THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2171 of 2011 ORDER: Assailing the Judgment, dated 02.09.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2011on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tenali, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused by Judgment, dated 08.03.2011 in S.C.No.573 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, for the offencepunishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 31.10.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3259 of 2011. 3. Thecase of the prosecution in nutshell was: i). On 25.04.2010 at about 3.00 p.m., while PW2 who is first year student of B.Tech, ECE branch in Chintalapudi Engineering College was waiting at Tummapudi cross roads for an auto to go to Chintalapudi after completing examinations in her college, the appellant went towards her and stated that he will 2 not leave her even though she filed a case against him, one day or other and he will certainly marry her and by so saying, he caught hold the hand and upper garment (chunni) and he will not allow her to move her unless she accepts to marry him and pulled her towards him. When PW2 raised shouts, the appellant left her and fled away by threatening to see her end, if she did not marry him. PW3 who is waiting for the auto witnessed the incident. Thereafter, report was lodged against the accused and a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 506 IPC of Duggirala Police Station and investigated into. ii). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as S.C.No.573 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, and trial was conducted and found theaccused guilty of the offencepunishable under Sections 354 IPC and accordingly, he was convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only), i.d.s.i., for one month. Remand period, if any, is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accusedpreferred an appeal, vide, Crl.A.No.77 of 2011 before the Court of learned XI 3 Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tenali, and the same was dismissed, vide Judgment, dated 02.09.2011 by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 6. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Anugula, learned counsel for the petitioner/accusedand Sri Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state. 7. In support of the revision, Sri Ravi Kiran Anugula, learned counsel for the petitioner submits there are lot of discrepancies in the evidence of both PWs 2 and 3. PW2 already gave one complaint and there is every chance of lodging another false complaint taking advantage of the situation. PW3 is highly interested witness and his evidence is not trustworthy one. The ingredients of Section 354 IPC do not attract against the petitioner and in order to attract 354 IPC, there must be intention to have sexual intercourse. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prays to allow the revision. 8. Per contra, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the evidence on record clearly established that the petitioner is found guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC. The accused used criminal force against PW2 with intent to outrage 4 her modesty, knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, which clearly proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. She further submits that the evidence of PW2 is corroborating with that of PW3 and PW3 clearly deposed about the overt-acts of the accused in harassing the PW2, thereby, prays to dismiss the revision. 9. 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 first Appellate Court?” 10. The case of the prosecution as emerged from the prosecution witnesses is that while PW2 was waiting for an auto at Tummapudi cross roads to go to her house, located in Chiluvuru village, the appellant went towards her and stated that he will not leave her even though she filed a case against him, one day or other and he will certainly marry her and by so saying, he caught hold the hand and upper garment (chunni) and he will not allow her to move her unless she accepts to marry him and pulled her towards him. When PW2 raised shouts, the appellant left her and fled away by threatening to see her end, if she did not marry him. 11. The prosecution in support of its case got examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Ex.P1 to P3. The victim was examined as PW2 and father of victim got examined as PW1. The crucial evidence in this case is 5 PW3 who is eye witness to the incident. PW4 is the Investigating Officer. 12. PW1 who is father of PW2 is an ocular witness. PW2 who is victim deposed that while she was waiting for auto, the accused came and by holding her hand uttered that నామీదకేసుపె్ᠾేదానివా, ని్ᡐు వదల్ᡐ, పె్ᡥిచేసుకుంటా్ᡐ and tried to pull her chunni. 13. The evidence of PW3 is that while PW2 and himself were talking together the accused came and hold her hand by stating why she filed case against him and threatened her. The accused also pulled the chunni of PW2. He threatened her that he would go to any extent if she does not marry him. When he asked the accused why he holds the hand of PW2, he replied that case was filed against him. 14. PW4 Investigating Officer testified to the fact of registered the case against the same accused on the report given by victim girl earlier to the incident. PW1 also deposed that 15 days prior to the incident in this case, accused was enlarged on bail. During the cross-examination of PW2 victim girl, she deposed that there is a time gap of 20 days between the earlier incident and this incident. About 10 days prior to the incident in this case, the accused was enlarged on bail in the earlier similar case. Even though it was suggested that there are disputes between the family of the accused and family of the victim, it 6 resembles as a general suggestion and no connectivity to say in what matters accused and family of PW1 had disputes and what type of disputes are pending between them. The earlier reported registered against the accused is for the offense under Section 509 and 506 IPC. The victim clearly stated that the accused uttered that “నామీదకేసుపె్ᠾే్ᡜా వా, ని్ᡐు వదల్ᡐ, పె్ᡥిచేసుకుంటా్ᡐ” (“namedha case pettanistava, ninnu vadhalanu, pellichesukuntaru”. So, the intention of the accused can be clearly revealed from this statement that since a case was lodged against him earlier, out of grudge, in order to threaten the victim, the accused made this attempt. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is corroborating with each other and in the cases like this nature, minute discrepancies may occur which ultimately cannot deny the occurrence of incident. The accused in the public caught hold the hand of victim and tried to pull her chunni, which is ultimately outraging a modesty of a female. 15. The first appellate Court as well the trial court referred the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pramodh Singh vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1995 Cr.L.J 3620 (SC) : AIR 1995 SC 1964, wherein a school girl was criminally assaulted and her evidence was fully corroborated with the evidence of her father. In Ramkripla Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 (2) ALD (Criminal) 940 (SC), it was held that the culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the 7 matter. The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman and knowledge that modesty is likely to be outrage is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object. 16. Looking to the gravity of the offence and on examining the entire evidence and documents on record, even on close scrutiny and marshalling of evidence, this Court could not persuade itself to take a different view than taken by the courts below as far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned. In our considered view, the prosecution version is both, truthful and credible. 17. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below and there is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses. 18. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the said offences. 8 19. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family. Hence, prays to take a lenient view. 20. In Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.2 that “they are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.” 21. No doubt, in the present case also the offence took place on 25.04.2010 and fifteen years have been lapsed. By this time, the victim and accused might be having their own families. 22. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused. 23. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/Accused to that of the petitioner/Accused No.1 shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence under 12019 (3) Crimes 89 9 Section 354 IPC.The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by the petitioner/Accusedshall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/Accused is directed to surrender before the Court of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali toserve the sentence, if not, the learned Asst. Sessions Judge concerned shall take steps against the petitioner. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Copy of this order shall be marked to the trial Court concerned. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 29.01.2025 ARB 10 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2171 of 2011 DATE: 29.01.2025 ARB