Kandakatla Bhaskar vs The State Of Ap., Rep Byits P.P
2023 Latest Caselaw 2867 Tel

                                       1



     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

       CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1928 OF 2011

O R D E R:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the

judgment dated 07.09.2011 in Crl.A.No.117 of 2010 on the file of

the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions (FTC) Judge,

Warangal (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the

judgment dated 19.04.2010 in C.C.No.165 of 2007 on the file of

learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Jangaon (for short,

"the trial Court").

2. Heard Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel of for the

petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent state.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Station House

Officer, PS Lingala Ghanpur filed charge sheet against the

petitioner/accused in Crime No.11 of 2007 for the offences

punishable under Sections.509 and 506 of I.P.C. It is alleged

that, the petitioner proposed to marry one Gorla Manjula but she

did not show any interest. Then he grew wild and started

threatening her saying that he would marry her, otherwise he

would kill her. The petitioner used to abuse her in filthy language

outraging her modesty. On 09.03.2007, the petitioner came to the

bus stage, Nelapogula and told her that he wanted to marry her

and abused her in filthy language. It was witnessed by LW5 who

was at bus stand, Nelapogula. Thereafter, on 12.03.2007,

Manjula gave a complaint to the Station House Officer, P.S.

Lingala Ghanpur stating the alleged incident and upon thorough

investigation, the case was taken on file against the petitioner

under Sections.509 and 506 of I.P.C.

4. The trial Court vide judgment dated 19.04.2010 in

C.C.No.165 of 2007 found the petitioner guilty for the alleged

offences and thereby convicted and sentenced him to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six

months for the offence punishable under Section 509 of I.P.C.

5. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in

default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the

offence punishable under Section 506(1) of I.P.C. Both the

sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by which,

the petitioner preferred an Appeal. The appellate Court vide

judgment dated 07.09.2011 in Crl.A.No.117 of 2010 dismissed

the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.

Hence, the present Revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

impugned judgment was passed erroneously upon placing

reliance on the evidences of PWs.1 and 2 and therefore, held that

the same is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the

appellate court after careful consideration of the evidence

available on record rightly passed the impugned judgment and

therefore, sought to dismiss the Revision.

8. The trial Court on behalf of the respondent examined PWs.1

to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of the petitioner, none

were examined and no documents were marked. Upon careful

consideration of the evidences of PWs.1 and 2, the trial Court

observed that the petitioner intentionally teased PW1 and

demanded to marry him. The petitioner started teasing the victim

by insulting her in vulgar language which hurts the modesty of

the victim. He even went to the extent of inviting her for sexual

favour by offering money and treated her like a prostitute. The

said attitude on the part of the victim would amount to causing

disrespect to her chastity and thereby intrudes upon her privacy.

The evidence of PW1 also established that the petitioner instilled

fear in the mind of PW1 by threatening her saying that he would

kill her in the manner in which one Srilakshmi of Vijayawada was

killed. Therefore, the trial Court rightly held him liable for the

alleged offences and convicted him.

9. On an appeal being preferred, the appellate Court also

opined that the sole testimony of PW1 instilled complete

confidence and that the same could be relied upon safely for

convicting the petitioner. The appellate Court observed that the

trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence available on record

and convicted the petitioner. Further, held that the quantum of

sentence ordered, was quite reasonable and thereby dismissed

the appeal by confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.

10. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order

dated 16.09.2011 suspended the sentence of imprisonment alone

passed by the trial Court pending Revision on a condition of the

petitioner furnishing personal bond for Rs.10,000/- together with

two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the trial

Court. In the present case on hand, both the courts have

concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the offences

under Sections. 509 and 506, which finding, in my considered

view, does not call for interference of this Court in exercise of

revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

11. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere

with the well considered judgments of the Courts below and

accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.

12. However, as the petitioner, suffered mental agony and

hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as

well as the appellate Court, the sentence imposed upon the

petitioner is hereby reduced to the period of detention already

undergone by him under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 04.10.2023 ESP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1928 OF 2011

Dated: 04.10.2023

ESP