THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.683 of 2007 Date:25.04.2014 Between:
Arasada Narayana Rao . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.683 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 17-05-2007 in Crl.A.No.197/2004 on the file of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram whereunder judgment dated 16-11-2004 in C.C.No.532/2003 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram was confirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellimarla Police Station filed charge sheet alleging that accused and defacto-complainant are residents of Gorlipeta and the house of accused is situated in between the houses of parents & in-laws of the defacto-complainant. Since one year prior to the incident, accused was following the defacto-complainant and stating that he would keep her as his concubine and blackmailing that her daughter was born through him.
On 05-06-2003, at about 8:30 P.M., when the defacto- complainant was taking her bath at her In-Laws house, accused went to the terrace of the building and has thrown pebbles from thereon her and on seeing her mother-in-law, he skipped away from the place and the said dispute was placed before elders and thereafter on the report of victim, police registered Crime No.47/2002 and investigation revealed that accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 509 & 506 (1) IPC. On these allegations, six witnesses are examined and four documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found accused guilty for all the offences charged and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 448 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 509 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 506 (1) IPC and aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session and Principal District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram on a reappraisal of evidence, held that there is no evidence for the offence under Section 506 (1) IPC and acquitted the revision petitioner of the said charge, but confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 448 & 509 IPC. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that the judgments of the Courts below are based on assumptions and presumptions and that there is no positive evidence showing the offences under Sections 448 & 509 IPC. He further submitted that out of six witnesses examined, P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and their evidence suffers from material discrepancies. He further submitted that the alleged incident was on 05-06-2002, but the report was on 17-06- 2002 and this long delay is fatal to the prosecution case. He further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to prove house trespass and both the Courts have wrongly convicted the revision petitioner. He submitted that accused is entitled for acquittal. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the trial Court and appellate Court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings. He further submitted that the delay in lodging F.I.R was due to panchayat and the explanation offered by the defacto-complainant is convincing and both the Courts have rightly accepted.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgments of Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, the accused was harassing and teasing the defacto-complainant since one year prior to the incident and that on 05-06-2003, while P.W.1 was taking bath, the accused went to the terrace portion of their house and from there, the accused has thrown pebbles on her and on seeing the mother-in-law of the defacto-complainant, the accused ran away. To prove these allegations against the accused, victim is examined as P.W.1 and she narrated the incident and spoke to the contents of her report Ex.P1. Her evidence is supported and corroborated by P.Ws.2 & 3 with regard to the conduct of the accused and the previous incidents, where the accused teased P.W.1. Advocate for revision petitioner mainly argued on the ground that there is no possibility for the accused to go to the terrace of the building and both trial Court and appellate Court have not considered this aspect. This objection was raised before the appellate Court and the learned appellate Judge elaborately discussed this aspect in Paragraph No.11 (b) of his judgment and observed that when the accused has a dishonest intention, he can climb the building even without existence of steps.
He observed simply because, there is no evidence to show as to how the accused exactly to went on to the top of the house, on that ground the version of P.W.1 that the accused has thrown pebbles on her from the terrace of the building while she was taking bath cannot be discarded. I do not find any wrong appreciation of the factual aspects by the trial Court and appellate Court in fact evidence on record would clearly disclose that the accused has thrown some pebbles on P.W.1 while she was taking bath. Here P.W.1 is a married woman and this kind of incident normally would not be made public and unless there is intolerance of women- folk, particularly a married woman. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the accused has been harassing her since one year prior to the incident and she has spoken about two or three incidents, therefore, P.W.1 was justified in first placing the matter before elders as there was no yielding results, she gave the report to police as a last resort. So this delay is rightly accepted by the Courts below and I do not find any wrong in appreciation of the evidence both by the trial Court and appellate Court. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that the accused committed offences under Sections 448 & 509 IPC and both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly convicted him. There are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the trial Court on any of the material aspects and on a scrutiny of the evidence on record, I am of the view that judgments of both the Courts are well considered judgments and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
7. The trial Court imposed only fine for the offence under Section 448 IPC and six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 509 IPC. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, facts of the case and the acts committed by the accused, I feel that the trial Court has taken a very lenient view in imposing the sentence, and, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the sentence part.
8. For these reasons, revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the conviction and sentence.
9. The trial Court shall take steps for apprehending the revision petitioner for undergoing unexpired portion of the sentence.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:25.04.2014 mrb