Telangana High Court
Md. Mohisuddin vs The State Of A.P. on 11 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.396 OF 2013
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner was convicted by the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Mancherial, for the offences punishable under
Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in S.C.No.493 of
2009, vide Judgment dt.30.07.2011, and sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/-; and also to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for both the
offences, respectively. The said conviction was questioned before
the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in Crl.A.No.98/2011,
and the learned Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction
recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, modified the
sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment from Three years to Two years
under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the said
confirmation, present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
2. Heard.
3. Briefly, the case against the petitioner is that he had forcibly
dragged PW2-victim girl into an Auto Rikshaw and took her to a
distance of nearly 10 K.Ms. till Somagudem village. At the said
village he dragged her out from the Auto rikshaw and took her into
bushes. He assaulted her resulting in her shirt and banian being
torn and also threatened her with dire consequences. PW2 then
defended herself, pushed the accused and ran to a public phone.
From there she called PW4 and also informed regarding the
incident.
4. On the basis of complaint filed to the Police, the Police
investigated the case and filed charge sheet under Sections 363,
354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. On behalf of prosecution PWs.1 to 6 were examined and
Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. M.Os.1 and 2 which are the torn
wearing apparel of the victim were also brought on record before
the Court below.
6. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the
evidence of PW2 was convincing and accordingly convicted the
accused. The said finding of the learned I Additional Sessions
Judge, Adilabad, was confirmed in the appeal vide Crl.A.No.98 of
2011, with a small modification of reducing the imprisonment
from three years to two years under Section 354 of IPC.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that the version given by the victim girl is highly
improbable. The question of abducting her in an open place and
taking her to a distance of nearly 10 K.Ms. and there after
assaulting her is highly improbable. Since there were differences
in between the families, a false case was filed against the accused
by PW2. Further none of the persons who were allegedly present
near telephone booth from where she made a phone call, were
examined. The only evidence remains is that the victim girl and
the interested relatives of the victim girl. On account of the
interestedness of the witnesses and also pending disputes in
between the families there is every possibility of lodging false
complaint. In the absence of any independent corroboration,
benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused.
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submits that the evidence of PW2-victim girl would suffice to draw
inference of guilt against the accused. In fact, in several cases,
this Court and Honourable Supreme Court also held that once the
evidence of the victim girl is convincing there need not be any
corroboration to the said version of the victim girl.
9. Having gone through the evidence of the witnesses, PW2 has
specifically stated that she was taken by force in an Auto to a
distance of 10 K.Ms. up to Somagudem village. There the accused
used criminal force on her and according to PW2, the said acts
had outraged her modesty. Further on account of the criminal
force used, her wearing apparel which are M.Os.1 and 2 were torn.
10. Only for the reason of suggestion being made to the
witnesses that there were pending disputes, the same cannot be
made basis to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2-Victim girl. The
witnesses who were examined before the Court below cannot be
said to be interested witnesses. The victim girl has narrated the
incident and there cannot be any doubt that there was false
implication of the revision petitioner.
11. In the said circumstances, the finding of the Court below is
upheld and conviction recorded under Section 354 of IPC is
confirmed.
12. However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year
2008 and nearly 16 years have passed by, further, the accused
according to the learned counsel has dependents to look after, this
Court deems it appropriate to reduce the imprisonment under
Sections 354 of the IPC to one year.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed
reducing the sentence of imprisonment under section 354 of the
IPC to one year. The conviction under Section 506 of the IPC
remains unaltered. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
The trial Court shall cause appearance of the accused/revision
petitioner and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part
of the sentence.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 11.06.2024
tk
