THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.2427 of 2004 & Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2002 (Dated 22-02-2010) Between: State, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Appellant A n d Bammidi Venkata Ramana S/o Satyam Yelamanchili village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.2427 of 2004 & Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two Criminal Appeals are filed by the State assailing the judgment dated 12.7.2001 passed in S.C.No.110 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused Bommidi Venkata Ramana not guilty for the offences under Sections 354, 341 and 506(1) of IPC and acquitted him accordingly. However, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 509 of IPC, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one week. 2. Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2002 is filed assailing the acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offence under Sections 354 and 341 IPC, and whereas Criminal Appeal No.2427 of 2004 is filed seeking enhancement of punishment for the offence under Section 509 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Pw-1-Killi Janakamma is mother of Pw-2-Killi Sridevi. A proposal for marriage of Pw-2 with brother of accused was moved before the elders. But, Pw-1 did not accept for the said proposal. Therefore, the accused bore grudge against Pw-2. On 25.2.2000 at about 9 a.m., while Pw-2 was returning from the field and nearing the house of the accused, the accused caught hold of her and abused her in filthy language. Balaga Ammanna (Pw-4) and others intervened and brought Pw-2 to her house. On 25.2.2000 at about 3 p.m., Pws 1 and 2 were at the well to fetch water, then the accused came there and challenged, and abused them. It is further alleged that he tore blouse of Pw-2. Then, Pw-4 Balaga Ammanna intervened and came in rescue of Pws.1 and 2. Pw-1 complained to the Sarpanch about the incident. Later, she presented Ex.P-1 report before the Station House Officer, Kotabommali P.S. Pw-6 M.Sankarrao received Ex.P-1 report and registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2000 for the offence under Section 509 IPC and issued Ex.P-4 F.I.R. He inspected the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P-2 Scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P-3 rough sketch of the scene in the presence of Pw-5. He examined Pws.1, 2 and 4 and recorded their statements. He filed memo of alteration of Section of Law from 509 IPC to Sections 341, 354, 506(1) IPC. He arrested the accused on 28.2.2000 and sent him for remand. After completing investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kotabommali. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C.No.9 of 2000 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, Srikakulam. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C.No.110 of 2000 and made over the same to the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for disposal according to law. On appearance of the accused and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 354, 341 and 506(1) IPC, read over and explained the same to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which he stood charged, prosecution examined six witnesses as Pws.1 to 6 and marked four documents as Exs.P-1 to P-4 and one Material Object, M.O-1. The plea of the accused is that he has been implicated in the case due to political rivalry. 5. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 354, 341 and 506 IPC and acquitted him accordingly. However, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 509 IPC, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. 6. Assailing the acquittal of the accused for the offences under Section 354 and 506(1) IPC, State filed Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2002 and whereas Criminal Appeal No.2427 of 2004 is filed seeking enhancement of the sentence for the offence under Section 509 IPC. 7. Since both these appeals arise against the judgment dated 12.7.2001 passed in S.C.No.110 of 2000, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 8. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State and Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State submits that the evidence of Pw-2 who is a victim is crystal clear that the accused caught hold of her and torn her jacket which constitute the act of outraging her modesty and the same is punishable under Section 354 IPC and in which case, acquittal of respondent-accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC is liable to be set aside and instead, he is to be convicted for the offence under Section 354 IPC. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submits that Ex.P-1 is silent with regard to the accused tearing blouse of Pw-1 and it is an improvement made by Pw-1, so as to make out ingredients of Section 354 IPC. A further submission has been made that the trial Court considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and found the respondent-accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 354, 341 ad 501 IPC, and therefore, the same is liable to be not interfered with in these criminal appeals. 11. Pw-2 is the victim. She testifies that on 25.2.2000 at about 3 p.m., the accused abused her and torn her blouse and challenged her. She further testifies that when her mother, who has been examined as Pw-1, came in rescue of her, the accused abused her mother also. Pw-1, who is mother of Pw-2, corroborated the testimony of Pw-3 in all material aspects. 12. Pw-4 testifies that on the date of the incident while Pw-2 and Pw-1 were at the well, the accused caught hold of Pw-2 and abused her mother (Pw-1). Pw-4 does not speak of the accused tearing blouse of Pw-2. What all proved by the prosecution through the evidence of Pws. 1 to 4 is that the accused having a grudge against Pws.1 and 2 since they refused the proposal of marriage of Pw-2 with his brother, abused Pws.1 and 2 and caught hold of Pw-2 and dragged her. The offence made out against the accused comes within the purview of Section 506(1) IPC and not under Section 509 IPC, as recorded by the trial Court. 13. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2002 is dismissed and Criminal Appeal No. 2427 of 2004 is partly allowed modifying the conviction of the respondent-accused from the offence under Section 509 IPC to one under Section 506 IPC. The respondent-accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The fine amount paid by the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 509 IPC shall stand adjusted towards the fine imposed by this Court against him for the offence under Section 506 IPC. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.22-02-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.2427 of 2004 & Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2002 DATED : 22-02-2010