Miss B.Soujanya Vs T.Appa Rao & State

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the judgment of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2001, dt.17-2-2004 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopeta in SC.No.534 of 2000 dt.9-1-2001 convicting the appellant.

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2004(CRLMP 5365 OF 2004

¶17

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 condone the delay of 52 days in filing the Crl.R.C. against the judgment of

¶18

2

¶19

learned VII^th Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.A.No.23/2001 dt.17-2-2004 and pass.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.-

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

2.B CHINNAPA REDDY

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶26

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 17.02.2004, passed in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2001 by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur (for short, ‘the 1^st Appellate Court), whereby the 1^st Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the leaned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopeta (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) in S.C.No.534 of 2000, dated 09.01.2001, which had convicted the respondent No.1/accused for the offences under section 354 and 323 of IPC.

¶27

2. By its judgment dated 09.01.2000 in S.C.No.534 of 2000, the Sessions Judge convicted the accused and imposed the following sentences: (i) Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 5 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 3 months for the offence under Section 354 of IPC; (ii) RI for 3 months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC; both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal, the 1^st Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 17.02.2004 in Crl.A.No.23 of 2001, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the accused by the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner (PW.1) / defacto complainant filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶28

3. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶29

3

¶30

4. A letter was received from the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, indicating that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Atchampet Police Station, filed a memo stating that the de facto complainant’s father submitted a letter wherein he mentioned that he had contacted his daughter, who is currently residing in America with her husband after marriage, over the phone, and she expressed her intention to withdraw the case.

¶31

5. It appears from the report submitted by the District Legal Services Authority indicates that the revision petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the revision any further.

¶32

6. Upon perusal of the material on record, including the judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2001 and the judgment in S.C.No.534 of 2000, it is observed that the 1^st Appellate Court, in paragraph No.13, recorded specific findings to set aside the conviction under Section 354 of the IPC. The 1^st Appellate Court noted that the essential ingredients of the offence, particularly the intention of the accused to outrage the modesty of PW.1, were absent in the present case. The 1^st Appellate Court also pointed out inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, specifically observing that PW.1 did not state that the accused had closed her mouth when she raised a huge cry. Furthermore, the 1^st Appellate Court noted that PWs.2 and 3 introduced similar assertions during trial without prior mention, raising doubts about the credibility of their version. After assigning cogent reasons, the 1^st Appellate Court arrived at the conclusion that the accused could not be held guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, and 6, the 1^st Appellate Court further observed that, while they attempted to apprehend the accused, he pushed them aside, but did not cause any injuries to PWs.1, 3, or 6. The 1^st Appellate Court rightly concluded that there was no criminal intention on the part of the accused to cause injuries. This Court, upon careful examination of the record, finds no infirmity in the 1^st Appellate Court’s appreciation of the evidence.

¶33

4

¶34

7. Furthermore, the reports submitted by Station House Officer, Atchampet Police Station, and the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, clearly indicate that the revision petitioner is not willing to prosecute this Criminal Revision Case any further. In view of the above material on record, this court is inclined to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

¶35

8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed .

¶36

Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

_______________________

¶38

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

¶39

Date: 04.08.2025 M K K / S A K

¶40

5