THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2639 of 2017 ORDER: Assailing the Judgment, dated 13.09.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2015on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, modifying the conviction imposed against the petitioner in Sessions Case No.110 of 2011, vide judgment dated 24.03.2015 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, for the offence 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 20.10.2017. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: i). PW1 is the defacto complainant and she was working as Assistant Project Director in District Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Kurnool and she was enlisted as Junior Assistant in the department in 1989 and now working as Senior Assistant on deputation. Accused is also working as Senior Assistant in the same office and as he being the senior in the office, used to harass PW1 for each and everything and even used to touch her hands unnecessarily and praises her 2 beauty directly by saying that “on seeing her he is going into dreams”. She was being a woman unable to reveal his acts to anyone. Taking advantage of the same, the accused frequently asking her to fulfill his sexual desire, for which, she refused to oblige. He also tortured her in many ways to achieve his goal and he inspected ICDS office at Atmakur when was working there and instructed the officials to give charges against her and she was suspended, but the enquiry officer gave clean chit to PW1. Accused used to run Dhyana Kendra and forced PW1 to come there after office work. She took the said fact to the notice of higher officials and so accused was suspended from the service. The accused also threatened her with dire consequences stating that he would not leave her until she comes into his route. PW1 lodged complaint before the higher officials and necessary action was initiated and accused was dismissed from the service. When collector recommended for criminal case, accused was arrested on 25.08.2010 and sent to the Court for remand. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as S.C.No.110 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and after completion of trial found the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 354 and 3 506 IPC and accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer SI for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 354 IPC, in default, to suffer SI for three months. He is further sentenced to undergo SI for one year for the offence under Section 506 IPC. It is ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal and got numbered, vide Crl.A.No.74 of 2015 before the Court of learned III I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and the same was partly allowed and partly dismissed (modified),vide judgment, dated 13.09.2017, passed by the trail Court that the accused is convicted for the offence under Section 509 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 3 months and with a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer SI for one month. The fined already paid by the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC is treated as fine amount for the offence under Section 509 IPC. Further, the conviction and sentence of accused for the offence under Section 506 IPC is set aside and accordingly acquitted for the said offence under Section 386(b)(1) Cr.P.C. The remand period undergone by the accused i.e., from 26.08.2010 to 21.09.2010 shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 4 7. Heard Sri S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. 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?” 9. Sri S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conviction imposed by the appellate court is contrary to law and material on record. When the petitioner is not charge sheeted for the offence under section 509 IPC, the appellate Court ought not to have convicted the petitioner for the said offence. PW1 was found misappropriating the Government money while she was working as Senior Assistant in ICDS Project at Atmakur. The courts below failed to see that the accused has nothing to do with the inspection conducted by the Project Director, DW and CDA, Kurnool, when he was not working in that office at that time. There is in ordinate delay in preferring the complaint to the police. The petitioner herein is implicated in false case with all frivolous allegations. The younger brother of accused questioned the transfer of PW1 and that was the immediate cause for giving false complaint against the accused. Hence, prays to allow the revision. 5 10. Per contra, Sri P. Akhila Naidu, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the ingredients of Section 509 IPC clearly attracts against the accused as rightly held by the first Appellate Court. The accused harassed the defacto complainant with sexual overtures and unusual utterances. The accused directly demanded the PW1 to satisfy his lust and on that regard he harassed her. The accused by touching hand of the PW1 outraged her modesty. The prosecution clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by examining PWs 1 to 4 who are punch witnesses and exhibiting Ex.P1 to P5, thereby prays to dismiss the revision. 11. Point:-Taking through the entire evidence on record and the impugned judgment, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the impugned judgment of conviction is contrary to law and evidence on record; that the approach of the first appellate Court in holding that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC is also wholly untenable and perverse resulting in grave injustice to the accused/appellant. 12. The first Appellate Court taking into consideration of the fact that no criminal force or assault used to outrage the modesty of PW1, hold that Section 354 IPC is not applicable against the accused and would attract section 509 IPC since there are only utterances insulting the modesty of PW1. 6 13. Now, the moot question before this Court is to see whether the ingredients of Section 509 IPC attracts against the appellant/accused? 14. Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code provides that, whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine. 15. Utterance of any word or making of any sound or gesture by a person, intending to insult the modesty of a woman, attracts the offence punishable under Section509 I.P.C, if such act was made intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture shall be seen by such woman. There is distinction between an act of merely insulting a woman and an act of insulting the modesty of a woman. 16. In order to attract Section 509 I.P.C, merely insulting a woman is not sufficient. Insult to the modesty of a woman is an essential ingredient of an offence punishable under Section 509 I.P.C. The crux of the offence is the intention to insult the modesty of a woman. 17. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 and accused are working in the same office and accused used to harass her with sexual 7 overtures and several times touched the hand of PW1 and used to praise her beauty stating that immediately on seeing her something is happening to him. But, as rightly pointed out by the first appellate Court, without there being any corroborative evidence, it is unsafe to hold that the above incidents are true and accused is liable for punishment under Section 354 IPC. 18. The material on record clearly shows that the major incident that lead to filing of a complaint is that on 22.11.2007 around 14.00 hours while PW1 was in corridor after completion of video conference, the accused met her and threatened her with dire consequences and he would not leave her till she comes to his route, for which, she refused to co-operate with him raising her voice. On that incident, PW1 lodged a complaint before the District Collector on 24.11.2007 and charged were proved against the accused in the departmental enquiry. 19. PW1 in support of her case got examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. The accused also in support of his contention marked Ex.D1 to D10. 20. Ex.P1 is report dated 24.8.2010 and Ex.P3 is the complaint dated 24.11.2007 to the District Collector. PW1 informed her superior officers about the harassment made out by the accused towards her, which is supported by the complaint raised by the PW1 before the District Collector on 24.11.2007. As rightly held by the first Appellate 8 Court as well the trial Court, the presence of PW2 on the specific date of incident is doubtful, however, her evidence with regard to accused praising PW1 and shown ICDS symbol with amorous feelings is believable. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 speaks about the departmental enquiry and dismissal of the accused from the service. 21. As discussed above, utterance of any word or making of any sound or gesture by a person, intending to insult the modesty of a woman, attracts the offence punishable under Section 509 I.P.C, if such act was made intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture shall be seen by such woman. In the present case on hand, the entire evidence on record clearly depicts that the ingredients of Section 509 IPC attracts against the accused, as rightly held by the first Appellate court. 22. In that view of the matter, the Sessions Court categorically held that the testimony of prosecution witnesses clearly goes to show that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the petitioner/accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 509 IPC. 23. 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. There is no material before this Court to discard the 9 trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses. Thereby, there is no apparent failure on the part of the Sessions Court in appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offence. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by the Sessions Court in convicting the accused for the said offences. 24. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the well- articulated judgment of the Sessions Court and thereby, this revision has no merits. Consequently, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 25. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 13.09.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. 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: 28.01.2025 ARB 10 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2639 of 2017 DATE: 28.01.2025 ARB