THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.605 OF 2005 DATED 24th NOVEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : A.Nageswara Rao @ Chinna .. Petitioner-Accused and The State of A.P. ..Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.605 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-accused challenging the judgment dated 23.03.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.529 of 2001 by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur. Initially, the petitioner-accused was prosecuted in Sessions Case No.584 of 2001 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Repalle, in which he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 IPC. But, however the accused was convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the same, accused filed Criminal Appeal No.529 of 2001, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge. Challenging the same, present Criminal Appeal is filed. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused developed sexual lust against the victim P.Audilakshmi. About an year prior to the date of offence, accused having found the victim working alone in the backyard of her house attempted to commit rape on her. But, when she raised cries, the neighbours rushed to the spot and caught hold of the accused. In that connection, the uncle of the accused namely Harika Prabhakar intervened and assured to the village elders that the accused would not interfere with the victim in future. Since then the accused bore grudge against her and now and then he used to abuse her in vulgar language. Again on 13.04.2001 at about 9.00 p.m. while the victim was doing her household work, in the absence of her husband and children in her house, the accused went to her house along with another person and claimed that they came to collect census. Suspecting the version of the accused, the victim enquired the other person about the purpose of their visit. He informed that they came for purchasing eggs. The victim stated them eggs were not available and the other person went away. Meanwhile, the accused rushed towards the victim, caught hold of her forcibly and tried to lavish and she grumbled with him and meanwhile the neighbours and children of the victim came to the spot and the accused fled away. On 14.04.2001 she lodged a complaint at Police Station, basing on which, the S.I of Police registered a case in crime No.11 of 2001, visited scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch and observation Mahazar, seized the torn blouse of the victim under the cover of mediator report and examined the witnesses. On 16.04.2001 accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Further, after completion of entire investigation, Police filed charge sheet against the accused, which was taken cognizance as P.R.C. No.19 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 IPC by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bapatla. When examined by the learned trial Judge, the accused denied the allegations levelled against him. When charge under Section 376 read with 511 IPC was framed against the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During the trial, the prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and MO.1. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied the incriminating circumstance read over to him, which is available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused did not choose to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary on his behalf. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused as stated above and the same was also confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment. Heard. Now the point for consideration is ‘whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses inspired the confidence of this Court to convict the accused for an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC?’ Admittedly, the case is registered and charge sheet is filed for an offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 IPC. The learned trial Judge convicted the accused under Section 354 IPC. The version of P.W.1 as per the complaint given by her and also the evidence adduced by her before the Court goes to show that accused along with another person, who is known to the complainant, entered into her house under the guise of collecting census. When P.W.1 again questioned, the accused and another person informed that they came to the house for the purpose of purchasing eggs. When she informed that no eggs are available, the accompanied person left the place immediately, but the accused rushed towards the victim, caught hold her and in that process her jacket was torn and jacket hooks were also torn. When she raised hue and cry, the neighbours and children of P.W.1 reached the spot. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the victim and accused are having previous enmity and in an earlier occasion she lodged a complaint against the accused. According to P.W.1, some panchayath was also conducted in that connection. But, the said contention was not supported by the other prosecution witnesses. At the same time, the evidence adduced by P.W.1 also clearly reveals that the accused is in the habit of abusing her and also there was some quarrel between them. Apart from P.W.1, no other person witnessed the occurrence, which is quite natural. At the same time, P.W.4 examined by the prosecution deposed before the Court that he heard the cries of the victim as well as the accused at the time of occurrence. From that, it can be easily presumed that there was some quarrel between the accused and the victim. If the case of P.W.1 is accepted, the question of raising voice by accused does not arise since he is an aggressor. But, the evidence of P.W.4 clearly indicates that there was some quarrel between P.W.1 and accused. Further more, if it was the intention of the accused to outrage the modesty of the victim, it is highly improbable that a known person would accompany him to the house of the victim at the time of occurrence. Hence, there is no dispute over the time and the manner of occurrence, but at the same time it has to be seen whether the accused really intended to outrage the modesty of the victim or the occurrence took place during the quarrel between the accused and the victim. In the background of the earlier dispute between P.W.1 and the accused and also on the basis of the evidence adduced by P.W.4, this Court is of the view that the entire occurrence took place during the quarrel between the parties. By the said act, the appellant-accused committed an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC. Hence, conviction imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court for an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is hereby set aside and the appellant-accused is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the said offence. Period already undergone by the accused in jail be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellant, is not interfered with and the same be treated as fine imposed for an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 24th November, 2010. sur