IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld conviction under Section 354 IPC despite no specific charge, applying Section 222 Cr.P.C., given the proven facts of the case.

ORDER :

1. This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') by the trial court and the appellate court.

2. Accused faced indictment for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC on the allegation that on 25.9.2006 at around 11 am, when the victim girl aged 14, who is a neighbour of the accused, had gone to the house of the accused to watch TV programme, he dragged her to his bedroom and committed rape on her and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

3. The law was set in motion by PW1, the father of the victim girl by laying Ext.P1 First Information Statement, pursuant to which Ext.P1(a) FIR was registered. After the investigation, final report was laid against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PW1 to PW14 and marked Exts.P1 to P10. MO1 to MO3 are the material objects. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

5. On an appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary and other materials on record, though the trial court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and he was acquitted of the said charge, he was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Though challenging the conviction and sentence, accused filed Crl.A No.489/2011 before the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 354 IPC.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. In this revision, the revision petitioner/accused assails the conviction and sentence against him for the offence under Section 354 IPC on the ground that there are material discrepancies in the testimony of prosecutrix and her parents regarding the incident and therefore their evidence is not reliable; that there was no charge against him for the offence under Section 354 IPC and therefore, the conviction and sentence against him for the offence under Section 354 IPC is unsustainable in law. It was contended that since the trial court found him not guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and acquitted him of the said charge, he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 354 IPC based on the very same evidence. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused contended that Section 354 IPC is not a minor offence of Section 376 IPC and therefore, the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 354 IPC is illegal and liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record and the materials placed by the prosecution clearly established the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC and therefore by invoking the provisions under Section 222 Cr.P.C, the court was competent to convict and sentence the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC; that there is no illegality or error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC and therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence warrants no interference at all.

9. In view of the rival submissions, let us consider whether the conviction and order of sentence against the accused for the offence under Section