THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.253/2016 DATED 16.07.2019 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOSAKOTE AND IN CRL.A.NO.92/2019 DATED 08.08.2022 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354(A)(2) R/W 34 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Sri. C.N. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High court Government Pleader.

2. Petitioners are the accused Nos.2 and 3, who suffered an order of conviction before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote in CC No.253/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 354-A(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 504, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Order of conviction and sentence was subject matter before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.92/2019.

4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after considering the rival contentions in the light of the appeal grounds, upheld the Order of conviction, but reduced the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment.

5. Being further aggrieved by same, accused nos.2 and 3 are before this Court as first accused said to have died.

6. At the outset Sri. C.N. Raju would contend that even according to the case of the prosecution, the allegations against the present petitioners are not that of outraging the modesty of the victim lady. But they have supported the first accused in their in his act.

7. He would further contend that on the day when the alleged incident has taken place, fifteen employees were removed from the roles who were working as helpers/attenders in a mall namely Robe Mall Apparels Private Limited.

8. As a retaliation, a false complaint came to be filed by the complainant in the case on hand and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition.

9. Alternatively, Sri C.N. Raju would submit that in the event this Court upholding the Order of conviction, taking note of the fact that petitioners are married persons and are having family to maintain with young children, sentence modified by the First Appellate Court may be further modified by directing the petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for the day by enhancing the fine amount which can be paid as compensation to victim and thus sought for allowing the revision petition.

10. Per contra, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioners.

11. He would further contend that PW1 has specifically stated before the Court on oath about the role played by the present petitioners and Order of conviction came to be recorded with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner that the petitioners are no way connected with the offence under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be countenanced in law and thus sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

12. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

13. On such perusal of the material on record, PW1 being the victim lady specifically stated that she was working as an attender in Robe Mall Apparels Private Limited situated at Soukhya Road within the limits of Thirumala Shetty Police Station.

14. She has specifically deposed that three months earlier to 24.02.2015, PW1 had requested for a day's leave on the ground that her child was not well. Accused No.1 said to have told her that leave would be sanctioned provided she gets adjusted with first accused. When she refused to yield to the illegal request made by the first acc