Peddi Vinod vs State of A.P.

N.R.L. Nageswara Rao

The appeal is filed by the appellant/accused questioning the conviction in Sessions Case No.217 of 2010 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for the offence punishable u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ''IPC''), sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months.

The case of the prosecution is that on 22.04.2010 at about 11.00 A.M., PW.1 lodged a complaint with the police to the effect that at about 10.00 A.M., when she was attending the office as a Manager dealing with the sale of cars at Durga Nagar, the accused came there, abused her and he pulled her chunny and caught hold of her with an intention to outrage her. On the above complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.165 of 2010 by the Police Malkajgiri and investigated into. After completion of investigation, the accused was charged with an offence punishable u/s 354 IPC and pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and on behalf of the defence Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below accepted the prosecution case and accordingly, convicted the accused and sentenced him. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present appeal is filed.

The point for consideration is whether the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 354 IPC is legal and sustainable?

POINT:

In this case, PW.1 is the victim and her evidence in brief can be extracted as follows:

He asked me about loan on mortgage of house. Thereafter the accused came near to me he caught of my hand and pulled. Then I tried to free myself then accused that he caught hold of my chunny and pulled. Then I questioned arise as to why he is misbehaved me then the accused called me and teased (Landja, Dongamunda) thereafter he abused me in the meantime Saritha maid servant came there she came to the accused she tried to free me from accused then the accused also beat her when we raised cries people were gathered, on seeing people the accused ran away. Thereafter, on enquiry I came to know that his name is Vinod.

The above statement of PW.1 clearly goes to show that the accused entered into the offence for the purpose of asking loan and thereafter, she was caught hold of. Her evidence is silent as to what was the reply given by her when the accused had asked for the loan. In fact, her evidence clearly shows that in the complaint, she did not state that the accused embarrassed her. The evidence of PW.3, who is said to be the attendant in the said office, shows to the effect that the accused caught hold of PW.1 and then pulled the chunny of PW.1. When she went to the rescue of PW.1, the accused slapped on her cheek. Then, the neighbours gathered and the accused was taken to the police station. The particulars of those persons, who took the accused to the police station are silent.

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the statement of PW.1 or PW.3 does not disclose any offence punishable u/s 354 IPC. According to him, the evidence shows that the accused has gone for asking of a loan from PW.1 and thereafter, the conversation has taken place and the evidence of prosecution is silent as to what was the reason for such behaviour of the accused. In fact, the evidence of PW.1 does not disclose that the accused entered the office with an intention to outrage her modesty. Therefore, the essential requirement of Section 354 IPC are wanting and if at all when an offence is committed by the accused, it can only be for an offence punishable u/s 509 IPC since the accused intending to insult the modesty of the woman including on the privacy pulled her chunny and caught hold of the hand.

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I feel the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 354 IPC is not warranted and instead the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part setting aside the judgment of the lower Court for the offence punishable u/s 354 IPC, and the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the accused. The accused is said to be in jail for more than 20 months and if he is not required in any other case, he shall be released forthwith.