HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.26 of 2009 Date: November 14, 2011 Between: Athram Bhav Rao … Petitioner/Accused And The State of A.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, through P.S. Bela, District Adilabad. … Respondent/Complainant * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.26 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed against the conviction of the accused in S.C. No.175 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad, for the offence under Section 354 IPC sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- which was confirmed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Adilabad. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-P.W.1, T. Mayabai, was a resident of Vani village and she came to Manivarpur village to her mother’s house, as she was sick. On 11.12.2005 when she was returning to her husband’s place, the accused hugged her, pressed her breasts and forced for sexual intercourse and thereby outraged her modesty. Thereafter, she raised cries and on hearing the cries, one Vaidya Ramesh, who was in the agricultural fields, came there and she narrated the incident to him. Subsequently, on 12.12.2005 she filed a complaint with the police and the police after investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 354 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was made over to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad for disposal. After appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 354 and 506 were framed, read over and explained the same to the accused. 4. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 and M.O.1were marked. 5. After the evidence of prosecution is over, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he maintained his plea of innocence. 6. After considering the material on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra which the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Adilabad confirmed in appeal. 7. The point for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below is illegal and sustainable? 8. P.W.1 is the complainant and the victim and according to her she has come to her parents village, as her mother was not doing well and thereafter on the date of incident she started to go to her village and reached Mangili village to go to Vani village and while she was walking, the accused came and outraged her modesty by getting hold of her breasts. The accused is said to be residing opposite to the house of her mother. According to her, one Vaidya Ramesh came there and she informed the same. She claimed to have given complaint Ex.P-1 to the police. 9. The evidence of P.W.2, who is the husband of P.W.1, is about reporting of the matter to him and thereafter lodging the complaint with the police. He is not an eye-witness to the incident. P.Ws.3 and 4 are said to be known to the accused and also P.W.1. When they were in Cotton fields, they heard the voice of P.W.1 and went and P.W.1 informed them that the accused outraged her modesty. 10. The evidence of P.W.5 is about his presence at the time of panchanama of the scene and P.Ws.6 and 7 are the investigating officers. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is uncorroborated and that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and consequently the conviction is not valid. Reliance is placed on the decision in Karri Suri Babu v. State of A.P.[1]. The comment of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one Vaidya Ramesh said to have come to the scene and taken P.W.1, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said Ramesh was not examined and consequently benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 12. So far as the cases of this nature are concerned, the law is settled that even uncorroborated testimony of the victim can be relied upon. In the cross-examination of P.W.1 or in the plea of the accused there is no material to show as to how and why the complainant or her husband P.W.2 are interested in implicating the accused in a false case. The fact that the accused resides opposite to the house of the mother of the complainant is not disputed. There is not a much material to show that there was any dispute between the mother of P.W.1 and the accused. Therefore, when there is no possibility of implication and motive for implication, the Court shall presume the evidence of the victim is truthful. Added to that, in this case, P.Ws.3 and 4 definitely corroborate the version of P.W.1 about the incident, since her presence at the scene of offence is established. Mere non- examination of Vaidya Ramesh therefore is not fatal. Further more, the delay in lodging the complaint was explained by P.W.1 saying that after informing her husband, the complaint was lodged on the next day. Evidently, she was going from her parents’ house to her husband’s house and consequently without informing the husband she would not have lodged the complaint. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the complaint cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. 13. From the material evidence on record it is quite clear that there is no motive for P.W.1 to implicate the accused and the evidence of P.W.1 appears to be trustworthy and the circumstantial evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 also corroborates the version of P.W.1. The courts below rightly appreciated the evidence and there is no infirmity or illegality in the conviction. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that the case is of the year 2006 and the accused has been attending the court continuously and there are no previous convictions and he was in jail sufficiently for some time. Taking into consideration the above facts, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to two years in stead of three years as imposed by the lower court. The lower court is directed to issue N.B.W to the accused to suffer remaining period of sentence. 15. With the above modification, the criminal revision case is allowed. ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: November 14, 2011. BSB [1] 2000 (1) ALT (Crl.) 352 (A.P.)