Telangana High Court
Md. Mohisuddin vs The State Of A.P. on 11 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.396 OF 2013
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in S.C.No.493 of 2009, vide Judgment dt.30.07.2011, and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; and also to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for both the offences, respectively. The said conviction was questioned before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in Crl.A.No.98/2011, and the learned Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, modified the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment from Three years to Two years under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the said confirmation, present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
2. Heard.
3. Briefly, the case against the petitioner is that he had forcibly dragged PW2-victim girl into an Auto Rikshaw and took her to a distance of nearly 10 K.Ms. till Somagudem village. At the said 2 village he dragged her out from the Auto rikshaw and took her into bushes. He assaulted her resulting in her shirt and banian being torn and also threatened her with dire consequences. PW2 then defended herself, pushed the accused and ran to a public phone. From there she called PW4 and also informed regarding the incident.
4. On the basis of complaint filed to the Police, the Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet under Sections 363, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. On behalf of prosecution PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. M.Os.1 and 2 which are the torn wearing apparel of the victim were also brought on record before the Court below.
6. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the evidence of PW2 was convincing and accordingly convicted the accused. The said finding of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, was confirmed in the appeal vide Crl.A.No.98 of 2011, with a small modification of reducing the imprisonment from three years to two years under Section 354 of IPC. 3
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the version given by the victim girl is highly improbable. The question of abducting her in an open place and taking her to a distance of nearly 10 K.Ms. and there after assaulting her is highly improbable. Since there were differences in between the families, a false case was filed against the accused by PW2. Further none of the persons who were allegedly present near telephone booth from where she made a phone call, were examined. The only evidence remains is that the victim girl and the interested relatives of the victim girl. On account of the interestedness of the witnesses and also pending disputes in between the families there is every possibility of lodging false complaint. In the absence of any independent corroboration, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused.
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of PW2-victim girl would suffice to draw inference of guilt against the accused. In fact, in several cases, this Court and Honourable Supreme Court also held that once the evidence of the victim girl is convincing there need not be any corroboration to the said version of the victim girl. 4
9. Having gone through the evidence of the witnesses, PW2 has specifically stated that she was taken by force in an Auto to a distance of 10 K.Ms. up to Somagudem village. There the accused used criminal force on her and according to PW2, the said acts had outraged her modesty. Further on account of the criminal force used, her wearing apparel which are M.Os.1 and 2 were torn.
10. Only for the reason of suggestion being made to the witnesses that there were pending disputes, the same cannot be made basis to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2-Victim girl. The witnesses who were examined before the Court below cannot be said to be interested witnesses. The victim girl has narrated the incident and there cannot be any doubt that there was false implication of the revision petitioner.
11. In the said circumstances, the finding of the Court below is upheld and conviction recorded under Section 354 of IPC is confirmed.
12. However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2008 and nearly 16 years have passed by, further, the accused according to the learned counsel has dependents to look after, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the imprisonment under Sections 354 of the IPC to one year.
5
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment under section 354 of the IPC to one year. The conviction under Section 506 of the IPC remains unaltered. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The trial Court shall cause appearance of the accused/revision petitioner and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 11.06.2024 tk