THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1107 of 2005 Date: 19.08.2011 Between: Garnepudi Moshe … Petitioner/accused V. The State of A.P. Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: S. Venkateswrlu Counsel for the Respondent: Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1107 of 2005 ORDER: The sole accused was charged for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for outraging the modesty of PW.1. He was found guilty by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole. He was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for a period of five years and fine of Rs.500/- with appropriate default sentence. In the appeal, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole confirmed the conviction. He further modified the sentence of R.I. of five years to a period of two years. He maintained the fine imposed by the trial Court. The sole accused preferred the revision. 2. Sri S. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that there are contradictions between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, that the evidence has not been made out and that the accused deserves to be acquitted, at least by the operation of benefit of doubt. 3. The incident occurred on 20.02.2002, at about 7 a.m. The complaint under Ex.P.1 was lodged by 10 a.m. at which time Ex.P.2 First Information Report (FIR) was issued. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused contended that the scene of offence was at a distance of about 15 minutes from the Police Station by walk and that the delay in lodging the complaint should lead to a benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. I am afraid that where the offence involved is an offence u/s.354 IPC involving a lady who appeared to be an unmarried girl of 24 years, when the offence occurred at 7 a.m. and the report was lodged at 10 a.m., it cannot be considered to be a case of delay. Even otherwise, the prosecution explained the delay. It is the case of the prosecution that after the incident, while PW.1 was weeping, she was taken to the house of her father-PW.2, wherefrom she went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. I, therefore, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there was delay in lodging the complaint and that the revision petitioner, therefore, deserves to be acquitted by the operation of benefit of doubt. 4. I may state the case of the prosecution at this stage. a) PW.1 is a Post Graduate in Commerce. She has been running a community type institute at Balajingar, Ongole in the premises owned by the husband of PW.2. The institute is opened at 6.45 a.m. daily and closed at 6 p.m. The sole accused was one of the students of the institute along with about 20 other students. b) On 20.02.2002, PW.1 opened the institute at 6.45 a.m. as usual. At about 7 a.m., the accused came into the type institute, closed the door of the institute, caught hold of the hand of PW.1 and closed the mouth of PW.1 with his hands. PW.1 some how wriggled herself out of the clutches of the accused and raised alarm. On hearing the alarm, PW.2, wife of the landlord, in whose premises PW.1 was running her type institute, reached the scene of offence along with her husband. The accused then went away from the scene of offence. Later, PW.1 was taken to the house of her father-PW.3. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged with the police. d) This is the sum and substance of the prosecution case. 5. PW.1 stated that she raised alarm and called PW.2 as a response to the overt acts of the accused. PW.2, on the other hand, did not state that she rushed to the scene of offence on hearing the calls of PW.1. She deposed that she heard the alarm of PW.1 and rushed to the type institute constituting the scene of offence. This discrepancy between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that PW.1 claimed that she called PW.2 and PW.2 not referring to the same is projected by the learned counsel for the accused as a contradiction, so as to attract benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. 6. I am afraid that there is no contradiction in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in this context. PW.1, on account of the conduct of the accused raised alarm. Inter alia, she called PW.2 for help. PW.2, however, heard the alarm only and rushed to the scene of offence. I, therefore, am not prepared to hold that there was a contradiction between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in this context so as to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 7. At the institute, it is the case of PW.1 that when she wriggled herself out of the clutches of the accused and raised alarm, PW.2 reached the scene of offence and that the accused went away on seeing the P W . 2 , inter alia, threatening PW.1 with dire consequences. PW.2 deposed that when she reached the scene of offence on hearing alarm of PW.1, she found the accused at the scene of offence. It is her further case that after seeing PW.2, the accused went away declaring to PW.1 that what she suffered from was only a dress rehearsal and that PW.1 would reap the consequences thereafter. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that PW.1 did not depose that the accused declared that what PW.1 suffered from was only a rehearsal and that the contradiction between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in this regard is material contradiction in the prosecution case. I am afraid that the inconsistency cannot be considered to be a contradiction, much less a material contradiction. PWs.1 and 2 agree that the accused threatened PW.1 with dire consequences before the accused left the scene of offence. They agree that the scene of offence was the institute. Finally, they also agree that the incident occurred at about 7 a.m. Thus, there is any amount of agreement between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding the actual commission of the offence. 8. Indeed, PWs.2 and 4 are not eyewitnesses to the incident proper. PW.3 is the father of PW.1. PW.4 is another tenant of PW.2 and has been residing in the same premises. But, PW.4 also did not witness the incident. However, PW.4 noticed the accused going into the institute and heard the alarm of PW.1 thereafter. PW.4 thus corroborated the evidence of PW.1, if not substantially corroborated the evidence of PW.1. 9. First, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 corroborated each other regarding the commission of offence. Further, for in an offence of the nature like 354 IPC, the evidence of the prosecutrix herself, in fact, would be sufficient to bring home the conviction against the accused. Added to it, the evidence of PW.1 was corroborated by the evidence of PW.2. 10. The offence u/s.354 IPC, consequently, is made out. I see no reason to defer from the finding of conviction by the learned trial Judge and by the learned appellate Judge. The conviction, as recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, needs to be maintained. 11. Regarding the quantum of sentence, it may be noticed that the accused was only 20 years old at the time of the commission of offence. The incident occurred more than nine years ago. The accused deserves to be let of with minor punishment, in view of the length of the time passed from the date of the commission of offence and in view of age of the accused. However, the State Amendment of Section 354 IPC makes it obligatory to impose minimum sentence of two years, that too after recording reasons. 12. The age of the accused as well as the length of time passed from the date of offence are enough to hold that the accused deserves to a lenient treatment. Added to it, the misconduct that the accused voluntarily committed is also such that lenient treatment deserves to be shown to the accused. In view of the embargo u/s.354 IPC the conviction recorded by the trial Court deserves to be maintained with a modification that the petitioner shall undergo Simple Imprisonment instead of Rigorous Imprisonment. So far as the penalty of fine is concerned, I deem it appropriate to reduce the fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of which, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 13. The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of accordingly. The accused shall surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining part of sentence, if he is on bail. The revision petitioner/accused is sentenced to S.I. for a period of two years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of which, to suffer S.I. for a further period of 15 days. _________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 19.08.2011 Isn