THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1784 of 2004 Date: 26.07.2011 Between: Kopuri Kumar … Petitioner/ accused AND The State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1784 of 2004 ORDER: The sole accused was charged for the offences under Sections 354, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur. Only four witnesses were examined before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Two exhibits in Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked. After due consideration, the learned III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge found that no case was made out against the accused for the offences u/s.323 and 506 IPC. He further found the accused guilty of the offence u/s.354 IPC. The accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with appropriate default sentence. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the sole accused preferred appeal. The learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence recorded by the trial Court. Assailing the conviction, the accused preferred the present revision. 2. Sri S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that there were several discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses and that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court overlooked the improbabilities of the evidence and the discrepancies apart from failing to notice that the ingredients of Section 354 IPC were not made out. He also contended that there were unexplained abnormal delay in lodging the complaint so much so the benefit of doubt shall accrue to the accused. 3. PW.2 is the victim in this case. PW.1 is her husband. PW.1 is the de facto complainant. PW.3 and Kagitha Ratna Kishore (LW.4) are the daughter and the son of PWs.1 and 2. PW.4 is the Investigating Officer. The house of PWs.1 and 2 is situate on the medical college road in the railway quarters at Guntur. PW.1 was working as booking clerk at the railways at the relevant time. 4. On 18.06.2002, PW.2 was drying the clothes outside their house. By about 10 a.m., PW.1 was seated in the varanda of the house. PW.3 and her younger brother were inside the house watching TV. It is the case of the prosecution that at that time, the accused went to the house of PW.2, caught hold of her hand and asked her to go with him and thus outraged her modesty. When PWs.1 and 2 raised alaram, the accused ran away. However, no report was lodged by either PW.1 or PW.2 on 18.06.2002, albeit the offence occurred at 10 a.m. on that day. It is the case of PWs.1 and 2 that they wanted to report the matter to the mother of the accused and indeed the conduct of the accused was reported to the mother of the accused. However, it would appear that the accused did not return to his house for a couple of days after 18.06.2002. 5. While things stood thus, on 21.06.2002, at about 7 p.m. PW.1 was returning home from duty. The accused intercepted PW.1 near the over bridge of Guntur Town. Questioning the action of PW.1 in reporting the conduct of the accused to the mother of the accused, the accused slapped PW.1. PWs.1 and 2 further deposed that the accused also threatened to kill PW.1. Again, no police complaint was lodged by PW.1 or PW.2. On 22.06.2002, PW.1 went to duty as usual. At about 4 p.m. PW.1 claimed that he returned from duty and thereafter lodged Ex.P.1 complaint, which was registered as F.I.R. under Ex.P.2. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the prosecution examined only three witnesses who are husband, wife and their daughter and that no independent eyewitness was examined in support of the claim. He submitted that the benefit of doubt shall, therefore, accrue to the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, pointed out that in cases where the offences are usually perpetrated in secret places like offences u/s.376 and 354 IPC, the evidence of the prosecutrix herself would be sufficient so long as the evidence inspires confidence and that no corroboration would be necessary to bring home a conviction against the accused for such offences. Indeed, there is no rule that corroboration is required for an offence. Corroboration is a rule of prudence and is not a rule of evidence. 7. In the present case, the incident allegedly occurred on broad daylight at 10 a.m. The road is said to be a busy road on which the house of PWs.1 and 2 is situate. However, the prosecution did not examine any independent witness. It may, however, be noticed that it is not the case of the prosecution that others witnessed the incident and that the prosecution was giving up such witnesses. It is the case of PWs.1 and 2 that no one witnessed the incident. 8. Again, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that in a busy locality, in bright daylight, it is highly improbable that no one witnessed the incident, if it had taken place. It may be noticed that the incident occurred not in the street, but in front of the house of PWs.1 and 2. It is not the case of anybody that the house is situate adjoining the road. If the house is situate adjoining the road, the question of PW.2 trying to dry the clothes in front of the house would not have arisen. It can be assumed that the incident occurred in the courtyard in front of the house. At any rate, it is clear from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that the incident did not occur on the street. Therefore, it cannot be said that the absence of other independent eyewitnesses was improbable and consequently effects the prosecution case. Thus, I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the non- examination of any independent witness could lead to acquittal of the accused. 9. The learned counsel for the accused also contended that the evidence of PW.3 does not corroborate the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, but contradicts the same. It is the case of PWs.1 and 2 that PW.3 was inside the house watching TV at the time of incident. While so, PW.3 deposed that she was seated by the side of her father PW.1 in the varanda at the time of incident, so much so, she was an eyewitness for the incident. Giving leavage to the accused, the evidence of PW.3 may be discredited. Even then, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would suffice to establish the offence proper. 10. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the offence u/s.354 IPC was not made out. I am afraid that when a male person catches hold of the hand of a female individual and asks the female individual to go with the male person, it would certainly be tantamount to outraging the modesty of such a female individual. If the evidence establishes the case as alleged by PWs.1 and 2, the offence u/s.354 IPC certainly would be made out. 11. Before considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, I may refer to the delay in lodging the complaint. The incident occurred on 18.06.2002 and the complaint was lodged on 22.06.2002. It is the case of PWs.1 and 2 that on 18.06.2002 itself, PW.1 reported the misconduct of the accused to the mother of the accused and that PW.1 thought that the accused would sufficiently be reprimanded by the mother of the accused. While so, on 21.06.2002 at about 7 p.m., the accused attacked PW.1. PW.1 did not lodge any complaint immediately thereafter. PW.1 explained that he became frighten at the outset and that it took time for him to muster courage to go over to police station and lodge a complaint. I am satisfied that the explanation offered by PW.1 and supported by PW.2 for the delay in lodging the complaint is just and reasonable. I, therefore, hold that the delay in lodging the complaint was satisfactorily explained by the prosecution in this case. 12. Regarding the offence proper, PWs.1 and 2 claimed that the accused went to the house of PW.1, caught hold of the hand of PW.2 and made advances to her, asking her to go with him. It is a clear case of outraging the modesty of PW.2. The trial Court and the appellate Court, therefore, are perfectly justified in recording the conviction against the accused. 13. With reference to the quantum of sentence to be recorded, the learned counsel for the accused pointed out that the accused is the only member in his family and that his mother is over 62 years old widow and is dependent upon the accused. He further pointed out that by the date of offence, the accused was a bachelor and that he has since been married. It is the case of the learned counsel for the accused that a sympathetic view be taken against the accused. The State Amendment to Section 354 IPC envisages that the accused convicted u/s.354 IPC shall be sentenced to minimum imprisonment of five years and shall also be liable to pay fine. The proviso, however, contemplates that the imprisonment may be reduced for a period of less than five years but it cannot be less than two years for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment. As already pointed out, the accused has an aged mother to maintain. That apart the accused himself is a young person and is said to be unemployed by the date of the incident. The offence proved against the accused is not of extraordinary magnitude. The only overt act is catching hold of the hand of PW.2 and asking her to go with him. It is not a case where the accused exhibited force or tried to pull away PW.2 with him. Cumulatively, these are the circumstances, which justified the trial Court to record rigorous imprisonment of two years. There is no need to interfere with the sentence of imprisonment recorded by the trial Court. 14. However, taking the factor that the accused was an unemployed person into consideration, I deem it appropriate to reduce the fine to Rs.100/- from Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed in respect of conviction as well as in respect of sentence of imprisonment. The revision is allowed to the extent of sentence of fine which is modified to Rs.100/- from Rs.1,000/-, as imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, in default of payment of which, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner is indeed entitled to the benefits of Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 26.07.2011 Isn