Kamidi Durga Prasad v. State Of Telangana And Another
?, NOTE: The AppellanU Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High court dated. 01.03.2021 in l.A.No.2 of 2021 in crl.A.No.77 ot 2o21
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTHREE PRESENT ,.THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER fr,tl:.Li ., .S ii !j(,,1, i/ ,r'i,i , ,.
RIMINAL,APPEALINO: 77 OF 2021 ' I Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment -. dated.08/02l2D21 made in S.C.No 7O2 of 2018 on the file of the court of the Fast +rTidak Special Judge for trial of cases under Pocso Act-Cum-lX Additional District {,rI:
. i i:-;a.i '
Lf;
and Sessions Judge (FTC), R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. Between:.
Kamidi Durga Prasad, Son of Pusalaiah, Aged 21 years, Occupation: Student, . . Resident oI H.No.8-z-t 0/101, Adarsh Colony, Hanuman Temple, Katedan' '"' Mailardevpally, Ranga Reddy District.
APPELLANT/ACCUSEO l AND 1 . State of Hyderabad Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, .2.,. Kumari Chintala Shivani, Daughter of Venkatesh, aged 18 Years' Occupation: '
Student,', Resident of Brundavan Colony, Mailardevpally, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
...RESPONDENTS/VICT!M !
;., 1A NO: 3 OF 2021 'Petition under Section 320(6) CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the parties herein to compound the offence of 354 -D (1) of l.P.C. and section 12 of POCSO Act.
!.A.NO: 4 OF Petition under Section 320(2) CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise in terms of memorandum of understanding dll.2810312021 and dispose the above CRL.A.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. C N MOORTY counsel ror ttr6 RlSp'onaerit tt'6.t : sRl 'ADDL! pUBLtc pRosEcuToR ,q :{ { ..,:- r i-- -. , t Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri.i M PHANI KUMAR ' The Court made the following: ORDER T Ii t.
j t, r.
S.r'# !ltt .-* :,fr .T ,,,l ',i031;' I ';tn}il+ i\1'r s + !
t.j a t ii,,., $ tin 1.,, 't.
-:| ;1 t ;irr :r " .+ ,f{r-r.,.* , , - h,{ix{ifF;- - ''i ""'.'Jj'
, l:'1'1,,{ '
-6-.irr-rr.
ffi 'IrF,.("ti *#, { ,irigtt:
;i-++ a iilul .. t-i:
b;'. t.
. r r'Si JI.F ..i ri ^r;rri& ; ..:1 r-.:a* J.
t +i E,.i.
.i.
''
11- )
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.77 OF 2O2L ORDER:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act-cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, 1n Sessions Case No.7O2 of 2Ol8 dt.Oa.O2.2O21, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D (2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 354-D(21 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a hne of Rs.SOO/- for the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that this appellant was following PW2 victim girl while she was studying X class in the year 2018. While going to school, the appellant used to follow
rc .\ her and insisted to give the phone number of the victim. He further insisted to love her. The said constant following was informed to the Police by PW2. They asked the accused not to follow her, however, the appellant did not stop. On 14.03.2018, while returning home from tuition on the way, near Madhu Chicken Centre, the appellant insisted to give her phone number and love him and pulled her bag. The victim went to her house weeping and informed the same to the mother. Vexed with the said conduct of the appellant, a complaint was lodged which is Ex.P1 4.
The Police investigated the case and hled charge sheet. During the course of trial, the Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 354-D(2) and Section 12 of POCSO Act and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment under each count.
5.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there are several discrepancies regarding the version given by PW2. The specilic narration of the incident is on 14.03.2018 which resulted in the complaint. However, the appellant being questioned on the road or being apprehended and handed over to the Police are all subsequent improvements. In the
background of such improvements, the version stated by PW 1 and PW2 cannot be considered.
6.
On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the appellant was constantly following and ti harassing the victim girl. It squarely attracts the offence for which he is convicted.
7.
The appellant was following the victim girl and asking for telephone number. He was also insisting to love him. Such ) ( constant following and insisting the victim girl to love him would fall within the definition of sexual harassment. The sexual intent of the appellant is appa-rent from his conduct, 8.
Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner was aged 19 years when the alleged incident had taken place. He is a teenager and he has lot of future. He is the only son and since there is no physical contact even according to the victim girl, this Court may consider reduction of sentence. 9 .
The allegation is that he was constantly following PW2. However, at no point of time, did the appellant tried to make physical contact with the victim girl. Keeping in view the age of the appellant, and also his future, this Court deems it
appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/. B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR v SECTION OFFICER \ /TTRUE COPY// To,
1. The Fast Track Special Judge for trial of cases under Pocso Act-Cum-lx Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), R'R'District at L.B.Nagar,Hyderabad.(with records if any)
2. ihe Sta-tion HouseOfficer, Mailardevpally Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.
g. i*o cc, to the public prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) '
,.,. +. one cc to SRt,,i N MooRTYrAdvocate [oPucli:i5.I?One CC to SrilM PHANI KUMAR'rAdvo'cate [OPUC] ' 6. -Twq CD CoPies 'i ',} .t' - | ^i pr '.j.
5+ '!"
Is.
t, rl -.:-i - . i
HIGH COURT DATED:.24l1112023, , t'
:
r..l' .lt li'
t, rf, -'1 j-'
OnOgn :
,i'
CREA:No77 6f 2021 gE ST41e !
ir q o a JAN ' i' .. . -\. tL ''i_ I:F 1, s.
'_r'--.i... :. 1'
'j':..'
* :l ti c;
t .s PAT C',1gC .)l ) ; ..t, .:
.:r1 ..i ir"
t_1, ,;
phRruy,;euISOWING {il!:
.;B -t oli;
'.;:
Y1r_ 1THEiCRI#APP EAt-{i*,:
i"i i.t.i;, ,r).., alr :.'. .l ii: - '
,:... - ,,_ :-'ijl ..il '.- :1 .t :'. ,', .".
.iL ir- .li:r:, C , :, -r'd'i::
1.1 li '- :t "
t!
'r..r{ :
."x.'-i ;..$ :f1 ." ..