THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1359 of 2001 DATED: 18-03-2010 Between: Murukutla Satyanarayana @ Satyam. … Petitioner And State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecutor & another. … Respondents ORDER: Petitioner herein was tried by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet in S.C. No.636 of 1997 for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. During the course of trial, the victim was examined as P.W.1 and her husband was examined as P.W.2. The alleged eye witnesses were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4. On an analysis of the said evidence, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and accordingly pronounced the judgment on 17-11-1998. As against the said judgment, petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.320 of 1998, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Guntur, while confirming the sentence imposed by the trial Court dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 13-11-2001. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case by the petitioner. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant-M.Nagendram (P.W.1) is a resident of Sankurathripadu village and she has been living with her husband. Her husband-Changalarao (P.W.2) borrowed a sum of Rs.8,500/- from the accused and repaid Rs.4000/- and for the remaining amount of Rs.9100/- he executed a promissory note in favour of the accused. The daughter of P.W.1 has been staying with her husband at Guravaipalem and her eldest son was working in an ice factory at Angalakuduru village, and her second son was staying with her maternal uncle at Vemuluripadu village. On 16-05-1995, when the husband of P.W.1 i.e. P.W.2 went to Guravaipalem to see his daughter, and P.W.1 was alone in the house at about 7.30 p.m., the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and asked her whether P.W.2 (husband of P.W.1) was in the house. Then P.W.1 came out of the house and informed the accused that her husband went to Guravaipalem and asked the accused to come later after her husband returns to the house. Then the accused caught hold of her saree and asked her to come into the house. But, P.W.1 tried to escape from the accused, and the accused embraced her and pulled her into the house. Then she raised cries and on hearing her cries, M.Veeranjaneyulu (P.W.3) and Ponnam Ramaiah (P.W.4) rushed into the house of P.W.1 and on seeing P.Ws.3 and 4, the accused left P.W.1 and ran away from that place. Thus, the accused used criminal force upon P.W.1 with an intention to outrage her modesty. P.W.2 (husband of P.W.1) returned from Guravaipalem village on the morning of 18-09-1995 and P.W.1 narrated the incident to P.W.2. Thereupon, P.W.2 brought P.W.1 to Nadendla police station where P.W.1 gave written report to the Station House Officer, who registered a case in Cr.No.33/1995 against the accused under Section 354 IPC. 3. It is the case of the complainant (P.W.1) that the accused, who is having money and political influence, managed the police due to which the police did not take any action against him. P.W.1 sent a report to the Deputy Superintendent of police, Narasaraopet about the inaction of police at Nadendla and P.W.2 also sent letters to the Superintendent of police and Deputy Superintendent of police through registered post. In spite of representations to the higher authorities, the Sub Inspector of police, Nadendla has not taken any action against the accused. On the other hand, the Station House Officer, Nadendla police station served a notice on 04-12-1995 with antedate 30-09-1995, stating that the case of P.W.1 was reported as ‘mistake of fact’. Hence, she filed the private complaint (Ex.P.6). 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that originally a complaint was given to the police, and the police after investigation referred it as ‘false’ and thereafter, the present complaint has been filed. The said investigation made by the police, according to him clearly amplifies that the said offence has not been committed. Further, it is contended that there were certain money transactions between the petitioner and the husband of the victim-P.W.2 and it is only to avoid the said payment, a false case has been foisted as if the petitioner outraged the modesty of P.W.1. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the said statement stating that in a revision of this nature, where both the Courts concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the offence for which he was tried on the basis of the evidence that was let in during the course of trial, this Court cannot take a different view. Further, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that it is not a case for interference. 6. In the light of the said submission made by both the learned counsel, this Court looked into the record. The victim was examined as P.W.1 and her husband was examined as P.W.2 and the so-called eye witnesses were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4. 7. The case of the victim as per the complaint and evidence is to the effect that when she heard some noise she came out of the house and saw the petitioner and when she said that her husband was not there in the house, the petitioner caught hold of her saree and asked her to come into the house. Of course, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is to the effect that they saw the petitioner embracing P.W.1, the evidence of P.W.4 was disbelieved by the lower appellate Court for the reason that P.W.4 was behind P.W.3 and as such, there was no possibility for P.W.4 to witness the said incident. Of course, the Court below accepted the evidence of P.W.3, coupled with evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, according to P.W.1-victim, when she was going back into the house, the petitioner caught hold of her saree and pulled her into the house and then she shouted. 8. To attract the provisions under Section 354 IPC, there must be criminal force with an intention to outrage the modesty. From the said evidence of P.W.1, it appears on coming to know that the husband is not there in the house the petitioner caught hold of her saree and dragged her into the house. In my considered view, the said act of the petitioner attracts the provisions of Section 509 IPC but not Section 354 IPC. Of course, there is the evidence of P.W.3 to the effect that he saw the petitioner embracing P.W.1. When it is the case of P.W.1-victim that the petitioner caught hold of her saree and thereafter she was pulled inside, I do not think it is proper to give credence to the said evidence of P.W.3 and it appears that it an improvement. 9 In the light of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed offence, but the said offence falls under Section 509 IPC but not under Section 354 IPC. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is hereby set aside. However, the petitioner is found guilty of the offence under Section 509 IPC, but taking the fact that he was in jail for a period of more than twenty days, and the alleged offence took place on 16-05-1995 and he is aged about 60 years, this Court takes a lenient view and reduces the said sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC to that of the period already undergone. Petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards fine and the said fine amount shall be paid to P.W.1 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in the Court below and in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 10. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 18th March, 2010. Tsy