THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1757 OF 2004 Dated 15-7-2010 Between: Ch.Krishna Rathnam. ..Petitioner. And: The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1757 OF 2004 Judgment: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 24-9-2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2003 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, in dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence order passed against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC by the 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, in C.C.No.505 of 2001, dated 24-9-2004. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner will herein after be referred to as ‘the accused’ for the sake of convenience. The accused was working as clerk in the Syndicate Bank, Nellore Main branch. P.W.1 is also working in the same Bank as clerk. The husband of P.W.1 on promotion was transferred to Madhya Pradesh and he was residing there. P.W.1 was residing with her younger son aged about 8 years and daughter aged about 11 years at Kovvuru, West Godavari District. According to P.W.1, the accused used to follow her, harass her while P.W.1 was going to her house. When P.W.1 complained against the accused, to P.W.3 who was working as Branch Manager in the same branch, the accused threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences. It is also alleged that the accused used to make phone calls to the brother and mother of P.W.1 without telling his name and used to talk very bad against P.W.1. As there was no change in the attitude of the accused, and when the husband of P.W.1 came from Madhya Pradesh, both of them went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint against the accused to the police under Ex.P.1. Basing on Ex.P.1, the police registered a case in Cr.No.90 of 2001 under section 509 and 506 I.P.C. and issued F.I.R. Police after competing investigation, filed the Charge Sheet against the accused. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. Then the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on behalf of the accused, D.ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked. The learned Magistrate having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. On appeal, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate were confirmed. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Courts below failed to consider the evidence of the defence witnesses and also the statement of the accused given when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The only point that falls for consideration is whether the impugned judgments are sustainable or not? As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 previously worked as clerk in Syndicate Bank, Nellore Main Branch and she was transferred to Nellore from Eluru West Godavari District. Under deployment scheme, she was transferred to Kovvur. Her native place is Rajahmundry and her children were staying with her parents at Rajahmundry. The only contradiction is in Ex.D.1. D.1 shows that P.W.1 stated before the Police that the accused was harassing her since August, last year. Admittedly, it is a minor contradiction and much importance need not be given to such minor contradiction. P.W.2 is the Assistant Manager. P.W.2 previously worked at Nellore as clerk in Syndicate Bank, Main Branch. According to him, P.W.1 used to inform him over phone that the accused was harassing her. According to him, then he applied leave in the month of May, 2001 and took his wife to the police station and then P.W.1 gave a report to the police. P.W.3 was working as Assistant Manager , Main Branch, Syndicate Bank from 1997 to May, 2001. P.W.1 was also working in the same branch. According to him, in April, 2001, P.W.1 informed him that the accused was following her and then he called the accused and questioned about his highhandedness. According to him, the accused denied the allegations leveled against by him by P.W.1. P.W.3 was declared hostile and he denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P.2. P.W.4 was working as Manager, Syndicate Bank, Nellore. According to him, in May, 2001, P.W.1 came to the office and informed that the accused was teasing her while she was going to her house and coming to the office. According to him, when he enquired with the accused and the accused denied the said allegations. Ex.D.3 is a complaint given by P.W.1 and was received by P.W.4 on 25-5- 2001. It is elicited that P.W.1 did not refer to about the complaint given to police under Ex.D.3. The contents of Ex.D.3 also go to show that P.W.1 narrated the incident as to how the accused followed her and harassed her. According to D.W.1, he was working as Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, Main Branch, Nellore and that he knows the accused and P.W.1. He deposed that P.W.1 was working in Cash Department and that the accused and P.W.1 were moving closely and once he had seen them proceeding on scooter. With regard to harassment, he deposed that he is not aware of any such harassment caused to P.W.1 by the accused. D.W.2 was working as Cashier in Nellore Syndicate Bank main branch. D.W.3 was also working as attender in the said Bank. D.W.4 was working as clerk at Syndicate Bank, Main Branch, Nellore. According to D.Ws.2 to 4, the accused never harassed P.W.1 and more over they were moving very closely inside and outside the Bank. According to D.W.2, one day P.W.1’s mother and brother approached the Manager and since then P.W.1 and accused stopped talking with each other. According to D.W.3, P.W.1 after completing her work, she used to wait for the accused. However, he is not aware of the harassment caused to P.W.1 by the accused. D.W.4 also deposed that P.W.1 and the accused were moving closely. Admittedly, P.W.1 and the accused were working in the same branch. It appears that P.W.1 and the accused were moving closely for some time, that does not mean that the evidence of P.W.1 should be disbelieved with regard to the subsequent conduct of the accused. P.W.1 is a married woman, she is having two children and she was staying lonely at Kovvuru. It appears that taking advantage of loneliness of P.W.1, the accused wanted to take advantage of the situation and therefore, started harassing her. There is no need to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1. Her evidence is inspiring confidence. There is no need to examine all the witnesses cited by the prosecution. In view of the above, there are no merits in the petition and the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 15.07.2010 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1757 OF 2004 Dated 15-7-2010