The judgement underscores the reformative approach to sentencing, emphasizing that punishment should balance deterrence with rehabilitation, and highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases.

ORDER :

Anil Kumar Jukanti, J.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, vide judgment, dated 16.10.2007, in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2007 confirming the order of learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal in S.C.No.137 of 2006, dated 21.07.2006, wherein the revision petitioner/ accused was convicted for the offence under Section 354 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

2. Heard Shri V.S.M.Pritham Kanumuri, learned Legal Aid Counsel for revision petitioner/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court erred in reaching the conclusion in convicting the revision petitioner/ accused under Section 354 of IPC on the testimony of PW3. It is further submitted that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was at variance and not supportive to the case of prosecution. It is contended that no reasons are forthcoming for rejection of evidence of revision petitioner. It is further contended that evidence of PW3, an independent witness, cannot be relied, as PW3 statements are not corroborated and hence, evidence of PW3 is not enough to prove the guilt of the accused. It is also contended that accused, a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP), had been treating the family members of the complainant and a false complaint was lodged against revision petitioner, when revision petitioner demanded amounts due, for the treatment rendered.

4. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that complaint was filed on the next day in the concerned Police Station and the incident took place on 31.10.2004 at about 03.00 p.m., and the delay in lodging the complaint was unexplained and the same cannot be ignored. It is further contended that a false complaint is lodged implicating the revision petitioner. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has not considered the delay and that there being no corroboration of prosecution witnesses, the reasons assigned by the Appellate Court are on improper appreciation of evidence, hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court(s) is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint was lodged within 24 hours of the occurrence and the same does not amount to delay as contended by any stretch. It is further submitted that as the complainant rejected the repeated requests of the accused for marriage, when the complainant was alone in front of her house preparing notes for her intermediate course, the accused grabbed her hand with an intention to rape her and when the complainant made hue and cry, accused ran away. It is also submitted that the motive for the offence is evident.

6. It is submitted that PW3 is an independent witness, who corroborated the fact that accused held the hand of complainant and that when complainant raised a hue and cry, PW3 came to the rescue as he was passing by the house. It is further submitted that PW3 chased the accused, but the accused ran away. It is also submitted that trial Court(s) found that the accused failed to explain the reason(s) for his presence at the place of offence and in the absence of any evidence brought on record that the accused treated complainant and her family members and also that the amounts were due to him was only a pretext and the said defence was