HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal NO.1511 OF 2010 DATED: 02.08.2011 BETWEEN: Narsingh @ Pitchala Narsingh .. Appellant And The State of A.P. Rep.by Public Prosecutor .. Respondent HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1511 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 16.01.2009 passed by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No.371 of 2008. 2. The appellant was tried by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323 IPC and was convicted for both the offences and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the charge under Section 354 IPC and also sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. 3. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused, who is now undergoing jail sentence, has preferred the present appeal. 4. I have heard Mrs. B.Kavita Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 5. It was the case of the prosecution that on 06.07.2008 at about 01.00 PM, the appellant-Pitchala Narsingh went to Shahinayathgunj Police Station and orally reported that some unknown persons beat him at Jummerat Bazar. The Assistant Sub-inspector of Police, who is present in the police station sent him to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. Subsequently, at about 01.30 PM, PW.1-Smt Mathari Ellamma came to the police station and lodged a written report stating as follows: on 06.07.2008 about 12.00 noon one person by name Pitchala Narsingh (the appellant) came upon their house, kicked her husband and also threw stones on her husband-PW2, while he was repairing the rickshaw in front of their house. On seeing the same, when she went to rescue of her husband, the appellant came up on her, caught hold of her hand and slapped, then caught her saree in public place and tried to remove her saree and thereby tried to outrage her modesty. It is also mentioned in the report that in the process of assaulting PWs.1 and 2, the appellant fell down on the stone and received injury on his head and hand. It is further stated in the said report that the appellant had been harassing them since few days prior to the incident forcing PW.2 to perform the marriage of their daughter with him. 6. Basing on the report lodged by PW.1, the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.191 of 2008 under Sections 354 and 323 IPC. PW.5-the Inspector of Police, investigated into the offence and filed charge sheet. 7. In the course of the trial before the learned II Metropolitan Sessions Judge, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P.1 to P3. 8. PW1 stated in her evidence before the learned trial Court that while her husband (PW.2) was repairing the rickshaw in front of their house, the appellant came there, kicked him and abused him in filthy language, then she came out of the house on hearing the commotion and questioned the appellant as to why he was assaulting her husband, he grew wild, caught hold of her hands and pulled her saree and slapped on her cheek, while several persons were witnessing the incident. PW.2, the husband of PW.1 also stated in his deposition about the appellant kicking him, assaulting him with stick and throwing him on the ground. He also stated about his wife coming there and questioning the appellant and thereupon the appellant pulling her saree and slapping on her right cheek. PW.3 is the brother of PW.2. He stated before the trial Court that he saw the appellant and his brother (PW.2) fighting with each other and when he tried to pacify, the appellant beat him on his back. He further stated that the appellant also beat his sister, his mother and pulled the saree and jacket of his sister-in-law i.e. PW.1. 9. PW.4-doctor, who examined PW.2 stated in his evidence that on examination, no external injury was found on the body of PW2, but he complained pain on left side of the chest. Ex.P.2 is the injury certificate issued by PW.4. 10. Resting on the above referred evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 354 and 323 IPC. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there was a fight between both parties in connection with the dispute relating to PWs.1 and 2 not agreeing to give their daughter in marriage to the appellant, which lead to a quarrel during the course of which the appellant received injuries, but the police did not register any case basing on his oral report and moreover, roped him in this case falsely at the instance of the complainant. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, though of related witnesses, is truthful and trustworthy and their evidence made out the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323 IPC, and hence, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. 11. Barring some minor discrepancies, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is trustworthy insofar as the basic version of the prosecution is concerned. The evidence read as a whole, reveals that the appellant assaulted PWs.1 and 2 and also outraged the modesty of PW.1 by catching hold of her hand and pulling her saree while several people, who gathered in front of the house of PW.2 were witnessing the incident. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel that even if the entire version of PWs.1 to 3 is believed, no offence under Section 354 is made out. According to the learned counsel, since there was no intention on the part of the appellant to outrage the modesty of PW.1, he may not be liable for punishment under Section 354 IPC. In this case, it is obvious from the evidence of the witnesses that the appellant knew that by his act he was doing it is likely that he will thereby outrage the modesty of PW.1. This being so, by catching hold of PW1’s hand and pulling her saree in the public view when several persons witnessed the incident the appellant committed the offence under Section 354 IPC. 12. The trial Court in my view is thus justified in convicting the appellant for the offenceS punishable under Sections 354 and 323 IPC. As regards the sentences, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case wherein the trial Court could have invoked the discretion under the proviso to Section 354 IPC of amending the Act 6 of 1991 in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 13. In the instant case, from the evidence it seems that there was a quarrel ensued between the parties which led to fight between the appellant and PW.2. The criminal act of pulling saree of PW.1 and catching hold of hands by the appellant had taken place without any pre-meditation and in the course of a sudden quarrel. Therefore, the trial Court instead of imposing five years imprisonment, should have exercised its discretion conferred under the proviso to Section 354 IPC and imposed lesser punishment. The appellant has been undergoing jail sentence in connection with this case since 07.07.2008 i.e. since three years one month. The sentence imposed by the learned trial Court being severe, this Court is of the view that it can be reduced to the period which the appellant had already undergone. 14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction passed against the appellant-accused by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Sessions Case No.371 of 2008, dated 16.01.2009 for the offences under Sections 354 and 323 IPC is confirmed. But, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant has been reduced to the period which he had already undergone besides confirming the fine imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. The appellant-accused is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. _________________ Date: 02.08.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal NO.1511 OF 2010 DATE: 02.08.2011