Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mekala Durgarao 5 Others vs The State Of Ap., Another on 15 July, 2019

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

                                 1
                                                                  CMR, J.
                                                    Crl.P.No.14448 of 2013




 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

               Criminal Petition No.14448 of 2013

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 6, in P.R.C.No.28 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, questioning the order dated 19.06.2013 whereundeer the case was taken on to file against all accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 354 r/w.34 of IPC and issued summons to accused Nos.1 to 6 for their appearance.

Facts germane to dispose of this Criminal Petition may, briefly, be stated as follows:

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Akiveedu Police Station, West Godavari District, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.68 of 2013 of Akiveedu Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 354 r/w.34 of IPC. The specific allegations made against these accused in the charge-sheet are as follows:

On 06.05.2013 morning at about 9.30 A.M. while Enni Ramulamma, Enni Narasimhulu and Paila Ramesh are present in the house, the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.1 to 6, trespassed into the house and abused Paila Suresh and his family members and questioned Enni Ramulamma and Enni Narasimhulu as to how dare to keep their motorcycle in the house and thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 6 beat Paila Ramesh with hands and when Enni Narasimhulu interfered, the accused beat him also 2 CMR, J.

with hands and when Enni Ramulamma interfered, accused No.1 kept his hands on her breast, pushed her, abused her and outraged her modesty. The witnesses shown as LWs.5 to 9 viz., Labani Durgarao, Sumala Padma, Paila Ramarao, Mahadeva Atchaiah and Illapu Venkanna witnessed the said incident. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 354 r/w.34 of IPC against accused No.1 and for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 r/w.34 of IPC against accused Nos.2 to 6.

The learned Magistrate in the committal Court by the impugned order dated 19.06.2013 passed the following order:

"Perused the record. Prima-facie case is made out. Hence, case is taken on file for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 323, 354 r/w.34 IPC against the A-1 to A-6. Issue summons to A-1 to A-6. Call on 27.07.2013."

Thus, as can be seen from the aforesaid order, the learned Magistrate has taken the case on to the file against all the accused i.e. accused Nos.1 to 6 even for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC also.

Now, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that the allegation of outrage of modesty of Enni Ramulamma is made only against accused No.1 and no such allegation has been made against accused Nos.2 to 6. However, the learned Magistrate erred in taking the case on to the file against accused Nos.2 to 6 also for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and the same is bad under law.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent- State contends that the accusation against accused Nos.2 to 6 in respect of the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC must 3 CMR, J.

have been made out during the course of investigation and as such, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate erred in taking the case on to the file for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC against accused Nos.2 to 6 also.

As can be seen from the charge-sheet filed by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Akiveedu Police Station, after completion of investigation, specific allegation of commission of offence of outraging the modesty of Enni Ramulamma constituting an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC is made out only against accused No.1. There are absolutely no overt-acts attributed to accused Nos.2 to 6 regarding commission of offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC against them. It is clearly stated that accused No.1 pushed Enni Ramuluamma by keeping his hands on her breast and abused her and outraged her modesty. So, from the material available on record, case under Section 354 IPC, prima facie, is made out only against accused No.1. There is absolutely no material to take the case on to the file against accused Nos.2 to 6 also from the material available on record for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. Therefore, to that extent the impugned order of the learned Magistrate taking the case on to the file against accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC is concerned cannot be sustained, and accordingly it is set aside.

Although the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the incident took place at the spur of the moment and even accused No.1 also has no intention to outrage the modesty of Enni Ramulamma and as such, no case is made out against him also for 4 CMR, J.

the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, the said contention cannot be countenanced.

A bare reading of Section 354 of IPC shows that intention is not only the requirement to constitute an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, it is clear that even when a person has knowledge that his act would in all likelihood results into outraging the modesty of a woman, then also it is sufficient to prima facie constitute an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. As the specific allegation against accused No.1 is that he has placed his hands on the breast of Enni Ramulamma and pushed her, certainly he would have every knowledge that by keeping his hands on the breast of a woman and pushing her back in all likelihood would result into outraging the modesty of that woman. So, from the facts of the case, prima facie, an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC is made out against accused No.1 and as such, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate erred in taking the case on to file against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC.

Therefore, from the material available on record, it is made clear that there is prima facie case against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 354 r/w.34 of IPC and prima facie material against accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 r/w.34 of IPC. Hence, the said proceedings cannot be quashed as prayed for by the petitioners herein.

Since the case is only now at the committal stage, the learned Magistrate shall take steps to commit the case forthwith according to law.

CMR, J.

With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:11.07.2019.

cs