THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.926 OF 2004 AND Crl.M.P.Nos.2124 and 2125 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 08.06.2004, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal in Crl.A.No.77 of 2003, wherein and whereby the judgment, dated 20.06.2003, passed in S.C.No.745 of 2002 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Jangaon, convicting and sentencing the petitioner- accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 354 IPC was confirmed. The succinct facts of the prosecution case are that the on 22.04.2002, at about 9 pm., while the victim-P.W-1 was sleeping at her house along with her children, she heard somebody knocking the doors. When she opened the doors thinking that her husband might have arrived, she saw the petitioner-accused standing outside. He enquired about her husband, on which, she informed that so far he did not return from coolie work. Immediately, the accused caught hold of P.W-1, dragged her, thrown on the ground and sat on her to fulfil his sexual lust, but she resisted him and bit his hand. Meanwhile, the victim’s son woke up and he too bit on the back of the accused. Then the accused stood up and terrorised the victim and asked her to fulfil his sexual desire, to which she refused and raised hues and cries. Hearing the same, the neighbours arrived there. Then the accused abused the victim in filthy language, beat her with a chappal and went away. Hence, the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC. The petitioner approached this Court and filed Criminal Revision Case and the same was admitted by this Court on 14.06.2004 and he was released on bail on that day. During the pendency of the Revision, it appears there was an amicable settlement between the parties and in that context, the de facto complainant who was examined as P.W- 1 has come forward and filed a petition being Crl.M.P.No.2124 of 2010 stating that the said offence may be compounded. In Crl.M.P.No.2125 of 2010, the memorandum of compounding has been filed, which was signed by the accused and the de facto complainant has affixed her thumb impression and it was also signed by their respective counsel. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material papers on record. Section 354 IPC is an offence which is not compoundable. May be, it is true that the aggrieved party, who is the victim, has come forward by filing a petition seeking to compound the offence, but for the said reason, the offence cannot be compounded, particularly when the offence is against the woman, this Court is not inclined to make the said offence compoundable. However, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. Except the said modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed in all other aspects. Crl.M.P.Nos.2124 and 2125 of 2010 are accordingly rejected. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 16th December 2010 DR