Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1230
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SURENDER, J
NEERATI IMANUEL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF A.P. – Respondent
CRLRC/659/2010
The absence of evidence for rape led to the conviction being modified from attempted rape to outraging modesty under Section 354 IPC.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 and 354 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 428 - Accused convicted of attempted rape and subsequently of outraging modesty - Initial conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside due to lack of evidence of rape - Conviction under Section 354 IPC affirmed based on the victim's testimony. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Evidence - The absence of physical injuries and the credibility of the victim's testimony were pivotal in determining the nature of the offence - The court emphasized that without proof of rape, the conviction must align with the evidence presented. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The accused was found guilty of attempting to commit rape on the victim girl, who was lured to the terrace. The trial court initially convicted both accused under Section 376 IPC, but the appellate court modified the conviction due to insufficient evidence.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court determined that the actions of the accused constituted an offence under Section 354 IPC, warranting a two-year sentence.
Issues: The primary issues included the adequacy of evidence for rape and the appropriate charge based on the victim's testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of injuries and the lack of credible evidence for rape necessitated a conviction under Section 354 IPC instead of Section 376 IPC.
Result: Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
1. The revision petitioner/accused No.1 was found guilty for the offence under Sections 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhongir. In the Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2009 dated 23.02.2010 preferred by accused, the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, partly allowed the appeal and convicted accused under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC and sentenced to 3 ½ years.
2. The case against the revision petitioner/accused No.1 is that the victim girl was asked to come up to the terrace of the house of the accused. When she went up to the terrace, the accused/A1 caught hold of her hands and legs and committed rape on her. At the time of the incident, A2, who is the wife of A1 was also present. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered crime under Section 376 IPC against A1 and Section 376 r/w 114 IPC against A2. Charges were framed against the accused for the said offences.
3. During the course of trial, the victim girl was examined as P.W.1. On the basis of her evidence, the trial Court found A1 and A2 guilty and accordingly convicted vide judgment in S.C.No.413 of 2008 dated 01.09.2009.
4. In appeal filed by the accused, learned Sessions Judge found that since there was no proof of commission of rape and set aside the conviction under Section 376 IPC and convicted A1 for the offence under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC.
5. Learned counsel appearing for accused would submit that even according to the evidence on record, there were no injuries that were caused and it was not proved that rape was committed. In the said circumstances, the version of P.W.1 may amount to an offence of outraging her modesty since there is nothing to indicate that there was an attempt to rape.
6. The allegation of victim girl is that the accused forcibly caught hold of her hands and legs. Nothing is placed on record to suggest that she received any injuries. However, keeping in view that the version of P.W.1 that she was subjected to rape was not believed by the Sessions Court and no appeal is filed against the said finding by the prosecution, on the basis of the overt acts attributed to the accused, the offence falls within the ingredients of Section 354 IPC.
7. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC is set aside and the accused is convicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Since the accused is on bail, the trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the accused and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The remand period, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
