Gajula Veeranna v. The State Of Telangana
[ 32sl ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 133 of 202'l CriminalAppealU/s374(2)otCr.P.CagainsttheJudgmentdated02.03-2021 made in s.c.No.154 of 2019 on the file of the court of the special Judge for Fast Tracking of cases relating to Atrocities against women-cum-lX Additional sessions Judge, Warangal.
Between:
GAJULAVEERANNA,S/oBixam,Aged3Tyears,occ.Agricutlure,Rl/oKuravi Village & Mandal, Mahabubabad District.
...AppellanUAccused AND TheStateofTelangana,ThroughStationHouseofficer,KuraviPoliceStation, nep. OVFuUfic Pro6ecuior, HigH Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad' ..'ResPondenUComPlainant IANO:1OF 2O21 PetitionunderSection3Sg(1)ofCr.P.C,prayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl t9y- q9 pi"ii"a to suspend the sentence imposed in Sessions Case No. 154 of 2019 dt. oz-ol-zozlonthefiletheSpecialJudgeforFastTrackingofCasesRelatingto Atrocities Against Women-cum-lX Adaitional Sessions Judge' Warangal and release the Fetitioner on the bail pending disposal of the above criminal Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI MAHADEV ANYAMRAMBHATLA Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRTMINAL APPEAL No.133 of2O2L JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the accused aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for Fast tracking ol Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-lX Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Sessions Case No. 154 of 2Ol9 dated 02.03.2021 for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.3,O0O/-. Heard.
.,\) Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that when PWl was watering the cotton field in their village at about 2.00 p.m., the appellant went there, caught hold of her hand and tried to rape her. At that point of time, she was alone in the field and shouted for help. Her husband-Pw2 rushed to the said place and on seeing him, the accused fled. Accordingly, complaint was filed. 4.
The complaint was investigated and charge sheet was filed under sections 354 and 376 r/w.511 of Indian Penal Code
5.
The learned Sessions Judge having examined pWs. I to 9 and marking Exs.Pl to p8 found that the offence under Section 376 r/w.571 of IPC was not made out. However, the accused is convicted for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian penal Code.
6.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that a fa,lse case is filed against the appellant with a delay of nearly 24 hours. It is highly improbable that no villagers were present in day time i.e. around 2.00 p.m. The question of pWl_ victim being alone at that time does not arise. In fact there is a road adjoining the fields, which is busy. For the said reasons, since the allegations are highly improbable, the appeal has to be allowed 7.
On the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor submits that the victim-pW t has clearly stated that the appellant went to the fields and tried to commit rape, for which reason, the appeal has to be dismissed.
8.
PWl-victim stated that the appellant went to the fields and caught hold of her hand. Apart from the said allegation of catching hold of her hand, the victim-pWl had not stated as to
what transpired or what happened after the appellant had caught hold of her hand. Further, it is not stated by PWl as to what was done by the appellant after holding her hand and what she meant by 'trying to rape her'. No other acts of the appellant are stated, except for catching hold of the hand. From the evidence it can be inferred that either the gestures or the approach of the appellant, the victim had an apprehension that the appellant had caught hold of her hand to rape her. 9.
To attract an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, using criminal force or assault intending to outrage the modesty, are the ingredients. Forcibly catching hold of the hand or making any kind of gestures which the victim had sensed that it was done to outrage her modesty, would suffice to attract Section 354.
10. However, keeping in view that apart from catching hold of the hand, the appellant had not done any other acts as narrated by PW l-victim, this Court deems it appropriate to convict the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction under Section 354 of the Indian penal code is hereby set aside and the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 509 of the Indian penal Code and sentenced to pay additional fine of Rs.20,ooo/-. If the appellant/accused fails to pay the fine of Rs.20,000/- within one (1) month from the date of this order, he shali undergo three (3) months Simple Impiisonment.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shal1 stand clo sed.
SD/.K.SRINIVASA JOINT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION O FICER To,
1. The Special Judge for Fast Tracking of Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-lX Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal2. The Station House Officer, Kuravi Police Station, Warangal.
3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)
4. One CC to SRI MAHADEVANYAMRAMBHATLA, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CD Copies kamY{
HIGH COURT DATED:1411212023 16E STAI€ q I J[\l ?t1[
JUDGMENT
oo .5 .< i CRLA.No.133 of 2021 * DES P,!f THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED K.,{4'4 \n, \2 'r)