Arigaddi Suresh vs State Through SHO

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-appellant-accused aggrieved by the judgment passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagityal in Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2015 dated 05.02.2016 confirming the judgment passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagityal in S.C.No.409 of 2013 dated 29.09.2015 convicting the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 448 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner-accused illegally trespassed into the house of the complainant on 05.06.2013 at 11:00 PM at Mallapur Village and outraged the modesty of the complainant by using criminal force.

On 06.06.2013 at 10:00 AM, the complainant lodged a report before PS Mallapur stating that she was an Anganwadi Teacher and her husband by name Srinivas, went to Dubai two (02) years ago and she along with her children was living with her in-laws. On the night of 05.06.2013 at 11:00 PM, while she slept in her bedroom and opened the doors for flow of air due to summer season, her villager, by name, Arigaddi Suresh (the petitioner herein) came into the room and caught hold her hands with an intention to outrage her modesty. She made hue and cry, then, her mother-in-law and father-in-law came and saw the petitioner. On seeing them, the petitioner ran away from the back side of the house by jumping over the stone wall.

Basing on the said report, the SI of Police of PS Mallapur registered a case in Crime No.77 of 2013 under Sections 448 and 354 of IPC and recorded the statement of the complainant. He visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of the in-laws of the complainant and her co-sister. He secured the presence of the mediators and drafted a sketch map and incorporated the details in the crime detail form. He arrested the accused on 10.06.2013 and after completing the investigation, filed charge-sheet.

The case was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpally registered it as PRC.No.34 of 2013 and committed it to the Court of Sessions at Karimnagar. The Court of Sessions made-over the case to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagityal.

The Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagityal conducted trial, after framing charges against the petitioner-accused for the offences under Sections 448 and 354 of IPC.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P3.

No defence evidence was adduced by the petitioner-accused.

On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 448 and 354 of IPC and sentenced him as above.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal. The appeal was heard by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagityal vide Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2015 and vide judgment dated 5.02.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the conviction and sentence recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge in S.C.No.409 of 2013 on 29.09.2015.

Aggrieved further, the petitioner preferred this revision, contending that both the courts below failed to see that there were so many discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the petitioner-accused beyond reasonable doubt, both the courts below recorded the conviction basing on mere surmises and conjectures. The prosecution examined all the relatives of the victim only. All the said witnesses were interested, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to substantiate its case. The sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court was excessive and prayed to set aside the judgments of the courts below.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued on the same lines as raised in the grounds of revision.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that both the courts below, on appreciating the evidence of the witnesses, recorded concurrent findings of conviction, there could be no other independent witnesses in cases of this nature and prayed to confirm the conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below.

Perused the record.

The record would disclose that PW1 was the de-facto complainant and victim and she clearly stated about the accused entering into her bedroom on 5.06.2013 at 11:00 PM, caught holding her hand and attempting to commit rape on her and that when she raised hue and cry, her in-laws came into the room and her mother-in-law scolded the accused. Thereafter, the accused fled away by jumping over the stone wall.

The mother-in-law of PW1 was examined as PW2 and her evidence also corroborated with the evidence of PW1. She stated that, on hearing the hues and cries of PW1, she rushed into the room and found the accused in the room of PW1, catch holding her hand and that she questioned the accused as to why he came into the house in the absence of the male person, then, the accused ran away by scaling over the compound wall.

The co-sister of the complainant was examined as PW4. She was living in the neighbouring house and she also stated that on hearing the hue and cry of PW1, she came into the house of PW1 and on her enquiry, PW1 informed her about the accused entering into her bedroom and catch holding her hand. Thus, her evidence also corroborated with the evidence of PWs 1 and 2.

PW3 was the panch witness for the crime detail form and PW5 was the investigating officer, the SI of Police of PS Mallapur, who stated about the investigation conducted by him.

The defence taken by the accused was that there was a strained relationship between the accused and the family of the complainant, due to which, he was implicated in a false case.

The defence of the accused was that the co-sister of the complainant, examined as PW4 had a son by name Vamshi and the sister of the accused was given in marriage to Vamshi and PW1 had opposed the said marriage and keeping the said grudge in mind, she foisted a false case against him. But different suggestions were given to PWs 1, 2 and 4 by the defence. It was suggested to PWs 1 and 2 that the elder sister of Vamshi was the wife of the accused and after the marriage, a panchayath was held before caste elders and PW1 opposed the marriage of the accused with the sister of Vamshi. The accused was blessed with a daughter and that the accused also took divorce from the sister of Vamshi. It was suggested to PW4 that the sister of the accused was given in marriage to Mr.Vamshi and the said marriage was performed against their wishes including that of PW1. This defence was not rightly believed by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. Even if the complainant had opposed the said marriage either of the accused or Vamshi, it is incomprehensible that she would wait for such a long time to implicate the accused in a false case that too when the said marriage ended in divorce, as she would not get any benefit in implicating the accused, by keeping her dignity at stake and conduct to open discussion and subjecting to the rigors of cross examination in a public court. This Court also does not believe that a woman would speak falsehood in the said regard, that a man entered into her bedroom in the absence of her husband and tried to outrage her modesty and her mother-in-law and co-sister also would support her in the said regard, even if the same was not true.

The delay contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is also considered not a matter of much consequence as the incident occurred late night on 5.06.2013 and it was reported in the Police Station on the next day i.e., on 6.06.2013 at 10:00 AM.

This Court does not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner with regard to any discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. Both the trial court and the lower appellate court on appreciating the evidence of the witnesses in a proper perspective only recorded the conviction of the accused. Hence, this Court does not find any necessity to set aside the judgments of the courts below. The sentence recorded by the trial court is also appropriate to the charges leveled against the accused. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same also.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgments of the courts below in convicting the petitioner-accused for the offences under Sections 448 and 354 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 448 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months for the offence under Section 354 of IPC, and both the sentences to run concurrently. The revision petitioner - accused is directed to surrender before the court below forthwith and in case he failed to do so, the court below shall take appropriate steps in securing his presence.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.