(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case to this Honourable Court aggrieved by the Conviction and sentence passed in Crl.A.No.60/2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, dated 25.04.2008 in confirming conviction and sentence of two years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer S.I., For One Month , for the offence under Sec.354 IPC passed by the Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in SC.No. 379/2006, dt.14.05.2007

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 939 OF 2008

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Sentence and conviction passed in Crl.A.No. 60/2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, dated 25.04.2008 by confirming the conviction and sentence passed in SC.No. 379/2006 by the Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, dated 14.05.2007 and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above Crl.RC

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to implead the proposed respondent/de facto complainant as 2nd respondent in CrI.RC.No.687 of 2008 and pass)

1. The instant criminal revision case has been filed challenging impugned judgment dt.14.05.2007 in S.C. No.379 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, by the judgment, dt.25.04.2008 in Crl.A.No.60 of 2007, whereby the present petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer one month simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short „IPC’).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not properly scanned the evidence on record and, as such, arrived at an erroneous judgment of conviction. The learned counsel further submits that if the evidence adduced by the prosecution had been properly appreciated, it would have been evident that the charge under Section 354 of I.P.C. was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel further submits that there are several contradictions in the prosecution case. Moreover, there is existence of counter case by the accused. The accused was examined as DW(Crl.R.C. No.1501 of 2008). However, his evidence was not properly considered. The Trial Court also failed to take into account the previous enmity between the husband of the victim and the accused. Thereby passed order of conviction in an irregular manner. The learned counsel also pointed out that there several discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The courts below mainly relied on the testimony of PW1 on the premise that, when the modesty of a woman is involved, her statement cannot be disbelieved.

3. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ganja Srinivas v. The State of A.P.1 wherein lenient view was taken after scanning the evidence in a case under Section 354 IPC. The learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana(MANU/SC/1127/2019), wherein a lenient view was adopted in long pending criminal matters. Finally, the learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala(MANU/SC/0918/2003), wherein the Apex Court laid down the relevant criteria for deciding allegations under Section 354 IPC. In paragraphs 8 to 10, the Apex Court held as follows:

                  “8. We shall first deal with the plea about false implication. It is seen that though there were some delay in lodging the FIR, it is but natural in a traditional bound society to avoid embarrassment which is inevitable when reputation of a woman is concerned. Delay in every case cannot be a ground to arouse suspicion. It can only be so when the delay is unexplained. In the instant case the delay has been properly explained. Further, PW-2 is an independent witness and a neighbour of both the accused appellant and PW-1. There is no reason as to why he would falsely implicate the appellant. A charge under Section 354 is one which is very easy to make and is very difficult to rebut. It is not that art of enmity false implications are made. It would however be unusual in a conservation society that a woman would be used as a pawn to wreck vengeance. When a plea is taken about false implication, Courts have a duty to make deeper scrutiny of the evidence and decide acceptability or otherwise of the accusations. In the instant case, both the trial Court and the High Court have done that. There is no scope for taking a different view.

                  9. In order to constitute the offence under Section 354 mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention having such outraged alone for its object. There is no abstract conception of modesty that can apply to all cases. (See State of Punjab v. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63). A careful approach has to be adopted by the Court while dealing with a case alleging outraged of modesty. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are as under:

                  (i) that the person assaulted must be a woman;

                  (ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on her, and

                  (iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.

                  10. Intention is not the sole criteria of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed. A victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her witness should receive same weight. In the instant case after careful consideration of the evidence, the trial Court and the High Court have found the accused guilty. As rightly observed by the Courts below Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Act which deals with assaults or use of force on any woman belonging to scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to or dishonour or outrage her modesty is an aggravated form of the offence under Section 354 IPC. The only difference between Section 3 (1)(xi) and Section 354 is essentially the caste or the tribe to which the victim belongs. If she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, Section 3 (1)(xi) applies. The other difference is that in Section 3 (1)(xi) dishonour of such victim is also made an offence. Section 448 provides for punishment relating to house trespass. In order to sustain the conviction under Section 448 IPC it must be found that the intention of the accused was to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the complainant. There must be unlawful entry and there must be proof of one or other of the intentions mentioned in Section 441 IPC. In the case at hand evidence clearly establishes the commission of offence punishable under Section 448.”

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the sessions case was initiated on the basis of a written complaint lodged by PW1, the victim, alleging the offence under Section 354 IPC against the present petitioner. In the Sessions case, the victim was examined as PW1, her husband was examined as PW2; PWs 3 and 4 are the witnesses who were informed immediately after the incident. PW5 is the Investigating Officer. He further submits that except PW4, all the witnesses supported the prosecution case.

5. It is further submitted that, upon a plain reading of the written complaint lodged by P.W.1, it would be evident that immediately after the incident PW1 informed the same to PWs 3 and 4. The incident occurred in a field. The de facto complainant, in order to avoid further harassment by the present petitioner, proceeded towards her house. On the way, she met PWs 3 and 4 and informed them about the incident. Later, in the evening between 6.00 PM and 6.30 PM, when her husband (PW2) returned home, she informed him about the incident. On the following day, a complaint was lodged at the police station.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that PW1 narrated the entire incident consistently in her testimony. PW2 corroborated her version by stating that PW1 informed him about the incident. PW3 also supported the prosecution case. PW5 conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that although DW1 (accused) alleged previous enmity between him and PW2, no documentary evidence such as a complaint or FIR was produced to substantiate the same. It is further submitted that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the charge against the present petitioner on the basis of the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Both the courts below have thoroughly scanned the evidence on record and addressed the defence raised by the prosecution. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments warranting interference.

7. Upon considering the submissions made by both sides, it appears that the Trial Court convicted the accused and the Appellate Court confirmed the same based on the prosecution evidence. It has been categorically argued before this Court that both the Courts below have never concentrated on the defence version put forth through DW1.

8. In order to consider the defence case, it is necessary to briefly set out the prosecution version as narrated by PW1, which is as follows on 05.03.2006 at about 9.00 AM, while PW1 was watering brinjal garden, the accused approached her and demanded the return of a rope. She replied that she had no knowledge of the rope as it was given to her husband and requested him to verify whether it was available in their castor field situated adjacent to the brinjal garden. The accused went to the castor field and returned stating that the rope was not available. Thereafter, he caught hold of her hand, dragged her towards the castor field, forcibly took her near a rose tree, pushed her down, and attempted to outrage her modesty. P.W.1 resisted and ran some distance. It was further alleged that the accused again attempted to attack her, but she managed and proceeded to home to escape. On her way to home, she informed the incident to P.Ws.3 and 4. Later in the evening, she informed her husband between 6.00 PM and 6.30 PM, and the complaint was lodged on the following day.

9. The defence version, as deposed by DW1, is that during the Dasara festival procession, the accused was carrying a palanquin (pallaki). He did not stop the palanquin (pallaki) near the house of PW2, which resulted in enmity between them. On 05.03.2006, due to such enmity, the accused was allegedly assaulted by PW2 and others, and the accused lodged a report with the police regarding the said incident.

10. Upon considering the statements of both PW1 and DW1, it appears that both parties have narrated incidents alleged to have occurred on the same day. PW1 stated that on 05.03.2006 at about 9.00 AM the alleged incident occurred which attracts an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. On the other hand, DW1 stated that, on the same day at about 2.00 to 2.30 PM he was assaulted by PW2.

11. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala (supra), has observed that in cases under Section 354 IPC, the possibility of false implication due to prior enmity, delay in lodging the FIR, and surrounding circumstances must be carefully examined. The Hon‟ble Apex Court further observed that an allegation under Section 354 IPC is very easy to make and very difficult to disprove, and that where enmity exists, there is a possibility of false implication.

12. However, in the present case, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, upon scanning the evidence, have concluded that the prosecution successfully proved the charge against the petitioner. I reconsidered the observation of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court, while considering the defence evidence of DW1, observed that the alleged Dasara festival takes place in the months of September or October every year, whereas the alleged assault was stated to have occurred on 05.03.2006. Thus, the defence version was found to be improbable. The petitioner contended that enmity arising out of the Dasara procession resulted in a false implication. It is surprising that during the evidence of DW1, no documentary evidence such as an FIR or complaint was produced to substantiate the alleged assault. Further, PW5, the Investigating Officer, deposed that DW1 lodged a report only after PW1 had already lodged her complaint. From taking note of that point, it appears that there is no cross-examination of PW5 by the defence on this aspect. Though the defence was afforded an opportunity to establish false implication (if any), the same was neither properly pursued nor proved.

13. In my view, even though the Trial Court and the Appellate Court did not believe the defence evidence of DW1, it is evident that DW1 failed to establish false implication. The learned Trial Court rightly observed that a woman would not ordinarily approach the police station with an allegation under Section 354 IPC unless such an incident had actually occurred. The delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained, as P.W.1 informed her husband only in the evening and the police station was situated about 18 kilometers away from her residence. In matters involving the dignity of a woman, particularly in village affairs, the family has to take a decision before lodging a complaint. The FIR was lodged on the very next day, and therefore, the delay is not fatal to the prosecution case.

14. Considering the entire evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC are justified and do not warrant interference.

15. However, considering that the incident occurred in the year 2006 and nearly 20 years have elapsed, and further considering that the petitioner has already undergone part of the sentence, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years is modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.

16. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed in part by modifying the judgment dated 14.05.2007 passed in S.C. No.379 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, as confirmed by the judgment dated 25.04.2008 in Crl.A.No.60 of 2007 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool. While the fine and default sentence imposed by the courts below are maintained, the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years is modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The period already undergone during investigation, trial, and appeal shall be set off under the provision of Section 428 CrPC.

17. The revision petitioner shall submit himself immediately before the learned Trial Court to serve out remaining portion of the punishment, failing which the learned Trial Court shall secure his presence and enforce the punishment.

18. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed.