HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 698 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision case is filed by the petitioner- accused challenging the judgment dated 29.03.2004 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore, in Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2000. The prosecution case is that P.W.1-Cheekurthi Narayanamma and the accused are the residents of Gollapalli village, Chejerla Mandal, Nellore District. On 26.12.1998 at about 16.00 hrs at Gollapalli village metal road, while P.W.1 was proceeding to the village carrying green grass bundle on her head and reached near a culvert situated near the metal road, the accused came and obstructed her and threw the green grass bundle, tore off her jacket, threw her down on the road and fell upon her with an intention to outrage her modesty. On hearing her cries, P.W.2 Dodla Penchalaiah went to her rescue and warned the accused and thereupon the accused escaped leaving P.W.1. Then she and P.W.2 went to the village and informed the incident to P.W.4-Yaragarla Kondaiah, Ravi Ramachandraiah, Ravi Sreedhar Naidu and P.W.5-Pallmala Penchalaiah respectively and others and requested them to go before the village elders. P.W.3- Cheekurthi Chinna Penchalaiah who is the husband of P.W.1 came to know about the incident through P.W.1 after his return to the village from Mulumudi on 30.2.1998 evening. Thereafter P.W.3 took P.W.1 to Chejerla P.S and presented a report before P.W.6- D.Chandrasekhar H.C.260 who inturn registered the case in Crime No.65 of 1998 for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. P.W.7- M.Sai Prasad, S.I of Police took up and conducted the investigation of the case. He arrested the accused on 02.01.1999 at 6 hrs., at Aduripalli village bus stand center and sent him to judicial custody. After the completion of the investigation of the case, the police laid charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakuru. On the appearance of the accused before the trial Court, he was charged for the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. The accused denied the commission of offence and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove the offence examined PWs. 1 to 7 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-4. To support the case of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. D1 to D5- contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses and copy of charge sheet in S.T.C were marked. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovur came to conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and found him guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2000. The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, after perusing the material made available on record partly allowed the appeal reducing the sentence to three (3) years instead of five (5) years rigorous imprisonment and sustained all other aspects. . Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred the present revision petition. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no direct evidence apart from the evidence of the de facto complainant about the alleged offence and P.Ws.3 and 4 are interested witnesses being husband and father of the de facto complainant and there are contradictions in the evidence recorded and both the trial Court and the appellate Court failed to appreciate the matter properly and hence the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial court, which was modified by the appellate Court are not tenable. Both the Courts below, on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced, found the petitioner-accused guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. Evidence of a sole witness particularly victim can be taken into consideration and accordingly evidence of relatives can also be considered subject to necessary scrutiny as per the established principles of law and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the Courts below. No reasons have been shown as to why the prosecution witnesses had to file false case. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is aged about 75 years now and on that ground the sentence may be reduced. By virtue of Section 354 I.P.C. such accused are punishable up to five years of imprisonment, but which shall not be less than two years unless adequate and special reasons are recorded. The alleged offence took place on 26.12.1998 and as per the record, by that time he was aged 45 years and therefore by now he is aged about 58 years. Taking all the relevant circumstances and also the ends of justice, it is reasonable to reduce the sentence to two (2) years imprisonment and accordingly the revision petition is to be disposed of. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. Conviction of the accused under Section 354 IPC is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment of three (3) years is reduced to two (2) years for the reasons already recorded, out of which, the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner-accused said to be for thirty (30) days shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. ______________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 21st April, 2011 Vjl