THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.448 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The sole accused who was tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni, for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC in S.C.No.376 of 2000 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, as confirmed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Crl.A.No.102 of 2002 is the petitioner herein. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.06.2000 at 5.00 AM P.W.1 Kavura Jayamma was proceeding towards Gopal Reddy’s Flour Mill carrying a plastic tumbler to answer calls of nature, and when she reached near the flour mill the petitioner came in her opposite direction with a plastic pot for carrying water to his house, noticed that P.W.1 was alone at that time, came near to her and left the plastic pot on the ground, held her hands with an intention to have sexual intercourse with her and asked her ‘there is no one let us go’ on which she raised cries. Then the petitioner lifted her, closed her mouth, but P.W.1 by using force got rid of from the clutches of the petitioner and again raised cries to attract the attention of neighbours. On hearing her cries, P.Ws.2 to 5 came to the scene of offence and on seeing them the petitioner went away. Then P.W.1 narrated the entire incident to them. On the next day when the husband of P.W.1 i.e. P.W.7 returned home, P.W.1 explained to him about the incident and on that they both went to the police station and lodged a compliant with the police, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.42 of 2000 was registered for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC. 3 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is abnormal unexplained delay in lodging the complaint with the police by the complainant and as such the courts below should have rejected the case of the prosecution on that sole ground. It is his further contention that the reason behind lodging the complaint is that there is political rivalry between both the parties and he further contended that excepting the evidence of the victim and her husband, there is no other independent ocular evidence to the alleged offence. 4 Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that both the courts below have categorically and concurrently held that the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offence and hence there are no merits in this revision warranting interference by this court. 5 It is true that the alleged incident took place at 4.30 AM on 17.06.2000 whereas the FIR was registered on 19.06.2000. But in my considered view, the said delay in a case of this nature cannot be fatal. Delay in lodging FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the case of the prosecution provided the said delay is properly explained. According to the victim, on the date of incident her husband was out of station and he returned home only on 19.06.2000 and after she narrated the said incident to her husband, they both went to the police station and gave report, which is marked as Ex.P.1. The said explanation appears to be true. It cannot be expected from any woman to go to the police station straight away from the place of incident. In cases of this nature it is common for the victims to discuss the details with their kith and kin like husband son etc. Hence the said contention that there is delay is rejected. 6 In so far as the contention of political rivalry between the complainant and the petitioner is concerned, it is true that some suggestions were given to P.W.1 during the course of cross examination. But, solely on the basis of such suggestions this court cannot come to the conclusion that there is political rivalry between them. After the trial the accused will be examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and it is always open for the accused to give details as to why a false case has been foisted against him. In the case on hand, during the 313 Cr.P.C. examination the petitioner has not stated anything about the so called political rivalry. As stated supra, except giving some suggestions there is nothing on record to establish that there is political rivalry between the parties. In an offence of this nature, which happened at 4.30 AM it cannot be expected of any independent witness. May be it is a village, but even in village also at that wee hours it cannot be said that there will be persons and they should have witnessed the alleged incident. The testimony of P.W.1 coupled with the testimony of P.W.7 clearly establishes that the petitioner has committed the said offence as alleged by the prosecution and all these aspects were very well considered by the courts below. Hence I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is dismissed. 7 However, as the alleged offence took place in the year 2000 i.e. about 10 years back and the petitioner was aged 30 years at the time of offence, this court takes a lenient view and reduces the said sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment to two years and enhances the said fine amount of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/- to be deposited before the trial court forthwith and the same shall be payable to the victim towards compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C. The trial court is hereby directed to see that the said amount is given to the victim. The petitioner is directed to be taken into custody to serve the remaining period of sentence. The remand period of the petitioner, if any, shall be given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. -------------- 07.06.2010 Kvsn