Telangana High Court
Nethalla Narsimha, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 20 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1235 OF 2010
ORDER:
The revision petitioner was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in S.C.No.165 of 2008, vide Judgment dt.19.11.2008, for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred appeal before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Crl.A.No.167/2008, and the learned Addl.Sessions Judge vide Judgment dated 28.06.2010, partly allowed the appeal while reducing the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment from 5 years to two years. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.
2. Heard.
3. Briefly, the case against the accused is that on 09.03.2007 PW1-victim and PW2 were returning home, around 10.30 p.m. PW2 was walking ahead of PW1 and at the time she reached near the temple, PW1 went towards the bushes near the temple to attend nature call. At that juncture, the accused who was in a drunken condition, pulled her into the bushes and committed 2 rape on her. Hearing PW1 shout for help, PWs.3 and 4 gathered there and also PW2 who is the husband of PW1-victim also went there. On seeing PWs.2 to 4, the accused fled.
4. A complaint was made to the village elders. However, since no action was taken against the accused, Police complaint was filed after a period of three days. On the basis of the complaint, Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet under Section 354 of the IPC.
5. Learned Trial Court Judge, having examined PWs.1 to 6 of whom PW1 is the victim and PWs.2 to 4 are the eye-witnesses who saw the incident of accused pulling the hands of the victim- PW1 and throwing her on the ground.
6. The narration of PW1, though appears to be exaggerated, however, the version of the prosecution regarding the presence of PW1 and A1 at the scene and PWs.2 to 4 running to help PW1 when the accused had tried to commit rape on her is consistent. Though, the case of PW1 is that the accused had committed rape on her, however investigation was completed and Police filed charge sheet under Section 354 of the IPC. 3
7. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the version stated by PW1 itself is highly improbable since it is not expected that the villagers would go out around 10.30 p.m. Further, PW1 is an interested witness so also the other witnesses PWs.3 and 4.
8. The evidence of PW1 is convincing. In fact, when the accused tried to pull him into the bushes, she shouted for help and PWs.2, 3 and 4 rushed to the scene. On seeing them, the accused fled. There is enough evidence to convince the Court that it was the accused who had committed acts outraging the modesty of PW1.
9. However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2007 and nearly 17 years have passed by, and there are no criminal cases are pending against the revision petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the revision petitioner to one year.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the revision petitioner to a period of one year. The trial Court shall cause appearance of 4 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: 20.06.2024 tk