Allowed

T.Srinivas v. State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC13 Feb 2012CRLA/2657/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 354 IPC, the High Court upheld the acquittal and the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine. The court set aside the fine and directed that the period of sentence already undergone be treated as imprisonment, releasing the appellant if not required in other cases.

What did the court decide?

Fine set aside; period of sentence already undergone treated as sentence of imprisonment; appellant released forthwith.

T.Srinivas Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.A.NO.2657 OF 2004

¶2

JUDGMENT:-

¶3

The appeal is filed by the appellant/accused through legal aid questioning the conviction and sentence imposed for the offence under Section 354 IPC by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶4

According to the case of the prosecution, on 16-04-2004 at about 11.15 A.M when PW.1 went to the shop opposite to NIMS, the accused caught hold of her, pushed her down with an intent to outrage her modesty and he was prosecuted for an offence under Section 354 IPC. After considering the evidence on record, the court below has found that the accused guilty of the offence and accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed through legal aid.

¶5

Now the point that arises for consideration is;-

¶6

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned judge is legal and sustainable? POINT:-

¶7

PW.1 is said to be the victim and she is a Doctor by profession. According to her, on 16-04-2004 after completion of shopping she was said to be going to her car and when she was about to enter into the car, the accused came suddenly from behind, fell her down and pushed her. Thereafter, he behaved in barbarous manner and the people who have gathered there caught hold of him and she identified the accused as the person that has committed the offence and Ex.P-1 is the complaint given by her. She also stated that the accused held her on chest portion. She denied the suggestion that the accused fell accidentally on her.

¶8

The evidence of PW.2 clearly goes to show that the accused caught hold of PW.1 and pushed her down and thereafter the accused was apprehended. The evidence of PW.3 also supports the same. The

¶9

evidence of PW.1 clearly goes to show that the accused tried to molest her. There is absolutely no motive for PWs.1 to 4 to speak falsehood against the accused. Unless there is an intention of criminal assault and with an intention to outrage the modesty, there is no reason for the accused to go and caught hold of PW.1 and fell her down. Therefore, it clearly established beyond doubt that the accused has committed the offence under Section 354 IPC.

¶10

So far as the sentence is concerned, the court below has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven(7) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. It is represented that the accused is still in jail and as can be seen from the record though the bail is said to have been granted on 31-12-2004 he was not released.

¶11

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the sentence of fine imposed by the lower court is set aside and the period of sentence he has already undergone shall be treated as the sentence of imprisonment since there are no previous convictions against the accused.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the accused shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other cases.

¶13

___________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J

¶14

13-02-2012 TSNR

T.Srinivas v. State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Srinivas v. State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Food Inspector,Div._Ii,Warangal, Vs Male Ratnasekharam

Pathi Ramanjaneyulu Vs M.Prasanna Lakshmi

Pathi Lakshmi Devi Vs M. Prasanna Lakshmi

The Agriculture Market Committee, Kovur, Vs Balaji Rice Traders, rep. by Gattu Vani

M/s. Saluja Traders, rep. by Managing Partner, Vs M/s. Muniraabad Chemicals Co., rep. by Managing Partner

The Agriculture Market Committee, Kovur, Vs Balaji Rice Traders, rep. by Gattu Vani