THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1422 of 2006 Date:20.01.2014 Between:
Mala Abisalam . 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.1422 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 15-06-2006 in Crl.A.No.86 of 2005 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal whereunder judgment dated 30-08-2005 in Sessions Case No.205 of 2004 on the file of Principal Assistant Judge, Nandyal was confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
The accused is a resident of Kothapalli Village of Nandyal Mandal. Victim-P.W.1 is originally native of Pandurangapuram got married to Nakka Chinnaiah of Kothapalli and since eight years prior to the incident residing with her husband in Kothapalli Village. Victim is mother of three sons and eking out livelihood by doing cooli work. House of the accused is opposite to the house of husband of victim.
On 22-02-2004, husband of the victim and her father-in-law went to Nandipalli Village and her mother-in-law went out to bring grass for the cattle. While victim was cooking food, at about 11:00 A.M., the accused trespassed into the house and caught hold of her waist on which victim raised cries, and on hearing the same, Nakka Raju (P.W.2) and Chandravathamma came to the house of victim who noticed the accused running away from the house. After her husband’s return from Nandipalli Village, a report was given to police and on investigation, it is found that the accused committed offences under Sections 448 and 354 IPC. Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and documents Exs. P1 to P3, found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 448 and 354 IPC and sentenced him to suffer three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 354 IPC and six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 448 IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, accused preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions and III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by which, the present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The main contention of the Advocate for revision petitioner is that there are several disputes between the family of accused and family of victim and on account of the same this case is foisted. The other contention of the accused is that there is a delay of three days in giving the complaint, which is not explained by the prosecution and that the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any other evidence and the benefit of all these aspects be given to the accused. On the other hand, it is the contention of the prosecution that delay was due to the non availability of the husband of victim in the village on the date of the incident and the same is explained. With regard to family disputes, the contention of the prosecution is that there is no evidence to substantiate the said plea of the accused.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the Courts below are legal, correct and proper?
6. Point:- It is a case of house trespass and outraging the modesty of the women. Here accused is a known person and he is residing opposite to the house of the victim. According to prosecution, the incident was at about 11:00 A.M., on 22-02-2004, when P.W.1 the victim was alone in the house. One of the argument of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is that nothing is whispered in the evidence about the presence of children of P.W.1 and therefore the contention of the prosecution that P.W.1 was alone in the house cannot be accepted. No doubt P.W.1 has not stated anything about her children at the time of alleged incident and she only stated about her husband, her father-in-law and mother-in-law. It is in the evidence that P.W.1 is a married women and by the date of incident, she has got three children. From the evidence, it is also clear that marriage of P.W.1 was about 8 years prior to the incident. P.W.1 is cross-examined on behalf of accused, but nothing was elicited from her about the presence of her children. When it is the specific case of prosecution that the accused committed the offence when P.W.1 was alone, which is proved through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is for the accused to elicit during evidence as to the presence of some other inmates in the house and without doing any such exercise, it is not open to the accused to contend at revisional stage about the presence of children.
7. One of the contention of the revision petitioner is that due to family disputes, he is falsely implicated. This plea is raised before the trial Court and appellate Court. Both the Courts, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 held that the objection of revision petitioner is not tenable.
Here P.W.2 is an independent witness, who deposed on hearing the cries of P.W.1, he came to her house and noticed the accused running away. As rightly observed by the appellate Court there is no necessity for P.W.2 to speak falsehood for the alleged family disputes of victim family and accused family. There is no evidence on behalf of accused to support his contention that he is falsely implicated. If the accused is not guilty and has not committed any wrong thing, there is no necessity for accused to run away on seeing P.W.2. P.Ws.1 & 2 are cross-examined on behalf of accused. Nothing is elicited from them to doubt their testimony. From their evidence, it is clearly established that the accused was found at the place of incident on 22-02-2004 around 11:00 A.M and from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that accused caught hold of her waist when she was cooking food. Both the trial Court and appellate Court have elaborately discussed evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and held that all the three stood for the cross-examination and their evidence remained unshaken in spite of cross- examination. I do not find any wrong appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 by the trial Court and the appellate Court. So the contention of the revision petitioner that he is falsely implicated cannot be sustained.
8. The next objection of the revision petitioner is that there is a delay of three days in lodging F.I.R and the same is not explained. This plea was also raised before the appellate Court and the trial Court and both the Courts clearly held that prosecution has given a reasonable and sustainable explanation. According to prosecution as the husband of victim was away from the village, report was not immediately given and only after return of husband of P.W.1, complaint is given to police. When P.W.1 specifically stated that her husband was not in the village on the date of incident and he only came back on 25-02-2004, except putting suggestion nothing is placed before the Courts below to show that husband of P.W.1 was in the village. So in the absence of any such evidence, the explanation offered by the prosecution for the delay is quite reasonable and acceptable. Both the Courts rightly observed that prosecution has properly explained the delay and I do not find any wrong appreciation of the facts. On a over all scrutiny of the evidence on record, I am of the considered view that both the Courts rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a correct conclusion and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
9. For these reasons, it is held that there are no grounds to interfere and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
11. The trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of the accused for undergoing unexpired portion of the sentence.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Criminal Revision case shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:20.01.2014 mrb