Partly allowed

Padam Chinna Bhumanna v. The State of Telangna

Telangana HC12 Jun 2023CRLA/72/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal regarding rape and assault allegations, the Special Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 509 IPC instead of Section 354 IPC due to lack of evidence for actual touching. The High Court set aside the lower conviction for Section 354, convicts for Section 509, and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone due to the appellant's age of 72.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 354 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 509 IPC; sentence reduced to period already undergone.

Padam Chinna Bhumanna Vs The State of Telangna — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

t
I
I
I I !
I
'If I
;
I I
I Note: was
I 1 2021 in Crl.A.No.72of 2O21
i tIt
I .F HI GH li o E YD E RAB AD
i
I
I i. t
MON E TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE
I
iff
TWOr SAND AND TWENTY THREE
I
Ii PRESENT
; I
i Iro E R
i i It
CRIM l lNAl- APPEAL NO:72 OF 2021
Ti
Ap nH Secti (4) of Criminal Procedure Code against the
ld
Judgmen ol 03".02.2021 p in Spl. S.C.No. 7 of 2017 on the file of the Courtof
the S peci i"dlt,o st Tracking the Cases relating to Atrocities against
'i. ,r;f i
Wome Distri d essions Judge at Adilabad.
.t '! t
lb t,
Between
I
Padam C tnn B nna, adpanna aged about 71 years, occ. Agriculture r/o
Badankurthi ue Mandal, Adilabad Diskict.
i ...Appellant (Accrued)
AND
t
The S th tion House Officer, Khanapur Police Station,
Adilabad Di by Pu secutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
!
I ...Respondent ( Complainant)
t1
f
I
Secti PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affid filed of tion,r the High Court may be pleased to suspend the
senteh ce spl. S .7 of 2017 dl. 31212021 on the file of the Special
Sessio ns for ating cities against Women-cum-Vl Addl. District and
Sessio ing disposal of the Criminal Appeal
t.
-l
Counbe llant: llsnwerunnnvnrua
Corrrl"i ;HI IuBLlc PROSECUTOR (TG)
I l
lt" followi UDGMENT:
f'
t
tiil
;;it ffil

¶2

¶3

THE H ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.STIRENI)I R

¶4

UUMINAL^{APPEAL No.72of 2021}

¶5

JU DGMENT:

¶6

Thrs Crrrrrr ral Appeai is filed under Section 372! r cf Code of Crrmrnal^{Pr'rced-re(for} shoft^"Cr.P.C.") to set asi(Je^th€ -udltmeni^of conviction and ;entence imposed on the appellant^{-- ac(.usedin} Spl.S.C.No.z of ,0t7 dated A3.02.2021 on the fil€ ot^learnec Special Sessions JuCger fi r Fast Tracking the Cases relating to Atr()c tie:; agatnst Women-cun-VI I d(litionai District and Sessions Judtye,^Ad labacl

¶7

Heard lea n:d counsel for the appellant anC learnr,'d r\ssistant Public Prosecutor fcr the respondent-State. Perused the^rr:c lrd,

¶8

The^l.acls rf the case of the^prosecution in brief a-e^t.hat on 06.07.2016, wher the^prosecutrix was in her hottse, tlti: al)pellant requested her to ar;sist him in lifting the weight of a bantbro basket. The house of th^,: appellant was situated oppositer to tlter house of prosecutrix and ;i e went to his house with intent .o herlp the appellant.^Then, the appellant allegedly caught hol,J of h:r hand and forcibly dragrged I er into his house with intent to rape herr. PW1 cried for help and on h raring the screams, PW2 who is the neigh.ror rushed to the spot and^.;aved the^prosecutrix from the atpella tt [:or the

¶9

:a7d \ J,1-):

¶10

reason of catching hold of her hand and forcibly dragging her with intent to commit rape, a police complaint was filed. The police having investigated the case filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian penal Code (for short'IPC) and Section 354 of IpC.

¶11

In Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2011, the learned Special Sessions Judge found that none of ingredients of the offence punishable under section 376 0f Ipc was attracted in the facts of the case and further found the appellant guirty of the offence punishabre under section 354 of Ipc and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the said conviction recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge, the appellant approached this Court by filing the present criminal appeal.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and there are many improvements made during the course of trial, for which reason the evidence of pW1 has to be disbelieved and further the witnesses who are^pWs.3 and 4 did not support the case of pWl. Except the interested evidence of pWs.1 and 2, there is no other evidence.

¶13

¶14

On the ot rer hand, learned Assistant Public Prose -Lttor submits that the frndinet if the learned Sessions Judge is on the ba:;is cf record and cannot be^{rr l-erfered} withⁱⁿ the^present appeal.

¶15

As sr,.en li rlrn the evrdence on record, the allegalior is that the appellant cauqh iold of the hand of PW1 and draggec^'rer into his house witlr rirtt nl of committing rape on her. ACnittedly, the appellant is, aqer rrore than 72 years. Even accor,ling t,>^)W [, when the appellant asl e(i for help of lifting the weight of a baslle :, slle went into the housrr r':he appellant. When the case r>f PlVl is that she had voluntarilt/ ! Dne into the house of the appellant, thr: rluestion of the appellant fr: crbly dragging her into the hou:;e dorrs not arise, However. the,lll rgrtion is that the appellant caught hold ol'herr hand. Except the said i r:t of catching hold of her hand antl dr'aggrrg 1er into the house, thc.rr^r; no other act. The act amoults to intrLsion of privacy of a won')T punishable under Section 509 o'' IPC.

¶16

B. In view c,t t1e above, the conviction recorded by tre learned Special Sessrons ludge under Section 354 of IPC is set asirle and the appellant is conv ct:d for the offence punishable under Secl ion 509 of IPC.

¶17

¶18

; I

¶19

i l I I II I I II I i

¶20

However, keeping in view that the appeilant is aged more than

¶21

72 years, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of

¶22

.<br>

¶23

imprisonment to the period already undergone.

¶24

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is parfly allowed. Bail bonds

¶25

shall stand discharged.

¶26

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall standplosed.
i
1 tIi Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR
? I //TRUE COPY//
, (JD
I
I SECTIdN oFFIcER
To
1 rht sI
for Fast Tracking the cases relati ng to Atrocities
ag6in'st -cum-V itional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad District
(withl it
) The aladti MF l, Adilabad District.

¶27

s. irwo cc$irwo cc$

¶28

s. irwo cc$irwo cc$ ic
, High Court of Telangana, tourl
+. i on'e D yana Advocate [OPUC] ,
Jgk5. !Twir 4I pr llf:
!.

¶29

<./

¶30

j, II I II I a I I 1 { :

¶31

Ii I iI I I 1 II I { i i

¶32

i
i
I ;
: i
;
;
I i ]
I
t
rl :Jt, j i
;lil ,l i.;{ III
' ii
i':ij t{I
+s I tIt
HIGH COURftffi1l$ lt i I
DATE D:12106t202i& I
I
,rl I l.l,., I
t qt '!
It il l lt .'I I!I
{: I i
I 11:t i
i + ..i l$
:l t,;t'l I if
iI
: i
I I 1r ; Itt
]
! lil,f II
i rl ;
I ,l.il{
l ,I ,I t
I II
ilil
,II
I
JUDGMENT
fril
, tl
cRLA.No:72 2 021
r 1E,1 s
r,l ffi
lf
iI
il5t,,iiIiL.lAI
#f;It
ii I 1T,i 1
i ,li I I
I
CRIMINAL APP EA[_]ll i trART Y ALLOWING

¶33

.4 -::=:
tli-*,1 5 A rc
,4
(
,
ilB (
4, ( tuL
r,) .t
t /;'
,,,rlC"t)t/
-:;'u)2'

¶34

(JI
do 6 :
SA I <- , III
t- il
t

Padam Chinna Bhumanna v. The State of Telangna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padam Chinna Bhumanna v. The State of Telangna

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

Yelakanti Mallaiah, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Somi Reddy Sampath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Vanamala Sathyanarayana Vs the State of Telangana

Smt Asha Latha and another Vs Sri. Meenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan and another

Meenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan Vs Smt. Asha Latha

Sunitha Bhansali Vs State of Telangana