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.

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