Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sanaboina Gopala Krishna, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 2 March, 2020
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C. Praveen Kumar
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 714 of 2007
ORDER:
1. The present Revision is filed by the petitioner - accused No.1 under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2006, dated 1.6.2007, on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari, at Amalapuram, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against A1 in S.C. No.200 of 2005, dated 22.2.2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothapeta, East Godavari District, wherein the petitioner-accused No.1 was convicted under Section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The facts in issue are as under :
P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1 and they are residents of K.Yenugupalli Village. P.W.1 has no issues. On 11.11.2004 at 6.00 AM, when P.W.1 was returning after answering calls of nature, the 1st accused waylaid and pounced upon her, closed her mouth, placed his hands on the breasts and squeezed them;
pursuant to which, P.W.1 raised cries. P.W.3, who was in the vicinity, rushed to P.W.1 and scolded the 1st accused. It is said that even earlier, the 1st accused did similar acts on three occasions. The matter was also placed before elders who reprimanded the 1st accused. When the accused made a third 2 attempt, it was reported to police at P.Gannavaram Police Station. When that case was coming on for judgment, the village elders compromised the matter and on such compromise, that case was dismissed. As regards the incident took place on 11.11.2004, the matter was placed before the elders for settlement. The 1st accused fled the village and remained away for two days. Meanwhile, the 2nd accused, who is the younger brother of the 1st accused, made defamatory statements stating that P.W.1 was found living with the 1st accused and made bad propaganda against P.W.1. P.W.1 felt insulted and made an attempt to commit suicide by consuming pesticide on 16.11.2004. P.W.5 the fostered daughter of P.W.1 noticed it and informed P.W.4. The neighbours shifted P.W.1 to the parents' house of P.W.1 in Gannavaram. From there, P.W.2 took P.W.1 to Care Hospital, Amalapuram. While P.W.1 was taking treatment, the Police recorded the statement of P.W.1 at Care Hospital and registered a case in crime No.94 of 2004 of P.Gannavaram Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 354 and 509 I.P.C.
3. Police investigated into the matter and filed a charge-sheet, which was taken cognizance of by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, as P.R.C.No.12 of 2005. On appearance of the accused, documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied. Later committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge made over the case in S.C. No.200 of 2005 to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothapeta, East Godavari District. After committal, charges for the offences 3 punishable under Sections 354 and 509 I.P.C. were framed, read over and explained, to which they pleaded not guilty.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which they denied. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced in support of their defence. Considering the evidence available on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced accused No.1 as stated above. Appeal filed by the accused No.1 against the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present revision came to be filed.
5. The main plea taken in the grounds of revision is that learned Judge erred in believing the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, as there are disputes between the petitioner - accused No.1 and other witnesses. It is further pleaded that having acquitted accused No.2 in the court below erred in confirming the conviction of the petitioner basing on the same evidence.
6. The same is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The short point that falls for consideration is whether the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C.?
8. P.W.1 in her evidence deposed that she went to attend calls of nature at about 6.30 AM near Plantain garden and while she was returning home, A1 came behind her, caught hold of her 4 mouth and squeezed her breasts. When she raised an alarm, Sanaboina Padma (P.W.3) came there and admonished A1, pursuant to which, he fled away. She further stated, on two occasions he misbehaved with her in the same manner and she also gave report to the Police. Later, on compromise by the elders, she dropped the case. She further deposed that A2 began making bad propaganda against her and vexed with the comments of A2 and also because of the offence committed by A1 against her body, she attempted to commit suicide by consuming pesticide and fell unconscious. She was then taken to the Care Hospital, Amalapuram, where Police recorded her statement and the same was marked as Ex.P1.
9. The evidence of P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to facts as told by P.W.1 before the court and also he taking P.W.1 to the Care Hospital, Amalapuram and admitting her for treatment.
10. P.W.3 in her evidence deposed about the previous acts committed by the accused against P.W.1. She further stated that the residents of her village used to attend calls of nature at the plantain garden of Bolla People i.e., scene of offence and there was a way by the side of her house to reach that place. She further stated that she witnessed the incident of A1 squeezing the breasts of P.W.1 at the scene of offence and on that, P.W.1 raised alarm to which she admonished A1.
11. P.W.4 in his evidence deposed that A1 was in the habit of making indecent behavior against P.W.1 and outraging her modesty. P.W.5 (daughter of P.W.1) noticed P.W.1 falling on the 5 cot and fluid was oozing from her mouth. She informed the same to P.W.4 and others who lifted her to the hospital. P.W.6 in his evidence stated that he earlier settled the case between A1 and P.W.1 in respect of outraging her modesty. This time also he tried for the same, but A1 did not hear his advice. P.W.7 in his evidence deposed that he came to know about the offence committed by the accused against P.W.1 at the scene of offence through P.W.1 and he further stated that earlier also A1 did similar acts against P.W.1 and he and other elders compromised the same. P.W.8 in his evidence stated that he was present on 17.11.2004 at the scene of offence along with the Police when the S.I. observed scene of offence and drafted the observation report at the scene of offence. P.W.9 - Doctor in his evidence deposed that he was present when Ex.P1 was recorded and endorsed on Ex.P1 about the mental condition of P.W.1. P.W.11 received Ex.P1 along with the Hospital intimation, basing on which he registered the same as crime No.94 of 2004. He then visited the scene of offence and investigated the case by examining the witnesses.
12. In so far as the incident of outraging the modesty, there is clear evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.3 is an eyewitness to the occurrence. She deposed that on the date of incident she also went to the scene of occurrence to attend calls of nature; that by the time P.W.3 went there, the 1st accused was pressing the breasts of P.W.1; P.W.1 raised alarm and then P.W.3 admonished the 1st accused who ran away. The evidence of P.W.3 completely corroborate the statement of P.W.1 regarding the 1st accused coming to P.W.1 and pressing her breasts. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is sufficient to prove that the 1st accused had 6 assaulted P.W.1 with a view to outrage her modesty and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. Hence, findings of the courts below in finding the petitioner - accused No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. warrants no interference.
13. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and since the offence is said to have taken place in the year 2004, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years imposed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court against the petitioner - accused No.1 is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The period of imprisonment undergone shall be given set off. Further, the fine amount is confirmed. The bail bond of the petitioner - accused No.1 shall be cancelled forthwith and he shall surrender to the Court for serving the sentence imposed.
14. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of modifying the sentence to the extent indicated above.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 02.03.2020 skmr