CRLRC/109/2013
2022 Latest Caselaw 1292 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                         Crl.R.C.No.109 of 2013

ORDER:-

         The police filed charge sheet for the offence under section 354

I.P.C.


2.       The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant/

victim after getting down from the auto rickshaw at Upponka bus

stop and proceeding to their village, the accused who was coming

behind her, caught hold of her neck from behind and when the

victim tried to push him aside, caught hold of her jacket and torn it,

with an evil desire. On the afore said contentions and on a complaint

given by the de facto complainant, the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Thavanampalle police station registered a crime vide crime No.15 of

2011 for the offence under section 354 I.P.C.


3.       The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor after

elaborate trial relying on the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5 has convicted

the accused for the offence under section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced

the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years

and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, the accused shall undergo

simple imprisonment of one month. All the prosecution witnesses

have categorically and unequivocally stated about the occurrence of

the offence.


4.       Aggrieved by the judgment in S.C.No.470 of 2011, the

petitioner/accused preferred criminal appeal before the           lower

appellate Court vide criminal appeal No.153 of 2012 in the Court of

the District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor.
                                            2



5.    Learned counsel for the appellant in C.A.No.153 of 2012 has
raised the following grounds:

      1.

The trial Court failed to note that the appellant was falsely implicated;

2. The trial Court erred in convicting on the basis of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 who are interested witnesses;

3. The trial Court failed to note that there is no explanation for the delay of 21 hours in reporting the matter to police;

4. As per the statement of PW-3 he has seen one boy running from the de facto complainant, who says that he has not identified the culprit as the accused;

5. PW-1 to PW4 are relatives, whereas PW-3 and PW-4 are planted witnesses;

6. The case against the accused was foisted since the accused stopped in coming for coolie work under PW-2.

6. Basing on the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant, the criminal appeal is dismissed, while confirming the

order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the

scene of offence there is a house which belongs to one Sri Varada

Reddy, S/o. Sri Anji Reddy. Opposite to his house there is a Mango

field and Sri E. Siddha Reddy, S/o. Sri Rami Reddy is the owner of

the said garden. Those people are not examined by the prosecution.

As per the report of the scene of offence there are no fields as stated

by the de facto complainant. The non-examination of the above said

persons is fatal to the prosecution and prayed to allow the Criminal

Revision Case as there is discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution

witnesses. The said aspect was raised before the trial Court and the

trial Court has discussed elaborately and convicted the accused.

8. The petitioner/accused has not raised any substantial

questions of law before the revisional Court. The defense raised by

the petitioner in the trial Court is that the petitioner was the farm

servant of the family of the de facto complainant and he was asked to

stop from attending the duties and as such he bore grudge and

foisted a false case against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also raised another contention stating that there is a delay

in lodging of F.I.R. However, the two contentions were answered in

the trial Court and convicted the accused.

9. This Court exercising jurisdiction under sections 397 & 401 of

Cr.P.C. cannot re-appreciate the evidence and I find no reasons to

interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court which was

confirmed by the lower appellate Court. However, the incident took

place on February, 2011 and more than eleven (11) years have

lapsed since the date of incident. Hence, this Court feels to reduce

the sentence of imprisonment for a period of two (2) years instead of

three (3) years.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by

confirming the conviction passed by the trial Court. As regards

sentence, this Court feels it appropriate to modify the same and

reduce the sentence of imprisonment to two (2) years of rigorous

imprisonment instead of three (3) years. Registry is directed to send

back the record along with the copy of this order to the Court below.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 14-03-2022 EPS

Note:

Issue CC in one week.

B/o. PNR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Crl.R.C.No.109 OF 2013

Date: 14-03-2022

EPS