THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.39 OF 2005 5TH MARCH 2010 BETWEEN: PRATTI NAGABABAU @ NAGESWARA RAO .. PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR .. RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.39 OF 2005 O R D E R: The sole accused is the revision petitioner. He was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur for offences under sections 354 and 324 IPC. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under section 354 IPC. He was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- under section 324 IPC. In appeal, the V Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Eluru confirmed the said convictions and sentences. P.W.2 Gondi Satyavathi is the victim woman. P.Ws.1 and 3 are her parents. P.Ws.4 to 6 are the villagers. It is evidence of the victim-P.W.2 that on the date of offence at about 6 a.m. when she went to public latrine in her village for attending calls of nature the accused entered into the same and tried to molest her and that when she resisted the accused, he inflicted bleeding injury on her head with a sickle. Originally the police laid charge sheet for offences under sections 376/511 IPC and 506 Part II IPC. Ultimately, the courts below, after trial and considering the appeal, imposed the above said convictions and sentences. It is evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6 that when they were attending to their works at their respective places, they heard cries of P.W.2 from the public latrine and when they rushed towards the public latrine, the accused was seen running away from that place and the victim girl-P.W.2 came out of the public latrine with bleeding injury on her head. Both the courts below considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6 came to the conclusion that P.W.2’s version is true and believable. At this stage, in this revision case, I do not find any circumstances to disbelieve evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6. It is contended that though the victim was available, first information report was given by father of the victim to the police and that no reason is put forward by the victim for not giving report to the police. Law does not require that the victim alone should give first information report to the police. When P.W.2 narrated the incident to her parents, P.W.1 being male member of the family, thought it fit to give report to the police on the incident. There is nothing improbable or illegal in it. It is contended that the offence took place in a public place and that inspite of it, no eyewitness is examined. The offence actually took place inside a pubic latrine. There is nothing on record to show that apart from P.W.2 there was anybody inside the public latrine when the incident had happened. P.Ws.3 to 6 rushed towards the scene on hearing cries of the victim. Therefore, version given by P.Ws.3 to 6 is nothing but natural. They only saw the victim girl coming out of the public latrine with bleeding injury on her head and the accused running away from that place. It is their further evidence that P.W.2 narrated the incident, which took place inside the public latrine, to her parents and more particularly to her mother-P.W.3. Therefore, there is no possibility of the prosecution examining any eyewitnesses to the occurrence, except the victim herself. It is contended that there is discrepancy with regard to the colour of dress, which she was wearing at the time of offence. According to P.W.2 she was wearing violet colour dress. The court below noticed that there is no possibility of fading away of the dress because it was subjected to chemical examination and also due to lapse of time. It is further contended that in the Doctor’s evidence the weapon used in this case was opined as a knife. Whether it is a knife or a sickle, both are sharp edged weapons. Injury on the head of the victim was caused with a sharp edged weapon only and not a blunt weapon. Failure to recover the weapon by the police during investigation is in no way fatal to the prosecution. Thus, after considering the contentions raised by petitioner’s counsel and considering the evidence on record, this court has no hesitation to conclude that both the courts below rightly convicted the petitioner/accused for the offences under sections 354 and 324 IPC. The petitioner’s counsel prayed for mercy and reduction of sentence of imprisonment. Section 354 IPC (as amended in the State of Andhra Pradesh) prescribes minimum sentence of imprisonment of five years. At the same time, as per proviso to Section 354 IPC, the court may for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose lesser sentence of imprisonment which shall not be less than two years. The offence took place in the year 1999. The petitioner is facing trial since the year 2000. Having regard to the ordeal which he had undergone since the year 1999, I am of the opinion that sentence of imprisonment for offence under section 354 IPC can be altered from five years to two years. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, but altering sentence of imprisonment from five years to two years for offence under section 354 IPC. 5th March 2010. (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J) tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.39 OF 2005 5TH MARCH 2010