IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.64 of 2005 DATE:19.03.2010 Between: Repally Sreenivasa Rao …… Petitioner/Appellant And: State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor …..Respondent/ Complainant HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.64 of 2005 ORDER: In this revision petition, the petitioner/accused questions his conviction by the Courts below for offence under Section 354 I.P.C. The trial Court i.e., the Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years on the ground that the accused has got two young children and has to maintain them. Whereas, the appellate Court the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Khammam in Crl.A. No.86 of 2001 reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to 1½ years. 2) P.W-1 is the victim woman and P.W-2 is husband of the victim woman. P.W-3 was working in his field which is adjacent to the field in which the offence is stated to have taken place. It is alleged that on 14.12.1998 at about 3.30 P.M P.Ws 1 and 2 went to paddy field of Gurram Venkateswarlu for cutting green grass and that when P.W-1 was cutting green grass in Venkateswarlu’s land, P.W-2 went to his own neighbouring land for work and that at that time, the accused went there and caught hold of P.W-1 from back side and invited her for sexual intercourse and that when she raised cries and resisted, the accused closed her mouth and offered to pay whatever amount she required and that on hearing cries of P.W-1, other witnesses including P.Ws 2 and 3 rushed to the spot, when the accused ran away and that P.W-1 revealed the incident to the witnesses who rushed there on hearing cries. After the offence on the same day, P.Ws 1 and 2 went to police station and gave Ex.P-1 report. P.W-4 is the head constable who received Ex.P-1 from P.W-1 and registered the same as case and issued Ex.P-3 F.I.R. Ex.P-2 is crime detail form issued by P.W-4 on the same day. P.W-4 himself took up investigation, examined witnesses as well as scene of offence in the presence of mediators including P.W-4 and seized M.O-1 wrist watch from the scene. Both the Courts below believed evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 and found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that investigating officer was not examined in this case. In fact, P.W-4 is the investigating officer in this case and he was examined. It is P.W-4 who registered the crime, who recorded statements of witnesses, who examined scene of the offence and seized M.O-1 watch from the scene. The Sub Inspector of police simply filed charge sheet before the Magistrate after verifying investigation of P.W-4. Non-examination of the said person, who filed charge sheet, is not at all fatal to the prosecution case. The petitioner could not make out any prejudice for non-examination of the police officer who filed the charge sheet. 4) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that Gurram Venkateswarlu who is owner of the field in which the offence is said to have taken place, was not examined. It is not evidence of prosecution witnesses that the said Venkateswarlu was also physically available in his land and witnessed the offence proper. Simply because Venkateswarlu happened to be owner of the land in which scene of the offence is located, it cannot be said that his non-examination by the prosecution is fatal. The Court has to see whether there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the charge against the accused. Both the Courts below after considering evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 came to concurrent conclusion that the offence of outraging modesty of P.W-1 by the accused was made out. 5) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there are discrepancies in evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to boundaries of scene of the offence. No doubt, both the Courts below noted the discrepancies in evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 with regard to boundaries of land belonging to Venkateswarlu. Such discrepancy regarding boundaries of land has absolutely no relevance in deciding truth or otherwise of the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. Since the offence took place in a land containing grass and since P.W-1 was not dragged on rocky land or land containing stems or bushes, there is no possibility of P.W-1 sustaining any injuries during the course of offence. Having regard to evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 on record which was believed by the Courts below, I do not find any valid or legal grounds in this revision to interfere with finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below. 7) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 19, 2010 KSH