Telangana High Court
Nethalla Narsimha, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 20 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1235 OF 2010
ORDER:
The revision petitioner was convicted by the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in S.C.No.165 of 2008, vide
Judgment dt.19.11.2008, for the offence under Section 354 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred appeal
before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in
Crl.A.No.167/2008, and the learned Addl.Sessions Judge vide
Judgment dated 28.06.2010, partly allowed the appeal while
reducing the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment from 5 years to
two years. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.
2. Heard.
3. Briefly, the case against the accused is that on 09.03.2007
PW1-victim and PW2 were returning home, around 10.30 p.m.
PW2 was walking ahead of PW1 and at the time she reached
near the temple, PW1 went towards the bushes near the temple
to attend nature call. At that juncture, the accused who was in a
drunken condition, pulled her into the bushes and committed
rape on her. Hearing PW1 shout for help, PWs.3 and 4 gathered
there and also PW2 who is the husband of PW1-victim also went
there. On seeing PWs.2 to 4, the accused fled.
4. A complaint was made to the village elders. However, since
no action was taken against the accused, Police complaint was
filed after a period of three days. On the basis of the complaint,
Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet under Section
354 of the IPC.
5. Learned Trial Court Judge, having examined PWs.1 to 6 of
whom PW1 is the victim and PWs.2 to 4 are the eye-witnesses
who saw the incident of accused pulling the hands of the victim-
PW1 and throwing her on the ground.
6. The narration of PW1, though appears to be exaggerated,
however, the version of the prosecution regarding the presence
of PW1 and A1 at the scene and PWs.2 to 4 running to help PW1
when the accused had tried to commit rape on her is consistent.
Though, the case of PW1 is that the accused had committed
rape on her, however investigation was completed and Police
filed charge sheet under Section 354 of the IPC.
7. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit
that the version stated by PW1 itself is highly improbable since it
is not expected that the villagers would go out around 10.30
p.m. Further, PW1 is an interested witness so also the other
witnesses PWs.3 and 4.
8. The evidence of PW1 is convincing. In fact, when the
accused tried to pull him into the bushes, she shouted for help
and PWs.2, 3 and 4 rushed to the scene. On seeing them, the
accused fled. There is enough evidence to convince the Court
that it was the accused who had committed acts outraging the
modesty of PW1.
9. However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year
2007 and nearly 17 years have passed by, and there are no
criminal cases are pending against the revision petitioner, this
Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of
imprisonment of the revision petitioner to one year.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed
reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the revision petitioner
to a period of one year. 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: 20.06.2024
tk
