HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1494 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is arising out of judgment dated 10.8.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.267 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction recorded against the petitioner-A1 for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. and reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years imposed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem vide order dated 17.11.2000 in S.C. No. 296 of 1998 against him to two years . The facts, which led to the filing of the present revision are as follows: A1 along with two other accused in the case used to tease P.w.2, who is the daughter of P.Ws. 1 and 3 and when the said matter was reported to P.W.6, he chastised A1 and on 19.5.1998 at about 8.30 a.m. while P.W.2 was returning from the panchayat latrines and when she reached near the house of P.W.5, A1 caught hold of her hand and when P.W.2 raised cries, P.Ws.1 and 5 went there and A1 pushed P.W.1 and in the meanwhile, P.W.3, who is the father of P.W.2 noticed the same and questioned A1 and at that time, A2 and A3 rushed there and A2 poked with an iron rod on the ribs of P.W.3 and pushed him down, as a result of which, P.W.3 sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter, P.W.1 reported the matter to the police concerned basing on which the case was registered. It was investigated into and later the police filed charge sheet against A1 in the case for the offences punishable under Section 354 IPC and against A2 and A3 in the case for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC read with 34 IPC. However, the case against A2 and A3 was split up and tried separately and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, tried A1 for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC in S.C No. 296 of 1998. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and got marked Exs. P1 to P7. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. The trial Court after analysing the evidence on record, found A1 guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days, whereas aggrieved by that, A1 carried the matter in appeal before the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in the Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2000, which was dismissed while reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed against A1 to two years and challenging the same, A1 has filed the present revision. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the prosecution version, the accused only caught hold of the hands of the defacto complainant-P.W.1, and therefore, it does not attract the provisions of Section 354 of IPC and there were previous disputes between the family of P.W.1 and the family of the accused and according to P.W.6, about one month prior to the alleged incident, the parents of P.W.2 approached him and informed him that the accused teased P.W.2 and only due to the disputes between the families, false case was foisted against the accused and A1 is aged about 23 years and he has got bright future and therefore he is entitled for acquittal. He has also contended that even if the prosecution version is true, it would only fall within the ambit of Section 509 of IPC, but not 354 IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution could make out the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and whether the Courts below properly examined the matter ? It is the testimony of P.W.2 that on 19.5.2000 at about 8.30 a.m. when she was returning, A1 caught hold of her hand and embraced her and also put his hands on her chest and when she raised cries, her mother, P.W.1 came there and abused A1 and her mother also pulled her from the hands of A1 and then A1 pushed her mother and her mother raised cries and on hearing the cries, her father, P.W.3 came there and when he tried to come to their rescue, A1 beat him and then A1 pulled the tuft of her hair and in the meanwhile, A2 and A3 came there and A2 and A3 beat her father with hands. P.Ws. 1 and 3, who are the mother and father of P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of P.W.2. P.Ws.4 and 5, who are the brother and sister of P.W.2 also supported the version of P.W.2. P.W.6, who is a resident of Unguturu Village deposed that about one year prior to his examination before the Court, PWs. 1 to 3 approached him and made complaint against the misbehaviour of A1 against P.W.2 and when he enquired A1, he denied the same and he directed both of them to live peacefully. P.W. 8 was the Civil Assistant Surgeon at Tadepalligudem. He deposed that on 19.5.1998 at about 2.00 p.m. he examined P.W.3, the father of P.w.2 and found three injuries and issued wound certificate, Ex.P4. There are absolutely no reasons to disbelieve the evidence adduced. There is no basis to show that a false case was foisted against the accused in view of some disputes between the two families. The circumstances of the case amply provide that the behaviour of A1 had been very high handed since a long time and even one year prior to the alleged incident also, he involved in teasing P.W.2 and therefore, he needs to be properly dealt with. Section 351 IPC provides: 351. Assault.-- Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault. Explanation.- Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault. Further Section 354 of IPC provides: “Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.-- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Further Section 509 of IPC provides: “Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.-- Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.” There is clear evidence of use of criminal force and outraging the modesty of P.W.2 and also causing injuries to P.W.3. In view of the proved conduct of A1, definitely the ingredients of Section 354 are applied here. Further, we have been hearing about taking place of such incidents almost everywhere. Unless such high handed behaviour is checked, there will be no safety for the women folk, particularly, girls in the society and hence, no lenient view can be taken. Hence, I do not find any merits in the revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 20.7.2011 pnb