THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.550 OF 2014

O R D E R

Challenging the judgment dated 11.03.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2013 by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak (for short ‘learned Sessions Judge’), this Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned order, the judgment dated 28.10.2013 passed in S.C.No.535 of 2012 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Medak (for short ‘trial Court’), was confirmed, modifying the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to rigorous imprisonment of three years, while maintaining fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array before the trial Court.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.12.2011, when the victim along with her three children slept in the house, at about 23.50 hours, accused entered into her house by opening the door, assaulted her and attempted to commit rape on her, with an intention to outrage her modesty. When she raised hues and cries, the accused bit her hands and fled away from the scene. The said incident was witnessed by her daughter. When the victim’s husband returned from Hyderabad, she informed the same to him and lodged a complaint before the Police.

4. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.207 of 2011 was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medak, for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and the same was numbered as P.R.C.No.12 of 2012. Thereafter, the case was committed to the trial Court and re-numbered as S.C.No.535 of 2012.

5. During the course of trial, the victim herself was examined as PW1. In support of her case, PWs.2 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked on her behalf. On behalf of accused, none of the witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against him, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal before the appellate Court.

7. On perusing the material available on record and hearing, the appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, however, modified the sentence of five years of rigorous imprisonment to three years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved further, the accused preferred the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

8. Submissions of the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the accused:

8.1. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court has committed a grave error while passing the impugned judgments. Pointing to the evidence on record, it is submitted that the trial and appellate Courts have failed to take into consideration the discrepancies in the complaint, statement of PW1 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and her evidence, which would only lead to the acquittal of the accused. Yet another contention is that the prosecution has failed to produce the torn clothes allegedly worn by the victim on the alleged day of incident. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that there was any use of force by the accused which could be termed as an attempt to commit rape.

8.2. In support of his contention, learned Legal Aid Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parvat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR OnLine 2020 SC 271 and drawn attent