Telangana High Court
Kondeti Saraiah, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 22 December, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1225 OF 2009
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner is questioning the concurrent
findings of conviction for the offence of criminal trespass and
outraging of modesty of a girl aged around 13 years vide
judgment in S.C.No.9 of 2008 dated 28.07.2008 passed by the
Assistant Sessions Judge, Manthani, which was confirmed by
the I Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar dated
17.02.2009.
2. It is the case of the victim girl, who was examined as
P.W.1 that on 15.01.2007 when her father was not in the
house and while she was sleeping in her house on a cot, the
accused entered into the house and caught hold of her hand
and dragged and held her, for which reason, she tried to shout
for help. However, the accused closed her mouth and after the
accused removed his hands after hearing the cries of the
victim, P.Ws.2 and 3, who were nearby came there and on
seeing them, the accused fled. On the basis of the said
complaint, the crime was registered and charge sheet was filed
under Sections 448 and 354 of IPC. Accordingly, charges were
framed by trial Court. Petitioner was found guilty for the said
offences and convicted.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the entire story of the prosecution is highly
improbable. The very witnessing of the incident by P.Ws.2 and
3 raise doubt as to whether they were preparing food stuff at
1.00 a.m in the morning and further there is a delay of nearly
17 hours in lodging the complaint, which is not explained by
the prosecution, for which reason also, the conviction recorded
by the courts below have to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits
that both the courts below on facts found that this petitioner
had indulged in outraging the modesty of P.W.1, who was a
girl aged 13 years and nothing is elicited in the cross-
examination to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. The solitary
testimony of victim would be sufficient to record conviction.
Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the revision case.
5. As seen from the record, the appellant entered into the
house and dragged the victim girl by caught holding of her
hand and closed her mouth when she tried to shout for help.
To attract an offence under Section 354 of IPC, the use of force
on any woman should be with an intention to outrage her
modesty. In the present case, according to P.W.1, the accused
tried to catch hold of her hand and dragged. However, both the
Courts below failed to consider as to how the
petitioner/accused had entered into the house at night at 1.00
a.m. In the normal household, the doors of the house would
be locked in the night and there is no evidence as to how the
petitioner could enter into the house without being detected
and what part the house that was kept open to enable the
petitioner to enter into the house, is not stated.
6. However, though there are several discrepancies in the
said version and there is delay of nearly 17 hours in lodging
the complaint, on the basis of the statement made by the
alleged victim, it appears that the offence is one under Section
509 of IPC wherein the petitioner has intruded upon the
privacy of a woman and for the said reason, the conviction
under Section 354 of IPC is set aside. However, the petitioner
is convicted for the offence under Section 509 of IPC. The
incident happened on 15.01.2007 and nearly 16 years have
lapsed since the date of incident, for which reason, this Court
deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment
under both the counts to the period already undergone.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed off.
Since petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
cancelled. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 22.12.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1225 OF 2009
Date: 22.12.2022.
kvs
