HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No. 1790 of 2004 O R D E R: The sole accused was prosecuted for the offence u/Secs.354 IPC and 506 IPC for outraging the modesty of PW-1. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. Only two documents, Exs.P1 and P2 were exhibited. The learned trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offence u/Sec.354 IPC. He further found the accused not guilty of the offence u/Sec.506 IPC. He recorded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with appropriate default sentence. The petitioner preferred appeal before the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal with reference to the conviction as well as sentence. Hence, this revision. 2. The accused is a 23 years old young man. He is said to be an auto driver. He occasionally drives city buses as well. 3. PW-1, who is the prosecutrix, is a resident of Takkellapadu, hamlet of Guntur. She was described to be about 17 years old at the time of offence. She was a student of X class in Vidhatha school, Navabharat Nagar, Guntur. She had the habit of going to school by travelling in the city bus from her village upto Radhakrishna cinema theatre centre, Guntur, where she used to board the school bus to go over to her school. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused started teasing the prosecutrix sitting behind her in the city bus and had been making advances to the prosecutrix. PW-2, who was a regular passenger in the bus and PW-3 another regular passenger in the city bus had noticed the indecent behavior of the accused towards PW-1. It is the further case of the PW-1 that on 17.11.1999, when PW-1 boarded the bus, the accused sat behind her and as usual, misbehaved with PW-1 and outraged her modesty. It is further alleged that when PW-1 got down the bus at Radhakrishna Cinema Theatre centre, the accused also got down from the bus and inviting PW-1 to go over with him to Amaravahti. He allegedly threatened PW-1 that if PW-1 informed anyone about his conduct, he would spread out rumours that PW-1 was the culprit in making advances. PW-1 was said to have become frightened on account of the conduct of the accused and refused to go to the school on the next day. 5. After enquiry by her parents and others, she revealed the reason why she did not have interest to go to school. A police complaint thereafter was lodged, the accused was arrested and prosecution was launched. This is the gist of the prosecution case. 6. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Sri B.Kranthi Kiran, learned counsel for the accused/Revision petitioner contended that no case is made out against the accused and that the prosecutrix failed to establish the offence u/sec.354 IPC against the accused. 8. PW-1 was extensively cross-examined at the time of trial. PW-1 however, insisted that the accused was misbehaving and went to the extent of outraging her modesty. The basic allegation regarding the outraging of the modesty of the prosecutrix by the accused is that the accused sat behind the seat in the bus and was unnecessarily touching the body of PW-1 and was passing advances by making vulgar comments. On the date of the incident, the accused got down along with PW-1 from the bus and made advances if not administered demands asking PW-1 to go over with him to Amaravathi. 9. P.W.2 is a student of B.Sc., he clams that he was a regular passenger in the bus. He deposed that on the date of the incident, the accused touched the cheek of P.W.1 and asked her to a company him to Amaravathi. P.W.3, who is an automobile spare parts dealer of Guntur and who was also a regular passenger in the bus, also deposed that the accused was insisting that P.W.1 should accompany him to Amaravathi and that the accused administered threats to P.W.1 that he would spread rumours against P.W.1 in the event P.W.1 did not agree to the demand of the accused. I agree with the contention of the prosecution that the conduct of the accused as deposed either by P.W.1 or by P.Ws.2 and 3 is an offence punishable u/sec.354 IPC. 10. There is certainly a minor deviation between the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 on one side and P.W.1 on the other side as to the exact nature of the misbehavior. However, the deviation cannot be dubbed as a contradiction so as to give benefit of doubt to the accused. 11. I am satisfied from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the case for the offence u/Sec.354 IPC has been made out beyond reasonable doubt. It is needless to go into the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 7. It may be pointed out that P.w.4 is the mother of the prosecutrix. She was not an eye witness to the incident. P.W.5 is the brother of P.W.4 and the junior maternal uncle of P.W.1. He was also not an eye witnesses to the misbehavior of the accused towards P.W.1. P.W.6 is the sarpanch of Uppalapadu village. He also was not an eye-witness to the incident. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer. Thus, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the material witnesses. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is categorical in establishing that the accused committed the offence u/Sec.354 IPC. I therefore, have no hesitation to accept the conclusion of the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court that the accused was guilty of the offence u/Sec.354 IPC. 12. Regarding the quantum of sentence to be imposed against the accused, the learned trial Judge sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- against the accused. The sentences recorded by the trial court were confirmed by the appellate court. Inasmuch as the offence u/Sec.354 IPC stood amended in the State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1991, the minimum sentence of punishment for the offence u/Sec.354 IPC is five years. However, Sec.354 IPC contains the proviso that for the reasons to be recorded, the sentence of imprisonment may be for less than five years and that in any event, the sentence shall not be less than two years. The minimum sentence thus, for the offence u/Sec.354 IPC in effect is rigorous imprisonment for two years. The accused was 23 years old at the time of commission of the offence. He is a petty employee. He is an auto driver, who occasionally drives city buses. The outrage alleged and proved against the accused is not serious, albeit, it is a case of outraging the modesty within the meaning of Sec.354 IPC. In view of the nature of the offence committed by the accused and in view of the age of the accused, I consider it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of a period of two years from five years. The learned counsel for the accused further pointed that the petitioner is the only bread winner of the family. Taking this factor also into consideration, I also deem it appropriate to reduce the fine to Rs.100/- from Rs.1000/- in default of payment of which, to undergo simple imprisonment of one month. 13. Accordingly, this revision so far as the quantum of sentence recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is concerned is allowed. The revision case is dismissed so far as the finding of conviction is concerned. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is modified to sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The fine of Rs.1000/- as recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is reduced to fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of which, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The petitioner indeed is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner, if he is not in jail, shall immediately surrender before the trial court to suffer the remaining part of the sentence. 14. The revision is accordingly, disposed of. _________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Dt. 12-08-2011 Mjl/*