In cases of alleged offenses under Section 354 IPC, the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and testimonies of victims carry significant weight, with delays in lodging FIR adequately explained by social factors.

ORDER :

1. The instant criminal revision case has been filed challenging impugned judgment dt.14.05.2007 in S.C. No.379 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, by the judgment, dt.25.04.2008 in Crl.A.No.60 of 2007, whereby the present petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer one month simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short 'IPC').

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not properly scanned the evidence on record and, as such, arrived at an erroneous judgment of conviction. The learned counsel further submits that if the evidence adduced by the prosecution had been properly appreciated, it would have been evident that the charge under Section 354 of I.P.C. was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel further submits that there are several contradictions in the prosecution case. Moreover, there is existence of counter case by the accused. The accused was examined as DW1. However, his evidence was not properly considered. The Trial Court also failed to take into account the previous enmity between the husband of the victim and the accused. Thereby passed order of conviction in an irregular manner. The learned counsel also pointed out that there several discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The courts below mainly relied on the testimony of PW1 on the premise that, when the modesty of a woman is involved, her statement cannot be disbelieved.

3. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ganja Srinivas v. The State of A.P. , Crl.R.C. No.1501 of 2008 wherein lenient view was taken after scanning the evidence in a case under Section 354 IPC. The learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana , MANU/SC/1127/2019, wherein a lenient view was adopted in long pending criminal matters. Finally, the learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala , MANU/SC/0918/2003, wherein the Apex Court laid down the relevant criteria for deciding allegations under Section 354 IPC. In paragraphs8 to 10, the Apex Court held as follows:

“8. We shall first deal with the plea about false implication. It is seen that though there were some delay in lodging the FIR, it is but natural in a traditional bound society to avoid embarrassment which is inevitable when reputation of a woman is concerned. Delay in every case cannot be a ground to arouse suspicion. It can only be so when the delay is unexplained. In the instant case the delay has been properly explained. Further, PW-2 is an independent witness and a neighbour of both the accused appellant and PW-1. There is no reason as to why he would falsely implicate the appellant. A charge under Section 354 is one which is very easy to make and is very difficult to rebut. It is not that art of enmity false implications are made. It would however be unusual in a conservation society that a woman would be used as a pawn to wreck vengeance. When a plea is taken about false implication, Courts have a duty to make deeper scrutiny of the evidence and decide acceptability or otherwise of the accusations. In the instant case, both the trial Court and