THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.897 of 2004 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 12.05.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Ananthapur District in Crl.A.No.1 of 2002, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda in S.C.No.118 of 2001, dated 07.01.2002, was confirmed. 2. The petitioner herein was tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda, in S.C.No.118 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 306 IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: On 23.09.2000 at about 8.00 AM, one Sathyamma went to the thrashing floor to attend the work and at about 12.00 noon, while she was going to her house from Thrashing floor and when she reached near Ammineni Narayana Swamy Garden, the petitioner caught hold of her from behind and tried to outrage her modesty. When she raised cries, the petitioner ran away. Thereafter, she rushed to the house and committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting fire to herself. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P5 and M.Os.1 and 2 were also marked. 5. Having considered the evidence adduced, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 306 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, he shall suffer S.I. for a period of two months for each of the said offences. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge further observed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindiupur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, having reassessed the entire evidence, dismissed the said appeal. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present revision. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the alleged eyewitnesses, who were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4, did not support the case of the prosecution. 8. By any stretch of imagination, in cannot be said that the petitioner is responsible for the death of the deceased Sathyamma to attract the provisions under Section 306 IPC. According to the petitioner, to bring home the guilt of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, the requirements as provided under Section 107 IPC are to be fulfilled. In the case on hand, there is absolutely nothing to establish that the petitioner abetted the victim and as such, she committed suicide. 9. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner because of the rivalry between two families and that P.Ws.3 and 4 are interested witnesses. His further submission is that the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court ought not to have convicted the petitioner as if he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. 10. In the light of the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court carefully scrutinized the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8. Apparently, the victim committed suicide and the same was clarified by the Doctor, who was examined as P.W.7. May be, it is true that the victim had committed suicide, but the point which has to be answered is as to whether the said extreme step is solely on account of the abetment caused by the petitioner herein. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the evidence is that the petitioner caught hold of the deceased i.e., grand daughter of P.W.3, and when P.Ws.3 and 4 chastised him, he ran away. Even if the same is accepted that he tried to outrage the modesty of the deceased, in my considered view, it cannot be said that such an act abetted the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner to attract the provisions under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution shall also establish that there was abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. When looked at in those angles, this Court is of the considered view that the said act cannot be said to be attracting the provisions of Section 306 IPC and as such, both the Courts below erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC. 11. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is concerned, the allegation as per the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner tried to outrage the modesty of the deceased. In this context, the prosecution pressed into service the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.3 is the grand mother of the deceased and P.W.4 is the farm servant working in the fields of P.W.3. As per their evidence, the petitioner caught hold of the deceased from her behind near Jagarajupalli voni (rastha) under tamarind tree and that was the reason for the deceased to take the extreme step of ending with her life. From this, it can definitely be inferred that the said offence i.e., outraging her modesty, had taken place. No doubt, there are some minor contradictions. From that, it cannot be said that the prosecution has come up with a false theory and the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. 12. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that though the petitioner is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and acquitted him of the said charge, he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. 13. In the light of the above discussion, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by both the Courts below for the offence under Section 306 IPC is hereby set aside, and the petitioner is acquitted of the said charge. 14. Having regard to the fact that the alleged incident took place on 23.09.2000, the petitioner was aged 19 years as on the date of offence and now, he is aged 29 years, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 354 IPC is reduced from five years to two years, which is the minimum sentence provided under Section 354 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment, if any, undergone by him, shall be given set off. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ___________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:29.11.2010 sj