HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.451 OF 2012

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, questioning the conviction recorded by the Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in SC.No.98 of 2008 dated 30.05.2012, for the offences under Sections 448, 354, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 448 of Indian Penal code; to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal code; and to undergo six months for the offence under Section 509 of IPC. The sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The appellant was tried for the offences under Sections 120-B, 354, 509 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(v), (x), and (xi) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act, 1989. This appellant/A1 was convicted for the offences under Sections 448, 354, and 509 of IPC. A2 was also tried along with A1, who is the wife of A1. A2 was also convicted under Section 448 of IPC, however, was released under Section 3(1) of the Prohibition of Offenders Act.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the grand mother of the Defacto complainant-PW.1 sold the property to A1. However, there are disputes between them. On 03.12.2006, about 8.00 A.M., both A1 and A2 went to the house of the grandmother of PW.1, where PW.1 was also staying along with her grandmother. A1 abused her in the name of caste, removed his pant zip, dragged her by catching hold of her ‘chunni’, and asked her to come out. In the meanwhile, PW.2, who is the husband of PW.1, went there and rescued PW.1. Neighbors gathered when the incident took place.

4. After the incident occurred, on 03.12.2006, a private complaint was filed which was referred to the Police for the purpose of investigation. The crime in the present case was registered on 13.01.2007. The Police, having investigated the case, filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2. The learned Special Judge accordingly convicted the appellant.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there are disputes between the accused and the grandmother of PW.1. Deliberately, a false complaint was filed to overcome the civil disputes. In fact, two crimes were registered against PW.1 and her husband-PW.2 even prior to lodging the present complaint. As a retaliatory measure, the present complaint was filed after A1 lodged the complaints against PW.1 and PW.2. Learned counsel further argued that there is a delay in filing the complaint which is not explained.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

7. The following facts are not disputed:

i) There is a sale agreement between A1 and the grandmother of PW.1, namely Kamalamma.

ii) The said Kamalamma was not examined during the course of the investigation.

iii) Even prior to lodging of the present complaint, two criminal cases, vide Crime No.204 of 2006 and Crime No.574 of 2006, were filed by the appellant against PW.1 before the Malkajgiri Police Station.

8. On the date of the incident, according to PW.1, the appellant entered the house and caught hold of her ‘chunni’ and dragged her outside. He also removed his pant zip, and threatened her family members with dire consequences.

9. Since it is admitted that there are civil disputes between the accused and the grandmother of PW.1, it cannot be said that a false complaint was filed. The motive is a double-edged weapon, and it cannot be said that the incident did not occur. As seen from the complaint and counter complaint filed by the appellant and PWs.1 and 2, there were dispute between them.

10. After going through the allegations filed against the accused by PW.1, the same would amount to an offence under Section 509 of IPC and not under Section 354 of IPC.

11. Under Section 509 of IPC, a person who intends to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words or gestu