Partly allowed

Uddagiri Venkaiah, Nalgonda District v. State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024CRLRC/1057/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Section 354 IPC for catching hold of the complainant's hand and attempting to drag her. The court held no intent to outrage modesty was shown, set aside the Section 354 conviction, convicted instead under Section 509 IPC, and reduced sentence to imprisonment already undergone.

What the court decided

AI extract

Uddagiri Venkaiah, Nalgonda District Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[32511

¶2

i i I I I i I i

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶7

CRIMINAL REVI^{SION CASENO:1057 0F 2011}

¶8

Revision filed^{under Section397 & 401 of Cr'PC Aggrieved} 9Y^thg.9t99' andjudgmentinCrl-A.No.53of2008dated23-11.2010onthefileoftheVAddl. Sesiions Judge,^{Nalgonda at Miryalguda}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Uddaoiri Venkaiah,^{S/o.Sambaiay,Age30 years,Occ CoolieR/o Srinivasapuram} (V), H'uzurnagar^(M), Nalgonda^District'

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

State of A.P,^{Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Hon'ble High Court of A P' Hyderabad'}

¶14

...ResPondent

¶15

CRL.RC.MP.^{NO: 1558 OF2011 lN cRL.RC.NO.1057 0F 2011:}

¶16

Petition under^{Section 482 of Cr'P C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the^{affidavitfiled in supportof the peliti-on,the High court may De} pi""*o i"-lrrpend tre^{orJer of the crl.A.No.53of 2008, dated23-11-20'10 on the} fileofthevAddl.sesslons-Judge,NalgondaatMiryalguda,andgrantbarltothe petitioner herein.

¶17

CRL.RC.M^{P. NO: 2025oF 2011 lN cRL.RC.NO.10 57 oF 2011:}

¶18

Petition under^{Section 397 (a) of Cr'P'C praying that in the circumstances} stated in^{the affidavit filed in supportof the petition, the High courtmaybe} pi"r*O i" gtrnt bail^{to the petitioner in S C'No 358 of 2O07of the Asst' Sessions} irot",-rtrirv-rr.guda^{rn crt elNto.sg of 2008of Addl sessions Judge' Nalgondaat} frn'ry1lugral,^{p6ndingCrl.R C., before this Hon'bleCourt'}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI' KUNA REDDY ANJIREDDY}

¶20

Counsel for^{the sole Respondent:PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶21

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDEI( CRIMINALRE vISION CASE No.1057 OF 2011

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cocle of Criminal procedure, 1973 (Ior short ,Cr.p.C.,) by the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.11.2010 in Crl.A.No.53 of 2008 on the file of the learned V Actditional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalguda, confirming the conviction passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Miryalguda in S.C.No.35g of 2007 for the offence punishabre under section 354 of Indian penar code, dated 28.03.2008.

¶25

It is informed that the counsel on record is no more. Accordingly, I have gone through the record and heard the learned Public Prosecutor

¶26

Briefly the case of the prosecution is that revision petitioner caught hold the hancl of pw1, when she was in front of her house and tried to drag her. She shouted for help as such pW] who is her father came out and questioned petitioner/accused as to whv he

¶27

.t..

¶28

caught hold the^{hand of her daughter.He left her hand and fled'} Basing on the complaint^{filed by the complainant, police filed charge} sheet under sections^{323 and354 of IPC.}

¶29

On the basis of the^{evidenceof PW1, trial Court found that no} offence under section^{323 was made out and accordingly, convicted} accused under section^{354 of IPC.}

¶30

The allegation is^{that the accusedcaught hold of her hand and} tried ta drag her^{aside. The victim/PW1does not say that apart from} holding her hand^{and trying to drag her, he did commit any other} acts. Further she did^{not mention that such act of dragging her was} done with an intent^{ta outrage her modesty'}

¶31

For the said reasons,^{the offencefallsundersection 509 of IPC} for intruding upon^{the privacy of PW1. Accordingly the conviction} under section^{354 of IPC is hereby set aside and the appellantis} convicted under^{section509 of IPC and the sentenceof imprisonment} is reduced for the^{period already undergone by him'}

¶32

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed

Sd/- T. SRINIVAS

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at tr/iryalguda.

¶39

The Asst Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda

¶40

Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Ap, Hyderabad (our)

¶41

One CC to SRl. KOONA REDDY ANJ| REDDY Advocate tOpUCl

¶42

Two CD Copres

RC/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0610912024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1057 of 2011

¶48

ACCORDINGLY, THIS CRIMINAL REVISlON CASE IS PARTLY ALLOWED

¶49

u V

Uddagiri Venkaiah, Nalgonda District v. State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Uddagiri Venkaiah, Nalgonda District v. State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madipally Varalaxmi, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

P.Gangamma and 2 Others Vs B.Shekar and Another

Islavath Bulli and 2 Others Vs G. Venkataiah and Another

J Narsimha, R.R.Dist and Others Vs Sombir, Delhi and Others

S.Upendra Radha Krishna Murthy and Another, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Spl.Pp.

MD Shabheer Vs Apsrtc and Another