THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2171 of 2011

ORDER:

Assailing the Judgment, dated 02.09.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2011on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tenali, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused by Judgment, dated 08.03.2011 in S.C.No.573 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, for the offencepunishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 31.10.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3259 of 2011.

3. Thecase of the prosecution in nutshell was:

i). On 25.04.2010 at about 3.00 p.m., while PW2 who is first year student of B.Tech, ECE branch in Chintalapudi Engineering College was waiting at Tummapudi cross roads for an auto to go to Chintalapudi after completing examinations in her college, the appellant went towards her and stated that he will not leave her even though she filed a case against him, one day or other and he will certainly marry her and by so saying, he caught hold the hand and upper garment (chunni) and he will not allow her to move her unless she accepts to marry him and pulled her towards him. When PW2 raised shouts, the appellant left her and fled away by threatening to see her end, if she did not marry him. PW3 who is waiting for the auto witnessed the incident. Thereafter, report was lodged against the accused and a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 506 IPC of Duggirala Police Station and investigated into.

ii). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as S.C.No.573 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, and trial was conducted and found theaccused guilty of the offencepunishable under Sections 354 IPC and accordingly, he was convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only), i.d.s.i., for one month. Remand period, if any, is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accusedpreferred an appeal, vide, Crl.A.No.77 of 2011 before the Court of learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tenali, and the same was dismissed, vide Judgment, dated 02.09.2011 by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 6. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Anugula, learned counsel for the petitioner/accusedand Sri Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state.

7. In support of the revision, Sri Ravi Kiran Anugula, learned counsel for the petitioner submits there are lot of discrepancies in the evidence of both PWs 2 and 3. PW2 already gave one complaint and there is every chance of lodging another false complaint taking advantage of the situation. PW3 is highly interested witness and his evidence is not trustworthy one. The ingredients of Section 354 IPC do not attract against the petitioner and in order to attract 354 IPC, there must be intention to have sexual intercourse. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence, prays to allow the revision.

8. Per contra, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the evidence on record clearly established that the petitioner is found guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC. The accused used criminal force against PW2 with intent to outrage her modesty, knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, wh