Telangana High Court
S.K. Sadulla, Karimnagar District vs The State Of A.P.,Through Its P.P,High ... on 18 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.340 OF 2011
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner/A2 was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagtial, in SC.No.798 of 2006, dt.31.12.2008, for the offence under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of Five Years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The petitioner/A2 was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The said conviction was confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, in Crl.A.No.7 of 2009, vide Judgment dt.13.11.2009. Aggrieved by the said confirmation, the revision petitioner/A2 is before this Court.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW1/defacto complainant is the victim. She filed complaint on 12.05.2006. It was alleged in the complaint that the revision petitioner who is arrayed as A2 and A1 were following PW1 for a period of nearly three months and on the date of incident, the revision petitioner and another caught hold of the hand of PW1 and asked her to satisfy their lust. On crying for help and also on seeing PWs.2 and 3, the revision petitioner and A1 fled. On the basis of the said 2 incident, both the Courts found that the acts of revision petitioner and A1 amounts to the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced accordingly.
3. Learned counsel appearing as Legal Aid Sri P.Shamanthak Hande submits that the act of the revision petitioner would not fall within the ingredients of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. He relied on the Judgment of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Crl.Revision Application No.178/2023 wherein the Bombay High Court dealt with a situation where the accused therein had pushed the victim while she was riding bicycle.
4. In the said case there was no allegation of touching the victim inappropriately. For the said reason, the Bombay High Court found that such pushing of bicycle cannot be termed as an act of outraging the modesty of victim, since such act would not shock the sense of decency of the woman nor was it annoying. In the present case, the revision petitioner caught hold of the hand of PW1 and asked her to fulfil his lust which amounts to an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the finding of the Courts below cannot be interfered with.
5. However, the revision petitioner was sent to jail on 13.11.2009 on which date the Judgment of the Sessions Court 3 was pronounced. This Court had granted bail on 15.02.2011 after nearly one year four months. Since the petitioner was in jail for nearly 16 months, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the revision petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 18.04.2024 tk 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.340 OF 2011 Date: 18.04.2024 tk