THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1543 OF 2004 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner – Accused Shaik Hussain @ Bude against the judgment of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.A.No.324 of 2003, where under the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment in S.C.No.128 of 2003 dated 08.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo SI for three months. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows: P.W.1 is a resident of Narasaraopet and the accused is her neighbour. On 24.06.2002, at about 8.00p.m., while P.W.1 went upstairs of her house to keep some material there, the accused went behind her and caught hold of her and solicited her. She made hue and cry. On hearing her cries, her mother came there, on that the accused ran away. At the time of incident, the husband of P.W.1 was away and after return of her husband, P.W.1 informed about the incident and at about 9.30 p.m. they went to police station and gave a complaint about the same. A case in Crime No.171 of 2002 was registered and investigated. Charge sheet was filed against the accused. Charge under Section 354 IPC was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. Out of these witnesses, P.W.1 is the victim, P.W.2 is her mother, P.W.3 is her husband, P.W.4 is constable who recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P1 and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. After completion of prosecution case, when the accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case. 5. On the basis of the evidence of these witnesses, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer SI for a period of three months. As against that, the petitioner filed appeal, where the conviction and sentence imposed against him were confirmed. 6. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is a case of false implication. P.W.1 and the accused are admittedly neighbours and there were some disputes with regard to a common wall. On account of that the petitioner is falsely implicated. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence clearly shows that the accused has committed the offence. There is absolutely no material to show that there was any dispute between the family of the accused and of the complainant to say that he is falsely implicated. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the revision? 8. The evidence of P.W.1, the victim, would show that the accused is her neighbour, which is not in dispute. According to her at about 8.00p.m.on the date of incident she went to their upstairs to keep some iron links. At the same time, the accused came there and caught hold OF her hand and solicited her and then she made shouts loudly on hearing her cries, her mother came there and in the meanwhile, the accused ran away by pushing her mother aside. Her husband was not present at that time. At about 9.30 p.m. her husband came home, then they went to police station. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, only one suggestion is made saying that previously they got disputes with the accused and shouted at each other. Other than this, nothing is elicited from her with regard to disputes. No doubt, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, she has stated that the staircase of the house is from inside. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the staircase is located in the inside of the house, there is no possibility of the accused to come to the upstairs of the house. But it is not elicited that the staircase was so inaccessible that the accused could not have come to first floor. Even according to the complainant, the accused went to the upstairs of the house. It is not even suggested to this witness that there is any enmity between both sides. The evidence of P.W.3 the husband of the victim is that he was informed of the incident and they went to police station. In the cross-examination of this witness, it is suggested that the accused and his co-brother in law used to abuse P.W.3 in drunken condition. Other than this, absolutely nothing even suggested to this witness to show that there was any enmity or there was any cause to him or his wife to falsely implicate the accused in a case of this nature. 9. Thus, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 to show the actual incident and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who support the prosecution case. Thus, absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 10. The sentence imposed is five years. The act committed by the accused is only of catching hold of the hand of P.W.1 and then soliciting her. There is no allegation of his doing anything else. The offence has taken place in the year 2002, i.e. about eight years back. He underwent about a month’s imprisonment as reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Considering all these circumstances, I am inclined to give the benefit of Section 4 of The Andhra Pradesh Probation of Offenders Act, 1936(for short ‘the Act’) as there is no material to show that the petitioner has involved in any offence earlier. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The conviction of the petitioner is confirmed. However, he shall be released under Section 4 of the Act on his executing a personal bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to keep piece and good behaviour for a period of two years. It is further directed that he shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to P.W.1 as compensation under Section 5 of the Act. This amount shall be deposited into Court simultaneously with execution of bonds as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act and on such deposit, P.W.1 is entitled to receive the same. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 17th June 2010, Rns