IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1563 of 2002 Between: Mundru Venkateswarlu S/o. Iyanna @ Innaiah …. Petitioner AND The Station House Officer, Police Station, Rompicherla, Guntur District …. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1563 OF 2002 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner Mundru Venkateswarlu S/o.Iyanna @ Inaaiah, sole accused, under Sections 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), against the judgment dated 21-10-2002 in Criminal Appeal No.473 of 1999 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, whereunder and whereby, conviction of the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentence to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months recorded in the judgment dated 15-09-1999 in S.C. No.656 of 1998 passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, were confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision case may be stated as follows: On 20-12-1997 at 12.00 noon, while PW.1 Yenuganti Seetharavamma was cutting green grass in her field, the accused along with PW.4 Muthukuri Lakshmaiah went to her and asked her to allow him to cut the grass in her field then she replied that the green grass in their field is not even sufficient to their cattle. Then the accused caught hold of her hand to outrage her modesty, and on that, she raised cries. PW.3 Pathuri Venkatarao came there and witnessed the same and informed PW.2 Yenuganti Venkatarao, who is none other than the husband of PW.1, and he rushed to the spot and enquired about the same. In the meanwhile, the accused went to the other side of the canal and PW.2 went there and questioned the accused, and there was a scuffle between the accused and PW.2. Then the accused took the stick from PW.2 and beat him and also PW.1. Thereafter, PWs. 1 and 2 returned to home at 2.00 PM and informed the same to their family members and after return of the father-in-law of PW.1, they went to the Police Station, Rompicherla and lodged Ex.P-1 complaint. The police registered the case, examined the witnesses and referred PWs.1 and 2 to the hospital, Narasaraopet. PWs.1 and 2 were examined by PW.5 Dr.P.V. Subrahmanyam and he opined that the injury on PW.1 is simple in nature and the injury on PW.2 is grievous and gave Exs.P-4 and P-5 wound certificates. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet is laid. 3. When the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323 IPC are framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, the accused denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7. On behalf of the defence, none were examined but Ex.D-1 was marked. 5. The trial Court accepting the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323 IPC, accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved of the same, the accused preferred an appeal and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused contended that a man catching hold of the hand of a woman does not amount to outraging modesty unless the intention of the accused is to outrage her modesty and that there was enmity between PWs.1 and 2 on one hand and the accused on the other hand; that, PWs.3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and hence he prays to set aside the impugned judgments. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below need not be interfered with and that the evidence of PW.1 is very clear that the accused tried to spoil her and that it clearly attracts the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC; that from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with medical evidence, offence under Section 323 IPC is established and hence she prays to dismiss the revision. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper ? 9. There cannot be any dispute that revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 I.P.C. are truncated one. Unless it is shown that the findings of the trial Court or appellate Court are incorrect or improper, normally this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. But, to know whether the findings are based upon the evidence or not, it is necessary to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 10. The charge levelled against the accused is under Section 354 IPC. The necessary ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC are as follows: “(a) A person (i) Assaults or, (ii) Uses criminal force to a woman. (b) He intends or knows it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty.” 11. What is ‘modesty’ is defined by the apex Court in the decision in RAMKRIPAL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[1] in para-10: “Modesty is defined as the quality of being modest; and in relation to woman, “womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct.” It is the reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions. As observed by Justice Patterson in Rex v. James Llyod in order find the accused guilty of an assault with intent to commit a rape, court must be satisfied that the accused, when he laid hold of the prosecutrix, not only desired to gratify his passions upon her person but that he intended to do so at all events, and notwithstanding any resistance on her part. The point of distinction between an offence of attempt to commit rape and to commit indecent assault is that there should be some action on the part of the accused which would show that he was just going to have sexual connection with her.” 12. PW.1 is the victim. Her evidence would go to show that she along with her husband went to their fields to cut green grass; that while she was cutting the grass, her husband went to other filed and at that time she saw the accused coming towards her; that he came and asked her to allow him to cut the green grass and when she replied that the green grass in their field was not sufficient to their cattle, the accused caught hold of her left hand and tried to spoil her then she showed the sickle and asked him to leave her otherwise she would hack him; that so saying she cried for her husband; that PW.3 Pathuri Venkata Rao rushed there and enquired about the same and that she asked him to inform to her husband and her husband came there and she informed him about the same; that in the meanwhile, the accused went to the other side of the canal and her husband went there and questioned the accused about his behaviour, the accused took the stick from the hands of her husband and beat him on the left hand and on seeing that PW.1 also went there to rescue her husband and the accused beat PW.1 also; that thereafter they returned home and informed the same to the father-in-law of PW.1 and they went to Rompicherla Police Station and lodged Ex.P-1 complaint. 13. PW.1 is the sole eyewitness to the occurrence. PWs.2, 3 and 4 came to the scene after hearing the cries of PW.1. Therefore, they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. PWs.3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution. When a case rests upon solitary testimony of a witness, that evidence must be convincing, trustworthy and reliable. Once the evidence of PW.1 is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting the evidence so as to base a conviction. There were no previous disputes between the family of PW.1 and the family of the accused. It is suggested to her that there was a dispute between the father-in-law of the accused and the father-in-law of PW.1 in respect of the land adjoining of Ac.4.00 and as such this case is foisted, but the same is denied. By the date of the incident, there were no factions in the village and there is nothing brought on record in the evidence of PW.1 that she has a grouse or enmity against the accused so as to implicate him in a case of this nature. In the absence of any prior disputes, PW.1 would not have gone to the extent of saying that the accused tried to spoil her. The earliest version which came into existence within four hours after the incident is completely in corroboration with the evidence of PW.1. Therefore, PW.1 can be put in the category of wholly reliable witness. 15. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that the accused was a stranger to PW.1 because she categorically stated that she did not see the accused prior to the incident and that the house of the accused and her house were not situated at one place. In such circumstances, implicating the accused falsely in a case of this nature, may not arise. Hence, nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 so as to dis-credit her testimony. 16. PW.2 is none other than the husband of PW.1. He deposed that after hearing the cries of PW.1, he rushed to the scene of offence, that he enquired with PW.1 about the incident and found the accused on the other side of the canal and went there and questioned the accused, that there was a scuffle between PW.2 and the accused, that the accused took the stick from his hands and beat him and PW.1 also. 17. PW.5 is the doctor, who examined PWs.1 and 2. He found pain over the posterior aspect of left elbow diffuse swelling on the posterior aspect of the elbow of PW.1 and diffused painful swelling on the dorsum of left hand 2 inches to one inch on PW.2, and he issued Ex.P-4 and P-5 wound certificates of PWs.1 and 2 respectively. 18. Therefore, both the courts have rightly placed reliance on the evidence of PW.1 and none of the findings are shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence of PW.1 and rightly found the accused guilty of the offence. So, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below. 19. With regard to sentence, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that, at the time of incident, the accused was aged about 20 years, now he is married and is having two children, who are dependent on him, and therefore, prayed to take a lenient view with regard to sentence of imprisonment. 20. Taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and his family background and his obligation to perform the marriage of his two daughters, a lenient view can be taken with regard to sentence. 21. In the result, the conviction of the petitioner/accused recorded in Criminal Appeal No.473 of 1999 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur, of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323 I.P.C. are confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for six years to rigorous imprisonment for two years, while confirming the fine, and the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. 22. With the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 20, 2009. KTL [1] 2007 (3) ALT (Crl.)135 (SC)