Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Ippili Trinadha Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 June, 1983
ORDER
1. The petitioner was charged and convicted for an offence under S. 354 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal while confirming the conviction, the lower appellate court reduced the period of sentence to two months and confirmed the fine of Rs. 100/-. Thus the revision came to be filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11-4-1981 at about 6 p.m. while P.W. 1 a young girl of 16 years was returning from the field known as ' Kothacberuvu Isthuva', the accused was in the field bund of Rakoti Satyam and on seeing P.W. 1, the accused caught hold of her hand in the first instance and dragged her. When she got herself released from his clutches, the accused again caught hold of her saree and dragged her. Thereupon she raised hue and cry and upon hearing of which P.Ws. 3 and 4 who were in the neighbourhood arrived at the scene and on seeing them the accused ran away. The case of the prosecution was substantiated by the evidence of P.W. 1 the victim and P.Ws. 3 and 4 the other witnesses. Their evidence has been considered by the trial Court as well as the appellate-court in extenso and the same was believed by both the courts. The accused was accordingly convicted.
3. In this revision, the contentions raised in the courts below have been reiterated viz., that P.W. 1 is not speaking the truth for the reason that no scratches have been found on her person and the saree which was caught hold of by the accused was not torn off and the same was not produced before the Court. These two circumstances throw any amount of doubt regarding the manner of occurrence spoken to by P.W. 1. The other contention raised is that the presence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 is doubtful. According to the evidence. P.W. 4 does not own any land in the neighbourhood and P.W. 3 did not go to the scene as stated by him. These are the factual circumstances on which reliance has been placed to persuade me to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. I have gone through the judgment of the appellate court and it has given cogent reasons for believing the prosecution case and I do not find any sufficient ground to disagree with its finding. The trial court has the advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses and the manner in which they gave evidence. No substantial grounds except the grounds that were repeated before the court below have been urged before me. Under those circumstances, while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I cannot lightly brush aside the reasoning given by the Courts below and come to a different conclusion. Therefore, in the absence of any substantial material I am not inclined to differ from the conclusion reached by the trial Court on the appreciation of evidence. The prosecution has established its case beyond any shadow of doubt and the conviction is legal and valid.
4. With regard to the sentence, Sri Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is aged about 19 years on the date when he was convicted by the trial Court. Though the petitioner made his statement under S. 313 Cr.P.C., that he was aged about 21 years, as a fact, he is only 19 years and that therefore he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. He further contends that though this point has not been raised in the court below, he may be permitted to raise this point and a report may be called for regarding the character and antecedents of the petitioner and the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act may be extended to him.
5. Section 29 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 says that subject to the provisions of S. 18, S. 562 of the Code shall cease to apply to the States or parts thereof in which this Act is brought into force. Therefore, we have to deal with the petitioner under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, S. 4 postulates that when any person is found guilty of having committed an Offence not punishable with death of imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
6. Sub-section (2) of S. 4 enjoins upon the court to call for a report from the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.
7. No doubt the intendment and the object of the Probation of Offenders Act is in tune with reformative trend of modern criminal justice to rehabilitate the young offenders as useful citizens. It therefore animates that instead of sending the offenders to jail to be associated with hardened criminals and to relieve of deleterious effect of jail life, it would be expedient to reform him by extending kindly probation during a specified period so that it could enable him to reform himself and be of a good and self reliant citizen so that the menace of perpetrating the crime in the society would be avoided. It is therefore a social persuasive defence to extend whenever possible the key note of modern penology viz., reformation of the delinquent. But the extension of that principle should be subject to the overriding imperative of the interest of the society as a whole. It is common knowledge that of late the acts of committing crime on weaker section viz., women is rampant and the prevention of committing such crimes is becoming a problem. It is now a national debate as to the means to be adopted in arresting the commission of the crime on women. If the beneficial provision of the Probation of Offenders Act is extended to the offenders like one punishable under S. 354 I.P.C. for outraging the modesty of a teen aged girl and of like offences on women, would not only encourage further escalation of the crime, but also would become difficult to check or arrest the perpetration of those crimes and imperil the modesty of several innocent girls. Under those circumstances, the court has to be circumspect in extending the beneficial provision to the offences committed on the weaker section, viz. Women. If the Commission of these crimes remain uncheked then it would threaten the social harmoney and security of free movement of women folk and thereby danger to the security of the society itself. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the Court would be slow if not loathe to extend the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to such type of offences.
8. Sri Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though from the statement made by the petitioner under S. 313 Cr.P.C. that he is above 21 years, he also filed a certificate in this court to show that the petitioner's date of birth is 1-6-1961. But I am not inclined to take this certificate into consideration, because it is not made part of the record nor proved as per law. Therefore I cannot take notice of the same. But none-the-less the court has to take into consideration the nature of the offence committed and the character of the offender and other relevant circumstances. Sri Satyanarayana lays main emphasis upon the character of the offender alone. Undoubtedly it is one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration. But the nature of the commission of the crime also is one of the important factors to be kept in view when the Probation of Offenders Act is intended to be applied. In view of the facts and the circumstances of the case, when the petitioner has outraged the modesty of 16 years old girl, but for the intervention of P.W. 3 and 4, perhaps more serious crime would have been committed upon P.W. 1. Under those circumstances, I am not inclined on these facts to extend the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. But at the same time I am also of the view that the deterrance of the commission of the crime would be met by evolving a suitable therapy of sentencing technie to the changing circumstances. To prevent the commission of the crime, in my view, one of the methods is, instead of making the petitioner to undergo imprisonment in the midst of hardened criminals, ends of justice would be met if I sentence him to undergo the sentence for seven continuous working days by sitting during the entire working hours in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, so that he will be exposed to the public gaze and thereby it will not only be a deterrence to him from repeating the crime, but also acts as an antidote upon persons having similar propensity to crime to desist therefrom. Under those circumstances, the conviction is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is modified as indicated above. The sentence of fine is confirmed. The above sentence shall be gone within one month from the date of receipt of this order by the trial Court. The revision case is dismissed with the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment.
9. Petition dismissed.