S.K. Sadulla, Karimnagar District vs The State Of A.P.,Through Its P.P,High ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1553 Tel

Telangana High Court

S.K. Sadulla, Karimnagar District vs The State Of A.P.,Through Its P.P,High ... on 18 April, 2024

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.340 OF 2011

ORDER:

1. The revision petitioner/A2 was convicted by the Assistant

Sessions Judge, Jagtial, in SC.No.798 of 2006, dt.31.12.2008, for

the offence under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of Five Years

and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 354

of the IPC. The petitioner/A2 was also sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The said

conviction was confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge,

Karimnagar at Jagtial, in Crl.A.No.7 of 2009, vide Judgment

dt.13.11.2009. Aggrieved by the said confirmation, the revision

petitioner/A2 is before this Court.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW1/defacto

complainant is the victim. She filed complaint on 12.05.2006. It

was alleged in the complaint that the revision petitioner who is

arrayed as A2 and A1 were following PW1 for a period of nearly

three months and on the date of incident, the revision petitioner

and another caught hold of the hand of PW1 and asked her to

satisfy their lust. On crying for help and also on seeing PWs.2 and

3, the revision petitioner and A1 fled. On the basis of the said

incident, both the Courts found that the acts of revision petitioner

and A1 amounts to the offence under Section 354 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentenced accordingly.

3. Learned counsel appearing as Legal Aid Sri P.Shamanthak

Hande submits that the act of the revision petitioner would not fall

within the ingredients of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. He

relied on the Judgment of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench,

Nagpur in Crl.Revision Application No.178/2023 wherein the

Bombay High Court dealt with a situation where the accused

therein had pushed the victim while she was riding bicycle.

4. In the said case there was no allegation of touching the

victim inappropriately. For the said reason, the Bombay High

Court found that such pushing of bicycle cannot be termed as an

act of outraging the modesty of victim, since such act would not

shock the sense of decency of the woman nor was it annoying. In

the present case, the revision petitioner caught hold of the hand of

PW1 and asked her to fulfil his lust which amounts to an offence

under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the

finding of the Courts below cannot be interfered with.

5. However, the revision petitioner was sent to jail on

13.11.2009 on which date the Judgment of the Sessions Court

was pronounced. This Court had granted bail on 15.02.2011 after

nearly one year four months. Since the petitioner was in jail for

nearly 16 months, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the

sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed

and the sentence of imprisonment of the revision petitioner is

reduced to the period already undergone.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

___________________ K.SURENDER, J

Date: 18.04.2024 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.340 OF 2011 Date: 18.04.2024

tk