HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1386 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the revision petitioner- appellant-accused (for short the accused) against judgment, dated 06.08.2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.532 of 2001 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming judgment imposed in S.C.No.793 of 2000 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and where under the accused was convicted under section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Heard. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The accused, P.W.1 (the defacto complainant namely Puli Rahelu) and her husband P.W.2(Puli Rama Rao) are the residents of Uddandarayunipalem village, Guntur District and that they also belong to same caste. The family of P.W.1 got Ac.2.50 cents of landed property near their house and they raised maize crop therein. The accused had taken coconut trees on lease, located on the northern side of P.W.1’s maize land belonging to Puli Iarail. On 07.03.2000 while the accused was going to the coconut trees on 07.03.20000, he noticed that P.W.1 was alone in their field and taking advantage of that the accused caught hold of her and pulled her down and tore her jacket. The accused also kept his sickle on her throat and threatened her, and then she raised cries. On hearing her cries, her husband, her father-in-law and her brother-in-law, who were working in a nearby field went there, and on seeing them, the accused ran away from the place. She along with her husband went to the police station at the same village and gave report, on the basis of which, the case was registered in Cr.No.22 of 2000 of the police station. P.W.3 the SI of police investigated the case and filed charge sheet. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 and P2. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged and convicted the accused as stated above, whereas consequently the appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that whereas according to the prosecution the accused followed the de facto complainant and caught hold of her and pulled her down and also tore her blouse and threatened her at the point of knife, following which, she raised cries, which attracted her husband and father-in-law, there is no specific allegation of outraging her modesty and in fact the said acts would not amount to outraging her modesty also and except her evidence, there is no supporting evidence and her husband examined as P.W.2, did not depose about the alleged incident of outraging the modesty of her and the claim of the defence is that the accused gave some amount to the husband of the de facto complainant (P.W.2) and when he demanded to pay that amount, false case was got registered against him by P.W.2 through his wife P.W.1( the de facto complainant). P.W.1 deposed in accordance with the prosecution version. There is no corroborating evidence about the actual incident, whereas there is corroboration of the consequential circumstances. Further, it is the version of the defence in fact that as P.W.2 demanded to pay debt due to him, a false case was foisted. But no corresponding evidence was placed in that regard to accept the same version as true and correct. There is also no basis to state that there was some enmity between the two families, following which, the present case was foisted. Therefore, there was no need for the de facto complainant to give a false report against the petitioner exposing the social stigma of being outraged by the petitioner-accused. It is well established principle of law that evidence of sole witness can be accepted as true and correct after subjecting it to necessary scrutiny and finding it to be cogent and categorical. Nothing was elicited against her evidence. Accordingly, her evidence is to be accepted as true and correct. The Courts below on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced upheld the charge framed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the courts below. Accordingly, the conviction imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is hereby upheld. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the petitioner has been suffering since 11 years attending various courts and wasting his valuable part of life and consequently spending lot of expenditure and therefore, he prayed to reduce the sentence as prescribed in the section. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and accepting the reasons enumerated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to two years, which is the minimum punishment to be imposed for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment dated 29-10-2001 in S.C.No.793 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC to undergo R.I. for five years, which was confirmed by the appellate Judge in Crl.A.No.532 of 2001 is hereby modified sentencing the appellant/accused to undergo RI for a period of two years instead of five years while retaining the fine clause. The period of remand undergone by the appellant/accused during the investigation in the case shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. ___________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 29th June, 2011. Rns