THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1547 OF 2004 Dated 24th June, 2010 Between: D.Raveendranaidu …Petitioner And The State of A.P. rep. By its Public Prosecutor …Respondent The Court made the following ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused against judgment dated 18.08.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.272 of 2001, passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, whereby the learned Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, vide his judgment dated 29.11.2001, in Sessions Case No.218 of 2001. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The de facto complainant is related to the petitioner. She used to go for coolie work to the fields of the petitioner and they developed intimacy with each other and they used to meet regularly. In that process, she became pregnant. When a panchayat was held in connection with the same, the petitioner refused any relationship with the de facto complainant and when there was a proposal for marriage, he refused to marry her. Thereafter, on 06.03.2000, at 4.00 p.m, when the de facto complainant and her mother went and asked the petitioner to marry the de facto complainant, he allegedly outraged the modesty of the de facto complainant. On a complaint given by the de facto complainant with regard to the said incident, Crime No.34 of 2000 on the file of Chandragiri Police Station was registered; investigated into and charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 354 IPC. 3. The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 354 IPC against the petitioner, read over and explained the same to him, for which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C putting the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the petitioner denied the same. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 6. Based on the evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed by the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the material on record. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and there was no relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant as alleged. 9. The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the evidence of the de facto complainant and her mother, who were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively, would clearly show that the alleged incident had taken place; that both the Courts below have believed their evidence and that at the stage of revision, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence. 10. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether there are any grounds for allowing the revision” 11. The evidence of P.W.1 is that the accused is her brother-in-law by courtesy. He is a resident of the same village. On 06.03.2000, at about 4.00 p.m, the incident took place and that earlier to that, she got acquaintance with the accused. She used to go to the fields of the accused for agriculture work. The accused told her that he loved her and promised to marry her. They had sexual intercourse several times and on the date of incident, she was in seventh month pregnancy. On seeing her physical condition, her mother questioned her and she informed her about their relationship. A panchayat was held and at the panchayat, it was advised to the accused to marry her. Later, she and her mother went to the house of the accused. The mother of the accused informed them that the accused was available at his fields. On that, herself and her mother went to his fields at about 4.00 p.m. The accused was alone there. She told the accused that he was responsible for her pregnancy and asked him to marry her. The accused bore grudge against her, caught hold of her tuft of hair, pressed her breast and tore her blouse. He also threw her on the ground. The accused committed the above acts with an intention of committing rape on her. When her mother intervened, he pushed her mother also. 12. The evidence of P.W.2, mother of P.W.1, is that when they went to the fields, the accused was present alone there, she requested him to marry P.W.1, as he is responsible for the pregnancy of P.W.1. But the accused refused to marry P.W.1. Challenged them to do whatever they intended to do and so saying, he caught hold of the tuft of hair of P.W.1, bent her down, tore her blouse and ran away from that place. 13. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not corroborated by any independent witness. As both the Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have consistently believed the prosecution version, I do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction imposed on the petitioner. 14. Coming to the quantum of sentence, the petitioner and P.W.1 were already in a relationship prior to the alleged incident as stated by P.W.1 in her evidence. This is creating some doubts as to whether the petitioner outraged the modesty of P.W.1 as alleged that too with an intention of committing rape on her in the presence of her mother and when she was in the seventh month of pregnancy. It is now stated that P.W.1 is got married to someone else, P.W.1 does not get any benefit by sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment. On the other hand, if she is financially compensated, it would be beneficial to her. As such, the sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused by the Courts below is set aside and he shall be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”) on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to keep peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. This bond shall be executed within a period of two (2) months. The petitioner is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to P.W.1 towards compensation, as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act. This amount shall be deposited before the trial Court while executing the bond. P.W.1, apparently, is a poor lady attending cooli work for her livelihood. In case she withdraws the entire amount of Rs.1.00 Lakh, at a time, that would be wasted and she might be exploited for that money. Therefore, the above amount shall be kept in a beneficial terms of fixed deposits, in any Schedule Bank, located nearer to her residence/village for an appropriate periods and she shall be paid/permitted to be withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousands only) per month, till the entire amount is exhausted. In case of failure of the petitioner to deposit the above amount and execute the bond, within two months, he shall undergo the imprisonment imposed by the Courts below. 15. Subject to the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Dated 24th June, 2010 vrn