The conviction under Section 354 I.P.C was upheld while the sentence was reduced from two years to one year due to elapsed time and other mitigating factors.

O R D E R:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.08.2010 in Crl.A.No.53 of 2009 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Cyberabad (for short, ‘the appellate Court’), confirming the judgment dated 16.05.2008 in S.C.No.147 of 2008 passed by the V Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District (for shot, ‘the trial Court).

2. Heard Sri R.S.R.S.Sarma, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/Smt.K.Kalavathi married to the petitioner about 20 years back and that out of their wedlock they were blessed with two sons and one daughter. During the period when the petitioner stayed in Muskat, the petitioner sent the complainant to her parent’s house and refused to send money for the maintenance of the family. Thereafter, the accused used to run Vaishnavi mess at Sangareddy and he used to come home once in a week and refused to give money. Further, whenever accused came to Hyderabad, he used to enjoy his own daughter/LW-2 sexually and on questioning the same by the complainant, the petitioner used to threaten her that she would be beaten up in case the matter is reported to the Police. Upon the complaint a case in Crime No.343 of 2007 of Uppal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 376 I.P.C was registered.

4. After examination of witnesses and completion of investigation the accused charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 376 and 506 (i) of I.P.C.

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked. In defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and after appreciation of evidence available on record, the trial Court vide judgment dated 16.05.2009 while acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A , 376 and 506 (i) of IPC , however, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, directed the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, while giving set off the period of remand undergone during investigation and trial under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 16.05.2009 in S.C.No.147 of 2008, the petitioner/accused preferred Crl.A.N.53 of 2009 before the appellate Court. The appellate Court after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and also on re-appreciation of evidence and the material facts placed before it, vide judgment dated 24.08.2010 in Crl.A.No.53 of 2009 dismissed appeal while confirming the conviction and sentenced imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Case.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed the respective judgments. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended there are no direct witnesses to the occurrence of offence and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same, contending that both the Courts below upon appreciation of oral and documentary ev