Aluri Lingamaiah vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2582 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

       CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1392 OF 2011

ORDER:

1 Heard Sri Jelli Kanakaiah learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of Sri Jelli Narender, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for the State.

2 This criminal revision case is filed challenging the

judgment dated 28.06.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.77 of 2009 on

the file of the Court of the IV Additional District & Sessions

Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar, whereby the learned Additional

Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement

dated 18.06.2009 passed in S.C.No.337 of 2008 on the file of

the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,

Mahaboobnagar.

3 The facts, in brief, as unfolded from the case of the

prosecution, are that on 01.3.2008 at 1.00 p.m. the petitioner

attempted to commit rape on her and outraged the modesty of

P.W.1 when she was alone and attending agricultural work in

her cotton fields. On hearing the hue and cry raised by the

victim P.W.1, her brother-in-law - P.W.3 went to the spot and

on seeing him, the petitioner fled away from the scene by

threatening the victim not to reveal the incident to anybody

otherwise he will kill her. On 02.03.2008 at 8.30 am P.W.1 went

to the police station along with her husband and lodged a

complaint which was registered as a case in Cr.No.37 of 2008

for the offence under Section 354 IPC and after completion of

investigation the police filed charge sheet.

4 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.Os.1 and 2.

There is no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of

the accused.

5 The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after appraising the

entire material available on record, found the petitioner guilty of

the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and accordingly

convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for a period of five years by judgment dated 18.06.2009.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal

No.77 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional

District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar and the

learned appellate Court, after reappreciating the entire

evidence, dismissed the appeal but by reducing the period of

imprisonment from five years to that of two years. Aggrieved,

the filed the present criminal revision case.

6 The evidence of P.W.1, the victim, goes to show that one

year prior to her giving evidence while she was attending

harvesting of cotton crop in her field, the petitioner came and

asked her water for which she informed him that she has no

water. Then the petitioner came to her and caught hold of her

left hand, pulled her and pushed her due to which her bangles

were broken. It is her further case that the petitioner caught

hold of her waist, pushed her to ground for which she warned

him and she will inform the same to her husband and father-in-

law. But the accused warned to kill her and in the meanwhile

P.W.3 came to the temple near their land and enquired her what

had happened.

7 The evidence of P.W.2 was to the effect that his wife

informed him that the petitioner outraged her modesty while

she was working in the fields. The evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6,

though circumstantial, was in one voice with regard to their

coming to know about the incident and the narration of the

incident. The evidence of P.W.7 is with regard to conducting of

investigation and filing of charge sheet.

8 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the prosecution did not examine the person who scribed

Ex.P.1 complaint and that there is delay in lodging the

complaint.

9 If there are contradictions in between the contents of

Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1, certainly, the contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioner may be given credence to.

But in the instant case there are no contradictions to the

contents of Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of

P.W.1 completely corroborates to the contents of Ex.P.1.

10 It is the case of the victim that she informed the incident

to her husband only after his arrival from work late in the

evening. So at that time it will not be possible for a lady to go to

the police station to lodge complaint.

11 All the witnesses have denied the suggestion put to them

that there is rivalry between the petitioner and the family of

P.W.1 with regard to the land disputes. Mere non-examination

of independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the

prosecution when the other prosecution witnesses are found to

be trustworthy and reliable. There are not at all any

contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with

regard to the narration of the incident. Even the solitary

evidence of P.W.1 itself inspires the mind of the Court that the

petitioner attempted to commit rape on her and thereby

outraged her modesty. Both the courts below have appreciated

the material available on record in right perspective and

accordingly convicted the petitioner for the offence under

Section 354 of IPC. Hence, I see no merit in this revision case

and the same is liable to be dismissed.

12 The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the

judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

Crl.P.No.1851 of 2013 dated 08.03.2013. The facts in that case

are different from the facts of the present case. In that case a

senior IAS officer slapped on a lady servant, which is not the

case of the prosecutrix in the instant case. The learned counsel

for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court in

Criminal Appeal No.454 of 2010 dated 07.07.2022. The facts of

that case are also distinguishable to the facts of the case on

hand.

13 In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.

However, the sentence of simple imprisonment for two years as

imposed by the learned appellate Court is further reduced to

that for one year. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this

criminal revision case shall also stand dismissed.

------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 21.09.2023 Kvsn