Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kodirekka Babu Yahosuva, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 4 March, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1341 of 2008
ORDER:
Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the learned
X Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at
Narasaraopet, in Crl.A.No.232 of 2007, dated 06.08.2008, the revision
petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case.
2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell :
The petitioner, P.W.1 and other prosecution witnesses are
residents of Dandamudi village of Chilakaluripet Mandal. While so, on
22.03.2006 after completion of dinner, P.Ws.1 & 2 slept in the front yard
of their house on two separate cots, side by side. At that time, the
husband of P.W.1 and husband of P.W.2 were not in the village. P.W.1
slept on a cot along with her son, who is aged about 5 months, and
P.W.2 slept on another cot. P.W.1 covered her cot with a mosquito net to
guard her son from mosquitoes. During mid night, the petitioner fell on
P.W.1, who closed her mouth and asked her to fulfil his desire
threatening that he would kill her son. Somehow, P.W.1 pushed the
petitioner aside and raised cries. On hearing her cries, P.W.2 woke up
and noticed the petitioner on the cot of P.W.1. Then, the petitioner
threatened P.W.2 also with dire consequences. On hearing the cries of
both P.Ws.1 & 2, P.Ws.3 & 4, who are neighbours came there and on
seeing them, the petitioner went away. On the next day, at about 11.00
am., P.W.1 went to police station and lodged a report. Basing on the said
report, P.W.5-Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Rural Police
Station, registered a case in Cr.No.21 of 2006 under Section 376 r/w 511
IPC. P.W.5 inspected the scene of offence, examined witnesses and after
completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. The case was taken on
file as S.C.No.329 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal
Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and
marked Exs.P-1 to P-4. Plea of the accused was one of denial and on
behalf of defence, Exs.D1 & D2 were marked.
4. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial
Judge convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under
Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for
a period of five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to
suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three(03) months.
5. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the revision
petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.232 of 2007 on the file
of the Court of X Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),
Guntur at Narasaraopet. After considering the material on record, the
appellate Court dismissed the appeal, vide Judgment dated 06.08.2008
confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special
Assistant Public Prosecutor.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that except the
evidence of P.W.1, there is no corroborating material available on record
to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. As such, P.W.1 is a
highly interested witness and no reliance can be placed on her testimony.
8. This Court perused the entire material on record. A perusal of the
evidence reveals that during the course of trial, P.W.1, the victim deposed
in favour of the prosecution. So far as P.Ws.2 to 4 are concerned, their
evidence is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. Further, there is
nothing on record to disbelieve the version of P.W.1. As the incident took
place during mid night, no witness will be available, except the victim.
Moreover, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 corroborated with the version of
P.W.1 with regard to the presence of the petitioner on the cot of P.W.1
during mid night. Therefore, in all aspects, the evidence of P.W.1 inspire
confidence of this Court.
9. In the above circumstances, this court is of the considered view
that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by
both the courts below. However, as the incident took place in the year
2006 i.e., 16 years back, this court is inclined to take a lenient view in
reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence under
Section 354 IPC.
10. IN THE RESULT, the present Criminal Revision Case is dismissed
confirming the conviction recorded by both the Courts below for the
offence under Section 354 IPC. However, the sentence of imprisonment
alone is reduced from five (05) years to one (01) year, while maintaining
the fine amount imposed by the both the courts below. Further, the
petitioner is directed to surrender forthwith before the trial court to serve
the remaining sentence.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______________________
K. SURESH REDDY, J
4th March,2022.
RPD.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1341 of 2008
Dated : 04-03-2022
RPD
