1. Appeal against conviction for house-trespass to commit an offence and outraging the modesty of a woman under Sections 451 and 354, IPC. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1102
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Didde Srinivas – Appellant
Versus
State SHO, Podduru Police Station and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4562 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8028/2023)
Decided On : 13-11-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Srinivas, Adv. Mr. Somanatha Padhan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Srinivas, Adv. Mr. Somanatha Padhan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv.
The court upheld the conviction under Sections 451 and 354 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of witness testimonies and reducing the sentence for Section 354 from two years to one year R.I.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 451, and 354 - The appellant was convicted for offences of rape and house-trespass, with the conviction under Section 376 modified to Section 354. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, emphasizing the credibility of testimonies from witnesses. (Paras 2-5)
(B) Sentencing - The court considered the nature of the offences, the absence of antecedents, and the time elapsed since the incident, ultimately reducing the sentence for Section 354 from two years to one year. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for offences committed against a victim who later committed suicide. The trial court's conviction was upheld by the appellate court and the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The conviction under Section 451 was maintained, and the sentence for Section 354 was reduced to one year R.I.
Issues: The main issues included the appropriateness of the sentence and the confirmation of convictions under Sections 451 and 354.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no reason to interfere with the lower courts' conclusions based on witness testimonies and determined that the reduced sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction confirmed, sentence reduced.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant sought reduction of sentences for convictions under Sections 354 and 451, IPC, to the period of incarceration already undergone. (Para 7 )
3. Conviction under Section 451 is justified if house-trespass is committed with the intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, such as an offence under Section 354. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. An intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment following house-trespass constitutes the offence punishable under Section 451, IPC. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Convictions under Sections 451 and 354, IPC confirmed; sentence for Section 354 reduced from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment. (Para 9 )
6. Does an intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment during house-trespass satisfy the requirements of Section 451, IPC?
Yes. The expression in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment in Section 451 indicates that an intention to commit such an offence following house-trespass justifies a conviction under that section. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. What factors may the court consider when deciding whether to reduce a sentence for an offence under Section 354, IPC?
The court may consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the absence of prior criminal antecedents, the age of the accused at the time of the incident, and the amount of time elapsed since the commission of the offence. (Para 7 )
8. Can a sentence for an offence under Section 354, IPC be reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone?
Not necessarily. While the court may reduce a sentence, it will ensure the punishment remains proportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence committed. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT
C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Leave granted.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2023 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRRC No. 1937/2004.
2. The appellant stood the trial in Sessions Case No. 109/2000 before the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasapur. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376 read with Section 511 besides under Section 451, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for three years for the offence of ‘rape’ and R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 451, IPC. The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
3. In appeal, Court of VIth Additional and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narasapur, West Godavari District confirmed the conviction and sentence on the appellant under Section 451 IPC and modified the conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC to one under Section 354 IPC. Consequently, for the conviction therefor, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. The fine imposed for the conviction under Section 376 was maintained in regard to conviction under Section 354, IPC. It is challenging the same that the revision petition was filed which culminated in the impugned judgment. As per the impugned judgment, the conviction and the sentence for both the offences were confirmed by the High Court.
4. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent State. The materials on record would reveal that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 451, IPC is concurrent based on the uncontroverted oral testimonies of PWs 4 and 5. The appellant failed to establish perversity whatsoever in regard to the conclusion arrived at based on their testimonies that the appellant had committed house-trespass. But then, the conviction of the appellant is not for house-trespass simpliciter punishable under Section 448, IPC and it is under Section 451, IPC. Hence, the next question is whether he did so, in order to commit any offence punishable with imprisonment or the offence of theft. As the only other offence for which the appellant was ultimately convicted is under Section 354, IPC the answer to the above question would depend upon the confirmation or otherwise of the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 354, IPC. Here again, the finding is founded on the oral testimonies of PWs 4 and 5. The creditworthy testimonies of PWs 4 and 5 were, according to us, rightly believed by the courts below. The expression ‘in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment’ used in Section 451 would reveal that an intention to commit such an offence following house-trespass would justify a conviction thereunder.
5. In the case on hand, the Appellate Court modified the conviction under Section 376, IPC to one under Section 354, IPC and it got conformance from the High Court. On scanning the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, we do not find any reason much less perversity warranting interference with conclusion arrived at based on appreciation of their evidence in relation to the said offence. Resultantly, we maintain the conviction of the appellant under Section 354, IPC. In view of the position that even an intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment’ coupled with house-trespass would constitute the offence punishable under Section 451, IPC a conviction for the offence under Section 354, IPC and the consequential imposition of sentence to undergo imprisonment for a term would leave us with no option but to confirm the conviction for the offence under Section 451, IPC. Hence, it is also maintained.
6. In such circumstances, the only surviving question to be considered is whether the sentence of R.I. for 2 years imposed for the conviction under Section 354, IPC by the Appellate Court that was confirmed by the High Court deserves a further reduction of sentence, as prayed
