Allowed

R. Hari John , Arjun, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC9 Nov 2011CRLA/133/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against convictions for outrage of modesty and hurt under Sections 354 and 323 IPC, the Supreme Court acquittal the appellants. The court found that allegations of outrage to modesty were interpolated into the F.I.R. and that the acts constituted possession of hurt without such intent. Convictions were set aside due to inadmissible evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed, setting aside the convictions and sentences against the appellants, and they are acquitted.

R. Hari John , Arjun, Vs The State of A.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.133 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appellants 1 and 2/A1 and A2 were convicted by the lower Court under Section 354 I.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.100/- each; and were also convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and were sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months each in respect of three charges. Questioning the same, A.1 and A.2 filed this appeal.

¶5

PW.1 is a resident of first floor of the building and A.1 and A.2 were occupying different portions in second floor of the same building at New Boyiguda, Secunderabad. PW.2 is mother of PW.1. PW.3 is feancy of PW.1 and he later married PW.1. The offence is stated to have taken place on 26.05.2004 during night. On the same night, PW.1 is stated to have gone to the Police Station with the help of her Advocate and gave report to Gandhinagar Police. On the same night, PWs.1 to 3 who are the injured were stated to have been forwarded by the police to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for examination and treatment. PW.4 is Casuality Medical Officer in that

¶6

hospital who examined PWs.1 to 3 at about 1.40 A.M. on the night of 26/27.05.2004. But the police officers examined as PWs.5 and 6 did not speak of PW.1 coming to the police station on the night of 26.05.2004 and giving report to the police and the police forwarding the injured to Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad. Evidence of PW.5 – Inspector of Police, Gandhinagar Police Station is to the effect that on 27.05.2004 at 11.30 A.M., PWs.1 to 3 came to the police station and PW.1 presented Ex.P.1 return report, on the basis of which he issued Ex.P.5 – F.I.R. PW.6 who took up investigation in this case deposed that already PWs.1 to 3 were sent to Gandhi hospital by Head Constable during intervening night of 26/27.05.2004 at 1.05 hours. It is not known as to how the police sent the injured to hospital for examination and treatment even before registration of the case. It shows that investigation of the case preceded registration of the case. With this basic infirmity in investigation, this case has to be viewed.

¶7

It is alleged in Ex.P.1 and it is evidence of PW.1 that during the course of quarrel, A.1 caught hold of her breasts and tried to hug her and kicked on her abdomen and also caught hold of her hand. It is further alleged that A.2 caught hold of her hand and tried to twist her arm. It is further alleged that A.1 and A.2 also beat PWs 1 to 3 with

¶8

hands and caused injuries to them. The lower Court disbelieved the allegation of A.1 catching breasts of PW.1, on the ground that the said allegation finds place at fag end of first page of Ex.P.1 and that last two lines of first page of Ex.P.1 were subsequently inserted with different ink. It is only in that interpolated portion of Ex.P.1, the allegation of A.1 trying to hug PW.1 is also mentioned. In my opinion, when a portion of the interpolated part of Ex.P.1 is disbelieved by the lower Court, the lower Court should have been consistent in disbelieving the other portion of the interpolated part of Ex.P.1. If A.1’s attempt to hug PW.1 is also disbelieved, then what remains is A.1 catching hand of PW.1 and A.2 twisting arm of PW.1. The question is whether A.1 and A.2 did the said act with an intention to outrage PW.’1 modesty or whether A.1 and A.2 did the said acts with an intention to cause hurt to PW.1. At this stage, genesis of the dispute is to be taken into consideration. PW.3 came to house of PW.1 on that night after 11.00 P.M. in Santro Car. There was pelting of stones by some unknown miscrets on Santro Car parked infront of that building. When PWs 1 to 3 came out of their house, there was quarrel between PWs 1 to 3 on one hand and A.1 and A.2 on the other hand. During the course of the said quarrel, A.1 is stated to have caught

¶9

hold of PW.1’s hand and A.2 is stated to have caught hold of PW.1’s hand and twist her arm and also A.1 and A.2 are stated to have beaten PWs.1 to 3 with hands and caused injuries. The sequence of events disclose that in the heat of quarrel A.1 and A.2 caught hold of PW.1’s hand and twisted her arm with an intention to cause hurt to PW.1. Similarly, A.1 and A.2 are stated to have caused hurt to PW.2 also who is a woman. It is nobody’s case without touching PW.2, the accused caused hurt to her; and it is nobody’s case, that any of the accused intended to outrage modesty of PW.2 also. Since PW.1 happened to be young, nasty allegations of catching hold of her breasts and attempted to hug her were introduced by way of interpolation with ingenious legal advice. Admittedly, Ex.P.1 report was drafted by PW.1’s Advocate – Lakshmi Narasimham. The handicraft of a legal professional is evident in Ex.P.1 to the effect that it contains exaggerations, interpolations and what not. On total reading of the prosecution evidence, I am of the opinion that there was no intention on the part of A.1 and A.2 to outrage modesty of PW.1 and the lower Court did not appreciate evidence in the right direction on this aspect.

¶10

Except Exs.P.2 to P.4 wound certificates/accident register extracts relating to PWs.1 to 3 given by PW.4

¶11

which are hit by Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no material collected during investigation to show that PWs.1 to 3 suffered any injuries during the course of this offence. In fact, Ex.P.1 report is also hit by Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the light of the said inadmissible evidence on record, I find that the lower Court should not have recorded conviction of A.1 and A.2 under Section 323 IPC also.

¶12

In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the convictions and the sentences passed by the lower Court against the appellants 1 and 2 / A.1 and A.2, and acquitting them.

¶13

____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J

¶14

Dt. 9^th November, 2011.

¶15

PNV

R. Hari John , Arjun, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Hari John , Arjun, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bestha Ravindranath, (A-1) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Mohammed Jani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

M.Ramalingeshwar Reddy , M.Rama Rangeshwar Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

Badhavath Bhagwan Naik , Bhagwan , Naik, Vs The State, through Sho., Ps. Gopalapuram, Secunderabad

G.Santosh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Ps., Bollaram

Sandra Sambaiah, Vs The State of A.P.