Partly allowed

Medini Prakash, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Dec 2014CRLRC/1126/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against a conviction under Section 354 IPC for outrage of modesty, the High Court found the prosecution failed to prove specific intent to outrage modesty but established criminal force. The court reconvicted under Section 352 IPC and mitigated the sentence to cover imprisonment already served.

What did the court decide?

Caught set aside; accused convicted under Section 352 IPC; sentence reduced to cover period already served; bail bonds cancelled after further appeal time expires.

Medini Prakash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

Criminal Revision Case No.1126 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the CrPC’ for brevity) by the petitioner/sole accused is directed against the judgment dated 08.11.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Crl.A.No.25 of 2006 confirming the judgment dated 27.02.2006 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad passed in S.C.No.217 of 2005 whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and convicted him under Section 235(2) of the CrPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also pay a fine of Rs.500/- coupled with in default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month.

¶5

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

¶6

3. Now the points for determination are:

¶7

1. Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC?

¶8

2. Whether the petitioner/accused had made out valid and sufficient grounds for his acquittal and setting aside the impugned judgment?

¶9

4. POINTS:

¶10

4. (a) The case of the prosecution, in short, is this: ‘The accused is a resident of Tejapur village. PW1 is the father of PW2. They also belong to the same village. On 13.07.2004, PW2 went to the outskirts of the village i.e., to a place by the side of the field of Chinna Ganga Reddy at about 01:00 PM to answer calls of nature. The accused, who was coming on the way in that area, was noticed by PW2. Therefore, she had stood up. The accused came to her and had caught hold of her hand. She had rescued herself from the accused and started to run. However, when she reached the field of Chinna Ganga Reddy, the accused had caught hold of her and tried to outrage her modesty. When she had raised cries, the accused had closed her mouth and pressed her throat. With some force she had managed to escape from the clutches of the accused and went to her house and informed about the incident to her mother Chinnamma, one Gangamma (PW4), Santhosh (PW3) and Kistareddy. They all went to the field of Chinna Ganga Reddy and found that the accused had fled. On a report given by PW1, the father of the victim girl, a case in crime No.58 of 2004 was registered by the Head Constable (PW5), Neredigonda Police Station. He had examined the witnesses and thereupon visited the scene of offence and had prepared a rough sketch. During the course of further investigation, he had examined further witnesses. Later the Sub Inspector of Police (PW6) took up further investigation. He had verified the investigation done by the Head Constable and had arrested the accused on 22.09.2004 and had obtained orders of remand and had laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.’

¶11

4. (b) During the course of the trial, the above stated witnesses PWs1 to 6 were examined and exhibits P1 to P3 were marked. Exhibit P1 is the report given by PW1 to the police. Exhibit P2 is the FIR and exhibit P3 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. No evidence was adduced on the side of the accused. As already noted, on merits, the

¶12

trial court had found the accused guilty of the offence with which he is charged and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- coupled with in default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the accused and had confirmed the judgment of the trial court in all respects. Therefore, the accused is before this court.

¶13

4. (c) The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused had contended as follows: - ‘The courts below had erred in placing reliance on the interested and discrepant testimonies of PWs1 to 4 and had failed to take note of the fact that the ingredients which are required to constitute the alleged offence are not made out and that the medical evidence is not corroborating the oral evidence and that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that as PW2 is not known to the petitioner prior to the alleged offence the court below ought to have considered the request of the petitioner for conducting identification parade and that the trial court had failed to take note of the contradictions in the evidence, which were brought out in the cross examination of the witnesses, and that there is rivalry between the parties even prior to the alleged incident and that the prosecution failed to prove its case as required under law much less beyond reasonable doubt.’

¶14

4. (d) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had contended that even according to the defence there is prior enmity between the two families and that the parties belong to the same village and that therefore, the contention that PW2 has no prior acquaintance with the accused is a contention which cannot be countenanced and that the testimonies of PWs1 to 4 which are consistent and the medical evidence which supports the evidence of the victim coupled with other circumstances brought out on record are sufficient to hold that the

¶15

prosecution had brought home the guilt of the accused for the charge framed against him and that the courts below have properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and that no grounds are made out by the accused for interfering with the well reasoned concurrent findings of the courts below.

¶16

4. (e) Coming to the question as to whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC by adducing necessary and required standard of evidence, the oral and other evidence on record deserves examination. PW2, the victim, in her evidence had stated about the incident that had happened one year ago in the field of Ganga reddy when she went to that place to answer calls of nature. She had deposed that the accused came over there, caught hold of her hand and she got herself relieved from his hands and rushed towards the house but the accused came behind her and caught hold of her neck and that when she tried to raise cries, he had closed her mouth. According to her testimony, the accused did so with a view to spoil her character and outrage her modesty. She further deposed about her informing about the said incident to her parents and then about reporting of the matter to the police. PW3 in his evidence had stated that on 13.07.2004 he found PW2 in weeping condition and that at that time she had informed to him about the offence and that thereafter he had accompanied the mother and aunt of PW2 and Kishtareddy to the place of offence but the accused was not available there. PW4 had stated that about one year ago PW2 (the victim) went to attend calls of nature to the field of China Gangareddy and that at that time the accused caught hold of PW2 and pressed her neck and that on that PW2 had raised cries and that he had rushed to that place but the accused had run away. PW5 is the Head Constable who had registered the crime and examined some of the witnesses and prepared exhibit P3 rough sketch of scene of offence after

¶17

visiting the scene. PW6 is the investigating officer who had continued the investigation and verified the investigation already done by PW5 and laid the charge sheet. There are no important points gained in the cross examination of these witnesses except saying that there is previous enmity and that the victim girl does not know the accused prior to the incident and that in the absence of identification parade her evidence identifying the accused in the open court cannot be accepted and that therefore, the evidence is not sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. PW1 is the father of the victim who lodged the report. He had stated that one Jamal Patwari of Kanugutta village had drafted the exhibit P1 report but whereas PW3 had stated that he had drafted the report which was presented by PW1 to the police. Similarly PW1 in his evidence had stated that by the time his daughter came to his house, he was present in the house. PW2 also had stated that by the time she reached the house her father was in the house. But PWs.3 and 4 in their evidence had stated that PW1 was not present when PW2 came to the house from the scene of offence. In the well considered view of this court, in the light of the direct evidence, these minor discrepancies which are not material are not going to dislodge the prosecution case that was established by cogent and consistent evidence of the witnesses. The person who drafted the exhibit P1 and the presence of PW1 at the house by the time PW2 reached the house after the offence are not of significance as in the case on hand, the offence took place at 01:00 P.M on 13.7.2004 and the report exhibit P1 was given to the police at 18:00 hours on the same day without any delay. Further, the evidence of PW3 is corroborative in the nature; and PW4 made enquiries with PW2 immediately after the incident when he had found that she was weeping. Therefore, the discrepancies pointed out by the defence are of no avail. Coming to the delay in recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses by the investigating officer, in spite of the fact that there is a long gap of one

¶18

year in doing so, the said delay is also immaterial as the complaint was promptly lodged with the name of the accused and the witnesses had deposed consistently about the incident and the involvement of the accused. Coming finally to the aspect of not conducting the identification parade for the identification of the accused despite a request made by him in that regard, what is to be noted is that PWs1 and 2 are residents of Tejapur and the offence took place in the same village near the field of Chinna Gangareddy. Accused also belongs to the same village. It is also the defence of the accused that there is rivalry between him and the family of PW1. Therefore, the question of conducting an identification parade does not arise more so when the victim, against whom the accused had committed the alleged acts, having seen him had identified him and mentioned about the incident to the elders after returning home from the scene of offence and also to PW2 who has seen her in weeping condition immediately after the incident. Therefore, when the offender is not an unknown person to the victim and as the name of the offender also finds place in the FIR, giving any benefit of doubt to the accused on account of not conducting the identification parade does not arise. The evidence on record is no doubt sufficient to come to a safe conclusion that the accused used criminal force against PW2. But the further question that remains to be answered is as to whether the accused had an intention to outrage her modesty and whether there are any circumstances to come to a conclusion that the accused did not have the intention to outrage the modesty of PW2. Though PW2 had stated in her evidence that the accused committed overt acts stated by her with an intention to outrage her modesty, the said statement is made for the first time during her evidence and in her earlier statement or in the report, she did not state that the accused had an intention to outrage her modesty and that the same is an improvement in her evidence given before the court. Therefore, the said aspect in her evidence cannot be given credence being an after thought and an improvement. As rightly pointed

¶19

out by the learned counsel for the accused the evidence of PW2, the victim, would show that the accused used criminal force and touched her hand and throat but did not touch any of her private parts and did not outrage her modesty by doing anything else other than touching her hand and neck and that therefore, it is possible to come to a conclusion that the accused used only criminal force but had no intention to outrage her modesty and also did not outrage her modesty in the subject incident. Viewed thus, this court finds that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to hold that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence of using criminal force but not for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC with which he is charged. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the accused that he is entitled to a clean acquittal but there is merit in the contention that the prosecution could not prove the ingredients of Section 354 of the IPC but only proved that the accused criminal force against PW2. Therefore, the accused is accordingly found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 352 of the IPC and is convicted of the said offence. The points are accordingly answered partly in favour of the accused.

¶20

5. The learned counsel for the accused had alternately contended that in case this court comes to the conclusion that the accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to one already undergone. In support of the said plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused had pointed out that at the time when the offence was committed, the accused was 22 years of age and that by now a long time had elapsed and there are no disputes between the families as of now and that they are amicably living in the village and that there are no previous convictions or criminal antecedents insofar as the accused is concerned and that therefore, it is just and fair to reduce the sentence of

¶21

imprisonment to one already undergone. He would further submit that the accused is a married man and is having wife and children and that if he is directed to undergo long sentence of imprisonment not only his prospects but also the prospects of his family members would be affected and that his entire future would be ruined. However, this Court found the accused guilty only of the offence punishable under Section 352 of the IPC.

¶22

6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. While holding that the accused is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and while setting aside the conviction of the accused for the said offence, this court finds the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 352 of the IPC. Since the maximum sentence for the said offence is three months and as the accused had already undergone a sentence of imprisonment for a period of more than three months suffice if it is observed that the imprisonment to the extent of three months already undergone would meet the requirement of law. It was submitted that the fine amount was already paid and that the accused is now on bail. Accordingly, the bail bonds of the petitioner/ accused shall stand cancelled after the further appeal/revision time is over.

¶23

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

¶24

____________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶25

04^th December 2014 Vjl

Medini Prakash, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medini Prakash, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

K.Narasimha Chary, (a-2), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Narasimha Chary,(A-2) Vs State of A.P.

Sura Venkata Ramanamma Vs Soda Venkateswara Achari

G.Eswaramma Vs The State of A.P.

M.a.Saleem Vs The State of Ap.

Gugloth Babu, S/o. Shankar Vs State of Telangana