THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1200 of 2006 Date:20.01.2014 Between:
Yerroni Yellaiah . 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.1200 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 27-06-2006 in Crl.A.No.65 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak at Siddipet whereunder judgment dated 28-04-2006 in S.C No. 308 of 2005 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sioddipet, Medak District was confirmed.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- Accused is a resident of Tadkapalli Village of Siddpet Mandal. Victim is a student of 13 years old and resident of same village. On 25-02-2005, at about 5:00 P.M., when the victim was alone in her house, the accused went there, caught hold of the hands of the victim and gave Rs.500/- and asked her to satisfy his lust and the victim being scared with the attitude of the accused, ran away and intimated the incident to her mother after her return to home. On a report given to the police, S.I of Police, Siddipet investigated the case, which revealed that the accused with an intention to outrage the modesty of P.W.1, went to her house and caught hold of her hands and thereby liable for punishment for the offence under Section 354 IPC. Learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and documents Exs.P1 & P2 and Exs.D1 to D3, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to suffer five years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused preferred appeal and IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak at Siddipet, after reassessing the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that there is a delay of two days in lodging the First Information Report and the same is not properly explained. Advocate for revision petitioner contended that there are disputes between the accused family and victim family and there are pending cases in view of that delay plays a vital role, but the Courts below failed to consider this aspect. According to Advocate for revision petitioner, there are contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 & 5 on important material aspects, but the Courts below failed to consider them. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned Public Prosecutor that the delay is properly explained and the same is accepted by the trial Court and the appellate Court. He further submitted that except contending that there are family disputes, no evidence is produced to substantiate the same and that prosecution duly proved the charge of 354 IPC against the accused and both the Courts rightly accepted the prosecution evidence.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the impugned Judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, the incident was occurred on 25-02-2005, at about 5:00 P.M. Admittedly, both accused and victim are of the same village and victim is a student aged about 13 years on the date of incident. From the evidence, it is clear that accused resides opposite to the house of victim. P.W.1 is victim. P.W.2 is mother of the victim. P.W.3 is a relative of victim and P.Ws.4 to 6 are villagers. P.W.7 is the investigating officer. Ex.P1 which is the basis for registering F.I.R was given on 27-02-2005 at 5:00 P.M.
In the report itself reasons are given for the delay. According to prosecution, mother of the victim returned back home around 8:00 P.M and after consultation with her kith and kin, went to the accused next day and questioned him and that there was some panchyat before the elders and as it was not materialised, a report was given. P.Ws.1 to 6 have supported this version and both the Courts accepted the same. I do not find any wrong acceptance by the Courts below, because in villages, it is quite common to place the matter before the elders and only as a last resort, they do approach police. When the independent witnesses P.Ws.4 to 6 stated that there was some attempt from the mother of victim on 26-02-2005, giving report on the next day is quite natural and there is nothing unanatural in it. Both the Courts, after discussing the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, rightly held that prosecution explained the delay properly. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the Courts below on delay aspect.
7. One of the contention of the revision petitioner is that there are family disputes between his family and the family of victim and for that reason he is falsely implicated. Except taking a plea, nothing is placed before the Court to support the plea that he was implicated due to family disputes. Admittedly, no one is examined on behalf of accused and no material is elicited during cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 6 to show that present criminal case is the result of family disputes without any such evidence, the contention of revision petitioner cannot be accepted and both the Courts rightly rejected the said plea.
8. The other contention of revision petitioner is that both the Courts failed to consider material contradictions elicited during corss-examination of P.Ws.2, 3 & 5. During cross-examination of P.Ws.2, 3 & 5, one contradiction is marked as Exs.D1, D2 & D3 respectively. These three witnesses denied to have stated before the police that it is felt not proper to go to the accused after 8:00 P.M., on the date of incident as it was late in the night. This contradiction is considered by the Courts below and held that it is not very material and it is only minor. On a scrutiny of the evidence on record with reference to the facts of the case, I feel that both the Courts rightly observed that the contradictions under Exs.D1 to D3 are not material and they are only minor contradictions. So the contention of the revision petitioner that the Courts below went wrong in not accepting Exs.D1 to D3 cannot be sustained.
9. From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the accused, since three days prior to the incident, expressing his intention and asking P.W.1 to satisfy his lust and finally on 22- 02-2005, he kept 500 rupee note in the hands of P.W.1 and asked her to satisfy his lust on which P.W.1 ran away and informed the incident to her mother, after she came back to the home. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is quite convincing and there is absolutely no material to doubt their testimony.
Both the Courts rightly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and came to a right conclusion and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of Courts below.
10. For these reasons, it is held that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed.
The trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of the accused for undergoing unexpired portion of the sentence.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:20.01.2014 mrb