the appellant herein had only tried to do something. Counsel says that she has herself admitted that he had only tried to do a particular act, which means that he had not really succeeded in whatever she is alleging the appellant to have done. However, his argument is that nothing of the sort had taken place which would convict the offence of which he has been convicted. Counsel for the appellant has then highlighted some of the main points from the deposition of the complainant P.W. 5. He has pointed out referring to para 1 that in the complaint, the incident is said to have occurred at 2 O’clock. However, in her evidence, she has said it occurred around 12 or 1 O’clock, which is a considerable variation. Referring to paragraph 2, counsel says that in her deposition or evidence she has said she was there along with three daughter, however, in her complaint, she has said that she was alone. Counsel says this is a major contradiction in her evidence. Referring to paragraph 3, he has asserted that in her evidence she has deposed that he had caught her breast with his hands, but this is not that in the complaint at all. Counsel says this is major departure from the complaint and this needs to be noted because the offence is of a sexual nature. When variation or inconsistency is there regarding the manner of occurrence itself then the case against the appellant stands on very shaky grounds. Counsel further points out that even the I.O or the Investigating Officer has said that she has not stated about the said two major variations. Counsel for the appellant further pointed out that in the complaint, she has vividly described how he had tried to commit the sexual offence in detail in paragraph 5 of her complaint. However, this is absent in the deposition. Therefore, he again says that on the one hand there is vivid description of how he tried to commit the sexual offence and this itself is not described as such in his evidence then this is a major- major inconsistency or contradiction and therefore the appellant cannot be convicted of any offence. Counsel also pointed out that she has deposed that her husband came on the next day, at which counsel says that then why the delay of 22 days had occurred. Counsel has also submitted that she was not presented before doctor and that should have been done but unfortunately that is a major omission on the part of the prosecution. Counsel has referred to paragraph 14 where she has deposed that three of the girls or daughters were also sleeping on the roof, and
