Telangana High Court
Syed Mohammed vs The State Of A.P. Another on 24 August, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1041 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section
354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of two years vide judgment in SC No.197 of 2009
dated 31.08.2009 passed by the VII Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present
appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 was working as
servant maid in the house of P.W.2. On 19.03.2009 in the
afternoon, while P.W.1 was going on the road, the appellant,
who was a bike mechanic followed her and asked her to have
sexual intercourse with him and when she denied, the
appellant hugged her. When she shouted, the appellant
panicked and fled.
3. During the course of her evidence in Court, P.W.1 victim
stated that the appellant came on a motor cycle, showed her
money and asked her to elope with him.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
case is one of false implication and no such incident occurred.
As seen from the complaint, there is a delay in lodging
complaint and there is no explanation regarding the said
delay. For which reason, the appellant has to be acquitted.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submits that there is no reason why the appellant would be
falsely implicated by P.W.1.
6. Having gone through the record, the complaint Ex.P1 was
lodged by P.W.2 in English. According to the evidence of
P.W.1, she is an illiterate person. However, the signature in
English is found on Ex.P1 complaint. The said signature
appears to be made by a person, who has copied the alphabets
when shown to her. In the said circumstances, the signature
being found on ExP1 is of no consequence to dismiss the
complaint.
7. As seen from her evidence during the course of trial,
P.W.1 stated that the appellant showed her money and asked
her to elope for illegal activity. However, in the complaint
Ex.P1 it is mentioned that the appellant pulled her and also
stated that he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her.
8. The facts of the case appear to be one of falling under
Section 509 of IPC. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 stated anything
about the outraging of modesty by the appellant when the
appellant caught hold of her hand and asked to elope with
him. For the sake of convenience, Section 509 of IPC is
extracted hereunder.
"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.--Whoever,
intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound
or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard,
or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the
privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
9. The said acts of the appellant is with an intention to
insult, modesty of woman and tried to intrude upon the
privacy of such woman, for which reason, the conviction
recorded under Section 354 of IPC is liable to be set aside and
accordingly set aside. However the appellant is convicted
under 509 of IPC.
10. The incident occurred in the year 2009, 14 years have
lapsed. There are no criminal antecedents as far as the
appellant is concerned, as such this court deems it
appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 509 IPC
and reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already
undergone.
11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a
sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 24.08.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1041 OF 2009
Date: 24.08.2022.
kvs
