IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1492 OF 2004 Date:19-07-2011 Between: Dhulipalla Srinivasarao ... Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep., by Public Prosecutor., High Court of A.P., Hyderbad. ... Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1492 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., against judgment, dated 20-08-2004, in Criminal Appeal No.633 of 2000 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur, confirming conviction and sentence imposed by the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet, against the petitioner – accused (for short ‘the accused’) in S.C. No.777 of 1999 for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: On 06-04-1999 at about 7-00 AM, one Katakamsetti Golakshmi (PW-1) went to her fields to fed water and started motor and returned back to her home and thereafter the accused went to her house and informed her that the motor was stopped and asked her to get some tools so that he would attend the repair work of the motor. PW-1 went to the fields with tools and found that the motor was working and she adjusted water flow and in the meantime, the accused came behind and caught hold of her and tried to outrage her modesty. Then, she went into the motor hut but the accused also went inside and threatened her that he would kill her by giving electric shock if she was going to inform about it to anybody, and escaped from that place. PW- 1 returned to her home, informed about the incident to PWs-2 and 3 and PW-2 went to the house of the accused and asked his father about the indecent behaviour of the accused. Then, the father of the accused beat PW-2. Further, after the arrival of her husband (PW-4) PW-1 went to the concerned police station, and gave report about the incident. 3. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6, besides marking case property as MOs.1 and 2. 4. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of paying the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months, whereas aggrieved by the same the accused preferred the Criminal Appeal No.633 of 2000 whereby the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, on consideration of the material available on record, confirmed the conviction sentence imposed by the trial Court. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that there is the sole testimony of PW-1 regarding the alleged offence and there have been civil disputes between the family of PW-1 and the family of the accused and in view of the civil disputes, therefore, it is not safe to rely on the sole testimony of PW-1. 6. Therefore, the point to be considered is whether the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused is well founded or whether they are to be set aside and whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition. 7. POINT: PW-1 deposed in accordance with the prosecution version. It is emphatical that the evidence of PW-1 provides that there was no other eye witness to the incident and therefore, it cannot be accepted that some eye witness otherthan herself could have been examined about the incident. Further, even though it is claimed that there have been civil disputes between the two families, on that ground alone the evidence of PW-1 cannot be rejected. However, under such circumstances, her evidence is to be properly scrutinized whether it can be accepted or rejected. Even supposing that there were civil disputes, it is something unbelievable that PW-1 and her family members went to the extent of foisting a false case against the accused, which exposes her stigma in the society. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with the evidence of her husband PW-1 and also the evidence of other witnesses, which provide that all the relevant circumstances got corroboration from each other, I feel that the conviction recorded by the Courts below is proper. There is no need to interfere with the same. 8. However, it is to be very much emphasized that this is a case of 1999 and ever since the accused has been attending various Courts and has been subjected to sufferance in many ways. He must have lost good part of his life and he also would have spent lot of money to face the proceedings consequentially. 9. Examining the circumstances, which are relevant here, I feel that it is quite reasonable to reduce the sentence to two (2) years from seven (7) years, which is the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 354 IPC. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed but subject to the modification of sentence to two (2) years Rigorous Imprisonment, out of which the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner shall be given set off, while retaining the find clause. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J July 19, 2011. KTL