ORDER:

The revision petitioner/accused was convicted by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Karimnagar, vide Judgment dated 6.11.2009, for the offence under Sections 509 and 506 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 509 of the IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A.No.140 of 2009 before the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, and the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal confirmed the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and modified the sentence of simple imprisonment from one year to six months for the offence under Section 509 of the IPC, maintaining the fine sentence of Rs.3,000/-, default sentence and also the sentence under Section

506 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State.

3. The case against the revision petitioner is that the victim- PW2 was being followed by the accused/revision petitioner since she was studying in X class. She stopped going to school on account of the accused following her. The specific incident narrated happened on 29.07.2008, while she was returning from the school. When she reached Mancherial cross-roads, the accused went there on motorcycle and dashed her cycle and threatened with knife that he would pour acid on her and kill her. The accused while following her stated that he was loving her. The victim-PW2 narrated the said incident to her father-PW1 and mother-PW3. PW1 filed a complaint after the said incident.

4. The Police having taken up investigation found that the accused was in fact following her and teased PW2. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed.

5. Learned Magistrate examined victim-PW2, mother-PW3, father-PW1 and Investigating Officer-PW4. The learned Magistrate found that the evidence of PW2 was convincing and accordingly convicted the accused.

6. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the accused approached the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge found favour with the findings of the learned Magistrate and confirmed the conviction.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the evidence of PW2 is wholly unreliable. There are no independent witnesses that were examined to corroborate the testimony of PW2. If at all the incident of following and threatening her had taken place on the main road, there would be several independent witnesses. No such witnesses were examined. In fact there were differences in between the mother of the victim and also the mother of the accused. For the said reason, false complaint was filed. Both the Courts below without considering the motive of false implication have convicted the accused.

8. The statement of PW2-victim is that the accused was following her on regular basis and as on the date of the incident, he stopped her and threatened with knife that he would pour Acid on her. The said evidence is convincing. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest any false implication or that the incident had not taken place. Only for the reason of there being alleged differences in between the mother of victim and the mother of the accused, that itself cannot form basis to infer that false case has been filed.

9. However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2008 and there are no other cases of similar nature are pending against the accused which fact is not disputed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the revision petitioner to the period already undergone under both counts.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

As a sequel, miscellaneou