THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1297 OF 2004 DATED: 17-06-2010 Between: Dungala Yerram Naidu …Petitioner/Accused And State of A.P. represented by Public Prosecutor. …Respondent/Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1297 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision case by the petitioner-accused under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, dated 08-07-2004, in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2003, on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, in confirming the judgment, dated 15-05-2003, in Sessions Case No.136 of 2002, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Yellamanchili, whereunder and whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for brevity ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: On 05-02-2002 at 14.00 hours, taking advantage of the absence of P.W.3 at her house, the accused took the victim girl - Bandam Durga (P.W.5), who is aged about four years to the backside of the house of P.W.3 and outraged her modesty by embracing her, chewing her chest and lifted her frock and fell on her by lifting his lungi. At that time, P.W.1 noticed the same and caught hold of the tuft of hair of the accused and lifted him up and raised alarm. On hearing her cries, P.W. 2 and one Domudamma rushed to the scene and on seeing them, the accused ran away. On the report given by P.W.1, police registered a case, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. 3. Charge under Section 354 IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as above. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed. Challenging the same, this revision is preferred. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused contended that except the interested testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 5, there is no other evidence to show that the accused used criminal force with an intention to outrage the modesty of a woman, that their evidence is full of improvements, that due to enmity, a false case was foisted against the accused, that there was abnormal delay in lodging the complaint and the said delay was taken with a view to implicate the accused falsely and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 is very clear that the accused used criminal force with an intention to outrage the modesty of P.W.5, that there is no other reason for P.W.5 to depose false against the accused, that the evidence is convincing, that after consideration of evidence, both the Courts below gave concurrent findings and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the findings of both the courts below are legal, proper and correct? 10. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings are based upon no evidence or perverse findings have been given by the Courts below or that inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration in convicting the accused or admissible evidence was overlooked, normally this Court would not interfere with the same. 11. The entire case rests upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5. P.W.1 is the person who saw the accused lying on the body of the victim girl. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, it is clear that the accused lifted the frock of P.W.5 and made her to lie on the ground and after lifting his lungi, he fell on her, embraced the victim and chewed her chest. Then P.W.1 caught hold of tuft of hair and raised alarm. After hearing her cries, P.W.2 and others rushed to the scene of offence. They saw the accused running away from the scene of offence. P.W.5 is prosecuting her studies. Her evidence is clear that at noon time, she came to her house to take food. While she was going to school, the accused called her and took her to backside of the house and made her to lie on the ground and fell on her. Then P.W.1 came and caught hold of the accused and thereafter, the accused ran away. 12. With regard to incident proper, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 is consistent. There is no other reason for P.Ws. 1 and 5 to speak false against the accused. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of these witnesses as to the reason or the motive for them to implicate the accused falsely in a case of this nature. Furthermore, P.W.5 is aged about five years as on the date of incident and she had no grouse or enmity against the accused to implicate him falsely. She being an innocent young child, would not have implicated the accused falsely. After lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 5. The house of P.W.1 is located very close to the scene of offence. Therefore, she is the best person to speak about the incident proper. Furthermore, she lodged F.I.R. before the police and the recitals in Ex.P1 with regard to the accused using criminal force with an intention to outrage the modesty of P.W.5 are completely in corroboration with her evidence. 13. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was abnormal delay in lodging the complaint, but the delay by itself is not a ground to throw away the case of the prosecution. If the delay has been taken deliberately with a view to implicate the accused falsely, then it can be taken as one circumstance to doubt the case of the prosecution. The reason for the delay is, the parents of the victim approached the elders of the village, but they did not take any action. Therefore, they proceeded to the police station and lodged complaint. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the delay has been taken with a view to implicate the accused falsely. P.Ws. 2 and 3 rushed to the scene of offence and they are circumstantial witnesses. P.W.2 saw the accused running away. Admittedly, P.W.3 is not an eyewitness to the incident. She went to the hospital and returned to the house in the evening and she came to know about the incident through P.W.1. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5, it is clear that the accused committed the offence. Both the courts below after proper appreciation of evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 08-07-2004, in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2003, on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. Period of remand, if any, undergone by the petitioner-accused during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:17-06-2010. Note: Despatch the order immediately Hsd