Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & Ors vs Moran Mar Marthoma & Anr on 20 June, 1995
Criminal Revision No. 103/2025 'M' vs State & Anr. 2025.12.11 Page 12/30 12:58:40 +0530 not dispute his presence at the scene of crime nor provided any explanation regarding the injuries sustained by complainant 'M'. Appellant had failed to create any dent in the case of prosecution or to shake the credibility of the complainant 'M' during the course of cross examination. The testimony of complainant 'M' had remained consistent, natural and trustworthy and no material has emerged in cross examination of complainant 'M' to discredit her deposition. Statement of complainant 'M' inspires confidence and is corroborated by the surrounding circumstances and other evidence on record. Non production of named material witnesses servant Raju and his wife alleged by defence to be present at the scene of crime leads to making out case for invocation of Illustration (g) of Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, as if servant Raju and his wife were examined in defence on production, they would likely not have supported the case of defence. Deposition of DW2 is merely a repetition of deposition of DW1 and is evidently biased, being an interested witness, thus closely associated with appellant. When taken as a whole, the prosecution evidence is consistent, cogent and convincing. The acts of accused appellant, as narrated by complainant 'M', clearly establish that appellant had used criminal force on complainant 'M' with the intention to outrage her modesty; which fulfill the ingredients of Section 354 IPC. The evidence also shows that the appellant accused voluntarily caused hurt to complainant 'M', satisfying the essential elements of Section 323 IPC. The threats extended by appellant, coupled with his conduct and the surrounding circumstances, were of such a grave nature as to cause alarm to complainant 'M' and fall squarely within the Digitally signed by GURVINDE GURVINDER PAL SINGH PAL SINGH Date: