R.P. Nagrath, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed the instant revision to challenge the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by Courts below for offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and imposition of sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/ -. The facts may be narrated briefly: - PW -1 complainant/prosecutrix is a homemaker and at the same time working as an agent with Max New York Life Insurance Company. She is resident of Jagdambey Colony, Majitha Road, Amritsar. In connection with her agency work, she went to the house of petitioner, situated in Pawan Nagar, for collecting account number for insurance policy on 30.11.2009. Wife of the petitioner served a glass of water to the complainant and went in the other room.
(2.) WHILE PW -1 was talking to the petitioner at about 10.00 a.m. that the petitioner held the prosecutrix and embraced her. The petitioner held her breasts and tried to kiss her. The petitioner remarked that the prosecutrix should agree to his demand and he would arrange thousands of policies for her. PW -1 objected to these advances and tried to save herself. The petitioner held her from her right leg. The prosecutrix kicked him away and came down in the street and started shouting. She then came to her house and informed about the incident to her husband telephonically, who had gone to Jalandhar for some personal work. After her husband returned home, they proceeded towards the police station to report the matter, that in the way the police party headed by ASI Shiv Nath met them. Ex. P1 the statement of prosecutrix was recorded by the ASI at about 7.10 p.m. on the same day and formal FIR was registered. On completion of investigation charge -sheet against the petitioner was presented. Charge was framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 354 IPC. The prosecution in support of its case examined the prosecutrix and her husband as PW -1 and PW -2 respectively. The prosecution was unable to produce remaining witnesses despite sufficient opportunities and further request for adjournment was turned down and evidence was closed by order.
(3.) IN his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded false implication. In defence the petitioner examined his wife as DW -1.;