of 2009 by the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, confirming the judgment dated 20.02.2009 passed in S.C. No.373 of 2008 by the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal. 2. Heard Sri Kodari Mallikarjuna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no iota of truth in the alleged incident and that the trial court and the appellate court have erroneously convicted the petitioner herein. Both the courts ought to have seen that there are serious material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and ought to have disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses as the offence appears to be improbable and not believable. He further contended that the trial court and the appellate court have acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 506 IPC, but have convicted him for the offence under Section 354 IPC which allegedly arose out of the same incident. When both the offences are the result of a single act, which took place simultaneously, then acquitting the petitioner for the offence under Section 506 IPC and convicting him for the offence under Section 354 IPC is erroneous. He further submitted that the courts ought to have disbelieved the evidence of PW.4 in view of the categorical admission made by the other witnesses that PW.4’s house is situated far away from the house of PWs.1 to 3. PWs.1 to 3 are the family members of the victim and that the evidence is solely based on the interested witnesses and there are no independent witnesses to the incident. He further submitted that the material omissions in the evidence of PW 4, marked under Exs.D1 to D3, were not considered by the trial court. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are no independent witnesses in the case, but the evidence of the family members cannot be brushed aside. He further submitted that the house of PW.4 is located near the scene of offence and hence, his evidence is trustworthy. He further submitted that the exhibits under D1 to D3 were also considered by the trial court and hence, there are no merits in the revision and therefore, prayed to dismiss the same. 5. He further submitted that the house of PW.4 is located near the scene of offence and hence, his evidence is trustworthy. He further submitted that the exhibits under D1 to D3 were also considered by the trial court and hence, there are no merits in the revision and therefore, prayed to dismiss the same. 5. Perused the record. 6. The alleged incident is stated to have occurred at around 12.00 hours in the midnight. PW.1 is the alleged victim and PWs.2 and 3 are the family members of the victim. It is the case of the victim that when she slept along with her mother on the same cot while her father and brother were sleeping on different cots in the front yard of their house and when the light was on, at around 12.00 hours in the midnight, the accused has entered into their premises and pulled her hand and tried to commit rape on her and that when she raised hue and cry immediately her mother, father and brother woke up and noticed the accused underneath the cot. PW.4 is a neighbour, whose house is in the vicinity of the house of PW.1. The evidence of PW.4 is to the effect that he was attending to his sheep, he saw the galata in the house of PW.1 and he went there and that PW.1 informed him about the incident that the accused dragged her hand. Thus, he is not an eye witness to the incident. An omission brought about in the evidence of PW.4 that he failed to depose about the presence of the victim’s elder brother at the time of incident is not fatal to the prosecution case. But, an important point to be considered in the evidence of PW.4 is that he deposed that his sheep were there by the side of his house. Ex.D.1 shows that the sheep of PW.4 were kept in the open place as shown therein. Admittedly, according to PWs.2 and 3, the house of PW.4 is far away. Ex.D1 also depicts the same. Ex.D2 is the statement of PW.4 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., marked through the evidence of PW.4 as omission, which reads as follows: 7. Ex.D.1 shows that the sheep of PW.4 were kept in the open place as shown therein. Admittedly, according to PWs.2 and 3, the house of PW.4 is far away. Ex.D1 also depicts the same. Ex.D2 is the statement of PW.4 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., marked through the evidence of PW.4 as omission, which reads as follows: 7. The said omission shows that PW.4 has stated before the police that while attending to his sheep, he has seen the galata in the house of PW.1 and went to their house and enquired about the incident, while Ex.D1 shows that the house of PW.4 is far away and it is also admitted by PWs.2 and 3. PW.4 seeing the alleged incident from his house is so improbable that the material omission under Ex.D2 cannot be ignored. Even if his version is believed to be true, he is not an eye witness to the incident. His evidence reveals that he went to the house of PW.1 and PW.1 informed him about the accused catching hold of her hand. The contradiction under Ex.D3 is marked in the evidence of PW.4 that the accused was underneath the cot in front of the house of de facto complainant and that the cot was surrounded by four people. In the court he deposed that he saw the accused fleeing away by jumping over the compound wall. Thus, it is only the evidence of PW.1 which was supported by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 that is available on record to connect the accused with the crime. If this evidence is taken in total, it would disclose that when a married lady is sleeping along with her mother on the same cot, the accused entering into the premises and touching her hand and further when she raised hue and cry he threatened her and that the family members woke up, his presence was being noticed underneath the cot. The said evidence appears to be not well corroborated. PW.1 says that when the accused caught hold her hand and tried to commit rape on her, she raised cries and the accused has threatened her with dire consequences and took shelter underneath the cot. In such case, the mother, who is sleeping besides her not waking up till then, sounds a bit far from truth. 8. PW.1 says that when the accused caught hold her hand and tried to commit rape on her, she raised cries and the accused has threatened her with dire consequences and took shelter underneath the cot. In such case, the mother, who is sleeping besides her not waking up till then, sounds a bit far from truth. 8. Further, it is elicited from PW.2 that when she woke up, she found the accused underneath the cot. PW.3 also stated that he found the accused under the cot. In addition to this, there are inconsistent statements in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. PW.1 stated that she caught hold of the banian of the accused, but he fled away, while PW.3 stated that he caught hold of the banian of the accused but he escaped. It is the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 that two brothers of PW.1 and her father were sleeping on the cots in the scene of offence. Thus, three male members of the family apart from PWs.1 and 2 saw the accused underneath the cot but failed to catch him. The said evidence does not win the confidence of this Court. 9. The defence taken by the accused is that a false case has been filed against him due to the family disputes. But, no evidence is adduced in this regard. The contention of the Additional Public Prosecutor is that no plausible explanation is offered by the accused for his presence in the premises. It is to be observed in this regard that it is only PW.1 and her family members who stated to have seen the accused underneath the cot, as discussed in the preceding paragraph. The statements of PWs.1 and 3 show that a message was sent to the accused at his house through PW.4 but the accused did not turn up for the settlement of the case, though not disclosed in Ex.P.1. This is an improvement in the prosecution case and supported by the evidence of PW.4 that on the night of the alleged incident, they approached the house of the accused questioning the conduct of the accused. PW.5 is the investigating officer. In his cross-examination it was ascertained that the complainant did not inform that they approached the house of the accused for settlement and that they were threatened. PW.5 is the investigating officer. In his cross-examination it was ascertained that the complainant did not inform that they approached the house of the accused for settlement and that they were threatened. The suggestion put to the witnesses PWs.1 to 4 that there was panchayat in respect of open place towards the Northern side of the house due to which false case is foisted against the accused is denied by the witnesses. The omissions in the evidence of PW.2 about the galata for the open land near the house of the accused between the accused and the complainant and the omission in the evidence of PW.4 that due to previous grudges, the case is foisted need a careful consideration. These omissions support the defence taken by the accused. Thus, the case of the prosecution is viewed with suspicion. 10. Thus, this Court opines that the prosecution could not prove the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 20.02.2009 passed in S.C. No.373 of 2008 by the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, which was confirmed by the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal vide judgment dated 03.12.2010 passed in Crl.A. No.48 of 2009. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.