Partly allowed

Gujjala Syam Prasad v. State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC21 Dec 2012CRLRC/2047/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision, the High Court set aside the conviction under Section 354 IPC as prosecution failed to prove intention to outrage modesty, acquitting the accused. The Court upheld the conviction for intimidation under Section 506(2) IPC but remitted the sentence to the period already undergone, maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal on Section 354 charge; conviction on Section 506(2) IPC upheld but sentence reduced to period undergone; fine maintained.

Gujjala Syam Prasad Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

Crl.R.C.No.2047 of 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

This revision is directed against the judgment,

¶5

dated 07.12.2004, passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru in Crl.A.No.90 of 2003, wherein the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru, vide judgment dated 08.04.2003 in S.C.No.604 of 2001, was confirmed and modified.

¶6

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

¶7

One month prior to the date of complaint i.e., 11.04.2001, the petitioner-accused teased the victim girl-P.W.1 and misbehaved with her in an indecent manner on the pretext of love. On one day, when P.W.1 was cleaning utensils in her house, he jumped from the wall, entered into the backyard, caught hold of her hands and asked her to come along with him, thereupon, she raised hue and cry, then the accused escaped from that place. Because of the harassment and indecent behaviour of the accused, the family of P.W.1 shifted their residence. Again on 11.04.2001 at 6.00 PM, the accused entered into the house of P.W.1, caught hold of her hands and tried to drag her out by outraging her modesty, then P.Ws.3 and 4, the mother and sisterin-law of P.W.1, came to her rescue, the accused fled away saying that he will kill her and also kill the person to whom she is going to marry. On a report given by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.107

¶8

of 2001 under Sections 354 and 506(2) IPC was registered against the accused. On 13.04.2001, the police arrested the accused. After recording the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet.

¶9

3. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. D.W.1 was examined on behalf of the defence, but no document was marked.

¶10

4. The learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 354 and 506(2) IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 354 IPC and further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 506(2) IPC. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.A.No.90 of 2003 and the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction, but modified the sentence of imprisonment by reducing from five years to two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 354 IPC, and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 506(2) IPC, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court under both counts. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused filed

¶11

the present revision.

¶12

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶13

6. From a perusal of the evidence of material witnesses, i..e, P.Ws.1,3 and 4, who were present in the house at the time of incident, it is evident that the accused tapped the door of their house, P.W.3, the mother of P.W.1, opened the doors and then, accused forcibly entered into the house, caught hold of the hand of P.W.1, dragged her out to come along with him and also threatened to kill her if she marries anyone else except him, then P.Ws.3 and P.W.4, came to the rescue of P.W.1 and pushed out the accused from their house and bolted the doors from inside. From this, it can be inferred that the accused with an intention to marry P.W.1 came to her house, dragged her out, but he has no intention to outrage her modesty as such the prosecution has not established the necessary ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC and accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner for the said offence are set aside and consequently, the petitioner is acquitted for the said charge.

¶14

7. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(2) IPC is concerned, the material witnesses have categorically stated that the accused threatened P.W.1 that he would kill her and also the person whom she proposed to marry. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below as regards the conviction for the said offence. But however,

¶15

in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a considerable period and as it is informed to the Court that the petitioner as well as the victim girl has married different persons and leading marital life, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate Court for the offence under Section 506(2) IPC is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the said Court.

¶16

8. With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

__________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 21^st December, 2012 sj

Gujjala Syam Prasad v. State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gujjala Syam Prasad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Raveendra Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

S. Rajitha, Vs Narahari Laxmi Reddy

Koripalli Venu Babu Vs State of A.P

Myakala Laxma Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Krishak Bharathi Cooperative Ltd., Vs The State of A.P.

T. Swathi, Vs D. Bala Krishna