IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1017 OF 2004 Between: Abdul Khaiser. - - - Petitioner/ Appellant/ Accused. AND The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Respondent/Complainant. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1017 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the Petitioner-Accused against judgment, dated 27-02-2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2003 by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Nizamabad at Bodhan. 2. The Petitioner (for short ‘the Accused’) was prosecuted in Sessions Case No.438 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of I.P.C. After due trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan convicted the accused under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offences and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC vide judgment, dated 20-01-2003. 3. As against the said conviction and sentences, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2003 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad at Bodhan and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, having gone through both oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court vide judgment, dated 27-02-2004. Challenging the same, the accused has preferred this Revision. 4. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present Revision are stated as follows : On 03-10-1999 at 03-00 p.m. while the victim Smt. Kumari Kistavva (PW.2) second wife of the de-facto complainant namely K. Sangaiah (PW.1) along with the first wife of the de-facto complainant Smt. Kumari Pochavva was fetching grass in their field and while Pochavva was cutting grass in their paddy field, the victim was cutting the grass at some distance, at about 04-30 p.m the accused went to the victim and caught hold her both hands and dragged her towards him with malafide intention and laid the victim on the ground and outraged her modesty. As per charge sheet, when the victim raised hue and cry, the accused threatened her on the point of sickle and on hearing the cries of victim when Pochavva went to rescue, the accused threatened the Pochavva with dire consequences. E. Chandrasekar Goud, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Banswada took up and completed the investigation of the case and later filed relevant Charge sheet. 5. Whereas charges under Sections 354 and 506 of I.P.C. were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 and P-2 and on behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that though ingredients of Sections 354 and 506 of IPC are not established and the evidence of PW.2 makes it very clear that a false case was foisted against the accused and in fact, the prosecution failed to establish the charges leveled and both the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence they are liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the prosecution case mostly rests upon the evidence of P.W.2 victim girl and it is clear from her evidence that while she was fetching grass in their paddy fields along with Pochavva (PW.3) who is cutting grass at some distance, at about 04-30 p.m. the accused went to the victim caught hold of her both hands, dragged her towards him and pressed her breasts with a malafide intention to outrage her modesty which evidence was corroborated with the evidence of her sister and eye witness Pochavva (PW.3) and the delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the complaint was not fatal to the prosecution case and as such none of the findings of the Courts below are irrational or incorrect and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 8. Now, it is to be mainly considered as to : 1) Whether the prosecution placed satisfactory evidence in support of its version? 2) Whether the Courts below properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions? and 3) Whether the conviction and sentences imposed by the Courts below are sustainable or not and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal? 9. Point No.1: Here the evidence of victim, eyewitness and also the evidence of other witnesses are very important. PW.2 K. Kistavva deposed that about two years ago at about 04-00 p.m. herself and her sister PW.3 went for fetching grass and while her sister was cutting the crass near a canal and she was cutting grass by the side of the land, then the accused came to her and taken sickle from her hands and caught her breasts and pulled her on the ground, when she raised hue and cry her sister (PW.3) approached them and then the accused threatened to kill her (PW.3) at the point of sickle stating not to inform the incident to anybody, which evidence was corroborated by PW.3 It is also the evidence of PW.2 from her cross-examination that her family got Ac.8-00 cents of land at different places including Ac.1-57 cents of land adjoining the land of the accused. The claim of the defence is that a false case was foisted at the instigation of the husband of PW.2 and accordingly she deposed before the Court. Further, it is the evidence of PW.1 that on receiving necessary information he gave report to the concerned police on the basis of which the police registered the case and investigated the case and ultimately filed the corresponding charge sheet. There is supporting evidence from PW.4 the Investigating Officer in the case. 10. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PWs. 12 to 3 or even PW.4 which is against the prosecution version. There is no evidence of enmity between the accused and the main prosecution witnesses to give false report and speak falsehood before the Court. Absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence and accordingly, it is accepted to be true and correct. Further, with regards to the question of application of ingredients of Sections 354 and 506 of IPC, Section 354 is applicable when there was assault or use of criminal force against any woman with an intention to outrage her modesty. When, it is clear that the accused collected the sickle from the possession of PW.2 and by using criminal force caught hold of her breasts and pulled her on the ground, it clearly attracts the ingredients of Section 354 IPC. Similarly, it is very clear that when the accused threatened both PWs. 2 and 3 not to inform about the incident to others, it clearly attracts the provisions of section 506 of IPC. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused are not applicable here and hence the Criminal Revision is not tenable and accordingly it is liable to be dismissed. 11. Further, with regard to the quantum of sentences it is important that the accused has been attending various Courts since 2000, by reason of which, he must have suffered a lot by way of losing his valuable part of life and lot of money and facing the conviction and sentences imposed. Taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances, it is quite reasonable to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from three years to two years for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC which is the minimum prescribed punishment therein and further reduce the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months for offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, while keeping the fine clauses in tact. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the above modifications. Both the sentences are ordered to be run concurrently and the period of detention, if any, undergone by the accused, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J July 04, 2011. Dsh