IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 21-04-2011. PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1008 of 2004 Between: Mathangi Nageswara Rao @ Nagaiah Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1008 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision case is preferred by the petitioner- accused challenging judgment dated 03.01.2003 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2000, whereby and whereunder judgment passed in S.C.No.824 of 1998 dated 16.10.2000 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, was confirmed. The petitioner-accused was tried for offences punishable under Sections 452, 354 and 506 I.P.C and was found guilty of committing the offences and was accordingly convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of paying the fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months under the first count and also under second count respectively with a direction to run the sentences concurrently and also with a further direction to set off the period of remand undergone by him while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused has preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 528 of 2000 whereas the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, after perusing the material made available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused has preferred the present criminal revision case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed before the trial Court. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that P.Ws.1 and 2 who were examined as eye witnesses to the incident deposed as per the prosecution allegation that the accused used to love the second of them and also asked her to love him which she refused and therefore he developed jealousy against her and on 06.01.1998 at about 07.00 p.m., he trespassed into her house and threatened her at the point of knife not to raise alarm and gagged her mouth with a cloth and forcibly took her away into his house carrying her on his shoulders, which does not disclose that he outraged her modesty and further as per the prosecution version number of other persons witnessed the incident but none of them was examined and there were disputes between both the families and further P.W.1 deposed that while she was entering the house from water tap she found that the accused gagged her(P.W.2) mouth and threatened and carried away her whereas P.W.2 deposed that the accused entered into the house and took her away forcibly, which contradictions were not properly considered by the Courts below and therefore the charges against the accused are not proved. Further the trial Court and the appellate Court failed to appreciate the matter properly and hence the revision case is to be allowed. It is the contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the discrepancies pointed out are only minor and not major and further significantly the victim girl was a minor and the said acts of the accused would attract the alleged offences and the Courts below properly examined the matter and there is no reason to interfere with both the judgments. Point for consideration in this Revision is: Whether sufficient grounds are there in order to uphold the claim of the accused. I have gone through the record. The Courts below, having properly examined the material available and giving cogent reasons, upheld the charges against the accused. Further the discrepancies pointed out are only minor in nature. Further there is no need for her to speak falsehood against the accused. Hence I uphold that the charges framed against the accused are probably established and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the Courts below. However, taking into consideration the circumstances enumerated, including the fact that the accused was a person aged of 20 years as on the date of incident as disclosed by the record, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the punishment imposed is restricted to the minimum punishment of two years prescribed under clause abstante under Section 354 I.P.C and further the sentence imposed under Section 452 I.P.C appears to be high and it is reasonable to reduce it to three months simple imprisonment. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part and the conviction imposed against the accused under Sections 354 and 452 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five (5) years is reduced to two (2) years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C for the reasons already recorded and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five (5) years is reduced to three (3) months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 452 I.P.C, out of which, the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner-accused shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. and both the sentences shall run concurrently. ______________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 21st April, 2011 VJL