HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1225 OF 2009
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner is questioning the concurrent findings of conviction for the offence of criminal trespass and outraging of modesty of a girl aged around 13 years vide judgment in S.C.No.9 of 2008 dated 28.07.2008 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Manthani, which was confirmed by the I Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar dated 17.02.2009.
2. It is the case of the victim girl, who was examined as P.W.1 that on 15.01.2007 when her father was not in the house and while she was sleeping in her house on a cot, the accused entered into the house and caught hold of her hand and dragged and held her, for which reason, she tried to shout for help. However, the accused closed her mouth and after the accused removed his hands after hearing the cries of the victim, P.Ws.2 and 3, who were nearby came there and on seeing them, the accused fled. On the basis of the said complaint, the crime was registered and charge sheet was filed 2 under Sections 448 and 354 of IPC. Accordingly, charges were framed by trial Court. Petitioner was found guilty for the said offences and convicted.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire story of the prosecution is highly improbable. The very witnessing of the incident by P.Ws.2 and 3 raise doubt as to whether they were preparing food stuff at 1.00 a.m in the morning and further there is a delay of nearly 17 hours in lodging the complaint, which is not explained by the prosecution, for which reason also, the conviction recorded by the courts below have to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that both the courts below on facts found that this petitioner had indulged in outraging the modesty of P.W.1, who was a girl aged 13 years and nothing is elicited in the cross- examination to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. The solitary testimony of victim would be sufficient to record conviction. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the revision case. 3
5. As seen from the record, the appellant entered into the house and dragged the victim girl by caught holding of her hand and closed her mouth when she tried to shout for help. To attract an offence under Section 354 of IPC, the use of force on any woman should be with an intention to outrage her modesty. In the present case, according to P.W.1, the accused tried to catch hold of her hand and dragged. However, both the Courts below failed to consider as to how the petitioner/accused had entered into the house at night at 1.00 a.m. In the normal household, the doors of the house would be locked in the night and there is no evidence as to how the petitioner could enter into the house without being detected and what part the house that was kept open to enable the petitioner to enter into the house, is not stated.
6. However, though there are several discrepancies in the said version and there is delay of nearly 17 hours in lodging the complaint, on the basis of the statement made by the alleged victim, it appears that the offence is one under Section 509 of IPC wherein the petitioner has intruded upon the 4 privacy of a woman and for the said reason, the conviction under Section 354 of IPC is set aside. However, the petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section 509 of IPC. The incident happened on 15.01.2007 and nearly 16 years have lapsed since the date of incident, for which reason, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment under both the counts to the period already undergone.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed off. Since petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 22.12.2022 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1225 OF 2009 Date: 22.12.2022.
kvs