Kenche Kumar vs The State Through Sho., Ps., ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4600 Tel

        THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.320 of 2013

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner -

appellant - accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the

learned V Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District,

vide judgment dated 31.12.2012 in Crl.A. No.140 of 2012 modifying

the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Assistant Sessions

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in S.C. No.105 of 2007

vide judgment dated 11.08.2011.

2. The prosecution case as per the charge sheet filed by the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Nacharam Police Station, was that the

petitioner - accused was the son of PW.2's maternal aunt. As his

parents expired, the accused came to live with the family of PW.2.

The accused used to work in Britannia Bread Company situated at

IDA, Mallapur. He used to have night shifts for some days and day

shifts for some other days. During night shifts, he used to remain at

home during day time. PW.1 was the de facto complainant, PW.2 was

her husband, PW.3 was her brother-in-law and PW.4 was her father-

in-law. PWs.2 to 4 used to leave the house for their respective jobs

during day time. During his stay at home during day time, the

accused used to make unwarranted advances against PW.1. Sensing

his evil intentions, PW.1 warned him to behave properly. On

28.12.2005 at about 3.00 PM while PW.1 was alone in the house, the Dr.GRR,J

accused, who was present in the house, bolted the door from inside,

caught hold the hand of PW.1 and tried to outrage her modesty inspite

of her resistance. PW.1 felt insulted and threatened the accused that

she would immolate herself by pouring kerosene. The accused replied

that he would also die along with her. PW.1 poured kerosene on

herself and set fire to her saree with a match stick. When the accused

tried to extinguish the fires, he also received burn injuries to his

hands. On hearing the commotion, the owner of the house - PW.5 and

a neighbour, by name, Chandrakala and others called them from

outside. The accused opened the door. On enquiry by them about the

whereabouts of PW.1, the accused replied that she went to her

relatives house at Mallapur. Suspecting the accused since the children

of PW.1 were present outside, they went inside and found PW.1 fell in

the bathroom with burn injuries. Meanwhile, they informed the

husband of PW.1 i.e. PW.2. PW.2 came and got admitted PW.1 in

Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital, Hyderabad. On receipt of information

from the Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of

Police, Nacharam Police Station, came to the hospital and recorded

the statement of PW.1. Basing on the said statement, the police

registered the case as Crime No.280 of 2005 for the offences under

Sections 354 and 109 IPC and issued FIR. The Investigating Officer

recorded the statements of PWs.2 to 5, visited the scene of offence

and seized the burnt saree, blouse and the kerosene tin. He arrested the

accused on 31.12.2005 and after completing the investigation, filed Dr.GRR,J

charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 354

and 109 IPC.

3. The III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad had taken

cognizance of the case and committed the case to the Court of

Sessions as the offence under Section 354 IPC was exclusively triable

by the Court of Sessions. The matter was tried by the Principal

Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar and the same

was numbered as SC No.105 of 2007. The prosecution got examined

PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and Mos.1 to 3. The accused

was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence was adduced

on his behalf.

4. After considering the evidence on record, the Assistant

Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences under Sections

354 and 109 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-

in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the

offence under Section 354 IPC and also to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section

109 IPC and directed both the sentences to run concurrently.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal.

The appeal was heard by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge

(FTC), Ranga Reddy District. The appellate Court confirmed the

conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC but,

reduced the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to five years Dr.GRR,J

and retained the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and the default sentence as

it is. Considering that the ingredients of the offence under Section

109 IPC were not applicable, the appellate Court set aside the

conviction and sentence imposed against the accused for the offence

under Section 109 IPC.

6. Aggrieved further, the revision petitioner - accused preferred

this revision contending that the Courts below failed to appreciate that

the offence under Section 354 IPC was not at all made out in the given

evidence as there were no eye witnesses to the incident proper and the

evidence of PW.1 was self contradictory. The Courts below failed to

appreciate that PW.1 improved her version while deposing before the

Court. The evidence of PWs.2 to 5 was hearsay and their evidence

was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the accused had

committed the offence. PW.4 deposed that he did not know about the

offence. PW.5 was the landlord and his evidence was not much useful

to the case of the prosecution. PW.6, the panch witness, stated that he

did not know who was present at the time of Panchanama. The case

rested on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution could not link up

all the links to the chain. In the said circumstances, the accused ought

to have been acquitted, the sentence was severe and prayed to allow

the revision.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner -

accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Dr.GRR,J

8. Perused the record. The record would disclose that both the

Courts below discussed the evidence of each and every witness and

had given reasoned orders for convicting the accused for the offence

under Section 354 IPC. They considered the circumstances stated by

the victim and the accused who was being treated as their family

member attempting to outrage her modesty, that on the said date of

incident on 28.12.2005 at 3.00 PM, while PW.1 was washing clothes

in the house, the accused caught hold of her hand, dragged her and

tried to rape her forcibly stating that he was interested in her. She

resisted the forcible actions, but as he would not heed her request, she

poured kerosene on herself and tried to set fire to commit suicide.

Meanwhile, the accused himself poured kerosene and set fire to

himself and when his shirt was caught with flames, he removed his

shirt and thrown on her, as such her saree caught with flames. Then

the accused put off the flames on her and thereafter she fell

unconscious.

9. The accused put up a defence that PW.1 was having illicit

intimacy with one Rajesh and as he found her with Rajesh in the

house, PW.1 suspecting that he might reveal the same to her husband

and to avoid the situation, doused herself with kerosene and while

rescuing her, the accused sustained burnt injuries.

10. The said defence taken by the accused was rightly

disbelieved by the trial Court as the accused could not prove any

acquaintance or connection between PW.1 and said Rajesh and the Dr.GRR,J

said story was introduced by the revision petitioner to cast aspersions

on the character of PW.1 and there were no inimical terms between

the accused and the family members of PW.1 to foist a false case

against him. PW.3 stated that their relation with the accused was

cordial and they used to live without any misunderstandings.

Considering that there was no animosity between the complainant

party and the accused to file a complaint against the accused and even

if she wanted to file a false complaint she would need not burn her

body and suffer 30% to 40% burn injuries, the trial Court as well as

the appellant Court rightly disbelieved the defence of the accused and

believed the prosecution version, which was supported by the

statements of the other witnesses and corroborated by the evidence of

the house owner, examined as PW.5, who stated that the house was

bolted from inside and on their knocking, it was the accused who

opened the door and the hands of the accused were found burnt and he

gave gullible answers to divert the attention about PW.1 and to screen

the facts, which all proved the prosecution case. The appellate Court

observed that if at all a false case was intended to be filed against the

accused, one would not throw the honour of a housewife at stake

while filing the said case. The appellate Court had rightly set aside

the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused for the

offence under Section 109 IPC on considering the requisites of the

abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC which were absent in the

present case and also rightly modified the sentence of imprisonment

of the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC, reducing it from Dr.GRR,J

seven years to five years, considering all the circumstances of the

case.

11. Hence, I do not find any error in the orders of the Courts

below which require any interference by this Court by way of revision

and any irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below to re-

examine the decisions made by them or any errors in the decisions

which need to be corrected or any injustice was affected to the

accused.

12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

confirming the conviction and sentence inflicted against the revision

petitioner - appellant - accused vide judgment dated 31.12.2012 in

Crl.A.No.140 of 2012 by the learned V Additional District Judge

(FTC), Ranga Reddy District, modifying the conviction and sentence

passed by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B. Nagar in S.C. No.105 of 2007 vide judgment dated

11.08.2011.

13. The trial Court is directed to take consequential steps in

pursuance of dismissal of this revision case. Miscellaneous petitions

pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J December 27, 2021 KTL