HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1041 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years vide judgment in SC No.197 of 2009 dated 31.08.2009 passed by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 was working as servant maid in the house of P.W.2. On 19.03.2009 in the afternoon, while P.W.1 was going on the road, the appellant, who was a bike mechanic followed her and asked her to have sexual intercourse with him and when she denied, the appellant hugged her. When she shouted, the appellant panicked and fled.
3. During the course of her evidence in Court, P.W.1 victim stated that the appellant came on a motor cycle, showed her money and asked her to elope with him.
2
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the case is one of false implication and no such incident occurred. As seen from the complaint, there is a delay in lodging complaint and there is no explanation regarding the said delay. For which reason, the appellant has to be acquitted.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is no reason why the appellant would be falsely implicated by P.W.1.
6. Having gone through the record, the complaint Ex.P1 was lodged by P.W.2 in English. According to the evidence of P.W.1, she is an illiterate person. However, the signature in English is found on Ex.P1 complaint. The said signature appears to be made by a person, who has copied the alphabets when shown to her. In the said circumstances, the signature being found on ExP1 is of no consequence to dismiss the complaint.
7. As seen from her evidence during the course of trial, P.W.1 stated that the appellant showed her money and asked her to elope for illegal activity. However, in the complaint 3 Ex.P1 it is mentioned that the appellant pulled her and also stated that he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her.
8. The facts of the case appear to be one of falling under Section 509 of IPC. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 stated anything about the outraging of modesty by the appellant when the appellant caught hold of her hand and asked to elope with him. For the sake of convenience, Section 509 of IPC is extracted hereunder.
"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.--Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
9. The said acts of the appellant is with an intention to insult, modesty of woman and tried to intrude upon the privacy of such woman, for which reason, the conviction recorded under Section 354 of IPC is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. However the appellant is convicted under 509 of IPC.
10. The incident occurred in the year 2009, 14 years have lapsed. There are no criminal antecedents as far as the 4 appellant is concerned, as such this court deems it appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 509 IPC and reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 24.08.2022 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1041 OF 2009 Date: 24.08.2022.
kvs 6