THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.620 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner-appellant against the judgment, dated 30.03.2005, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2003 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. Initially, the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court under section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Assailing the said Judgment, the petitioner preferred appeal. In the appeal, the appellate court, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Heard. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows: The accused Jillela Rami Reddy, on 01.04.2002 at about 5.00p.m. when the de facto complainant and her sister and sister-in- law were returning to their homes after completing the agricultural coolly works, caught hold the de facto complainant and tried to outrage her modesty. Hence the charge. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged and convicted the accused as stated above. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even reading the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no iota of evidence attracting the offence under Section 354 IPC. Since ‘dragging a lady’ itself is not an offence under Section 354 IPC. There should be an intention to outrage the modesty. In the absence of any such evidence, the offence under Section 354 IPC does not attract. He further submitted that witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 are related to each other. Further submitted that there was dispute between the petitioner as well as the witnesses. They are residents of the same village and the complaint also lodged after lapse of seven hours. There is no explanation by the complainant for the delay. This Court perused the entire records and also the evidence adduced by the witnesses. On perusal of the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws.4 and 5, who claims to be the independent witnesses and eyewitnesses to the occurrence not supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. Whereas, learned Sessions Judge relied on the evidence on the ground that as per witnesses, some occurrence took place. The said observation by the learned Sessions Judge is not acceptable. The witnesses should speak regarding the manner in which the said lady was outraged. In the absence of any such evidence, believing P.Ws.4 and 5 is of no use. As far as P.Ws.1 to 3 are concerned, they are closely related and the complaint also lodged after lapse of seven hours. In such circumstances, an offence under Section 354 IPC, which is punishable with minimum imprisonment, this Court is of the view that it is highly unsafe to convict the accused when motive is also attributed for implication of the petitioner herein. In view of the same, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner are hereby set aside. The criminal revision case is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court for the offence under Section 354 IPC is hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the said charge. ___________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 4th March 2011 Rns