Telangana High Court
Vanga Sanjeeva Reddy, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 15 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.70 of 2008
ORDER:
1. Revision Petitioner was convicted by the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Sircilla, for the offence under Sections 354
and 506 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of
Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of six months for the offence under Section 354 of IPC
and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
six months for the offence under Section 506 of IPC vide
judgment in S.C.No.841 of 2006 dated 20.04.2007. In
Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2007, learned Sessions Judge
concurred with the finding of the trial Court and confirmed the
conviction vide judgment dated 21.01.2008. Aggrieved by the
said findings, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was
correspondent of the Pragathi High School at Musthabad. The
daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 was studying in III standard of the
said school. The parents defaulted in payment of fee to the
school, for which reason, on 21.07.2006, the revision
petitioner called P.W.2 for payment of fee. On the same day,
P.W.1, who is the mother of the student went to the school.
The petitioner allegedly offered to waive the fee if she satisfies
his lust. Angered by such statement of the petitioner, P.W.1
left the school. Petitioner followed her to the house and in the
house petitioner caught hold of her hand and pulled her.
When P.W.1 raised hue and cry, P.Ws.3 and 4 entered into the
house, then the petitioner jumped compound wall from the
back side of the house and fled. On the next day, Ex.P1 was
lodged with the police after P.W.1 informed about the conduct
of the petitioner to her husband/P.W.2.
3. The police filed charge sheet and the Court framed
charges for the offence under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC.
Learned Assistant Sessions Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and
marked Exs.P1 to P3 on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf
of the accused, Exs.D1 and D2 which are portions of Section
161 of Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 independent
witnesses were marked during their examination in the Court.
4. The trial Court having considered the evidence on both
sides found the petitioner guilty and accordingly convicted
him. The Sessions Court confirmed the said finding of the trial
Court and upheld the conviction.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would submit that there is an inordinate delay in the
complaint reaching the Court. Firstly, the alleged incident
happened on 21.07.2006 and there is delay of more than 24
hours in lodging the complaint on 22.07.2006. Though, the
complaint was registered at 4.30 pm on 22.07.2006, the
Magistrate Court received the complaint on 25.07.2006 at
5.00 p.m. The said delay in FIR goes to show that complaint
was belatedly given. No reasons are given regarding the delay
in the FIR reaching the Court. The relative P.W.4, who is the
maternal grand mother of P.W.2 and P.W.3 neighbour
allegedly entered the house on hearing P.W.1. However, Ex.P2
scene of offence panchanama falsifies the version of P.W.3 that
she was the neighbour. Her evidence is not shown in the scene
of offence panchanama as neighbour.
6. Learned counsel further argued that according to Ex.P1,
P.Ws.3 and 4 did not see the accused. However, they have
falsely stated before the Court that the petitioner was involved.
The conduct of the husband/P.W.2 is suspicious. After the
alleged incident, according to him, he went to the house of the
petitioner without lodging any complaint. If P.W.2 was in the
village itself, as admitted by him during cross-examination, it
is highly improbable that P.W.1 would have been sent to the
school for the purpose of paying fee. According to P.W.1, the
petitioner was making phone calls threatening her since one
week. The said version also improbabilises P.W.1 going to the
school and meeting the petitioner.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
would submit that both in the school and also in the house,
petitioner had misbehaved with P.W.1 and accordingly, both
the Courts below have found favour with the statements of
P.W.1 and petitioner was correctly convicted.
8. Having gone through the evidence on record, P.W.1
stated that the petitioner made indecent proposal and
thereafter followed her to his house. However, there are no
witnesses, who have seen the petitioner following her or
entering into the house of P.W.1. At the earliest point of time,
according to Exs.D1 and D2, P.Ws.3 and 4 did not see the
petitioner entering into the house nor leaving the house. If it
is the case of P.W.1 that the petitioner was calling her on
phone and harassing her. Keeping in view that the statement
of P.W.1 that petitioner had made indecent proposal in the
school, the offence falls within four corners of Section 509 of
IPC. Second part of the prosecution case is that the petitioner
followed her and entered into the house of P.W.1. The said
version cannot be believed for the reason of there being no
independent corroboration and P.Ws.3 and 4 lied about
presence of petitioner in the house of P.W.1 during trial,
contrary to Ex.P1. Further, there is an unexplained four days
delay of the FIR reaching the Court.
9. In the said circumstances, the conviction under Section
354 and 506 of IPC is hereby set aside. However, the petitioner
is convicted for the offence under Section 509 IPC and
sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date : 15.03.2024
kvs
