THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.983 of 2005 ORDER: This criminal revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-appellant against the judgment, dated 23.06.2005 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2003 by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.353 of 2002 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, whereby and where under the petitioner was convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer SI for a period of one month. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.01.2002 at about 7.00 a.m. when the complainant went to burial ground to answer calls of nature, the petitioner-accused went there noticing that the complainant was alone and tried to outrage her modesty. Then the complainant gave a complaint, upon which a case was registered in Cr.No.6 of 2002 for the offence under Section 354 IPC against the accused. 4. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 5. The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and convicted the accused as stated above. 6. It is seen from the records that the learned trial Judge and the appellate Judge considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the accused. 7. On perusal of the record and after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, the only point that arises for disposal of the present revision is that ‘Whether the de facto complainant proved her case beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC’? 8. It is a case arising out of the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. This court perused the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. As stated by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discard the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 is cogent and they have stated the manner in which the occurrence took place and also they supported the case of the prosecution in all aspects. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. In any event, taking into consideration the lapse of 9 years from the date of occurrence, minimum punishment can be imposed on the accused. 9. Accordingly, the conviction imposed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the lower appellate court is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment of three years imposed on the petitioner is reduced to two years and the period of detention already suffered by the petitioner-appellant is also directed to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 10. With the above observation, the criminal revision case is disposed of. _______________ RAJA ELANGO, J. 27th January 2011, Rns.