PENTAKOTA CHANDRA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 23.10.2017, passed in Sessions Case No.93 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'the learned Sessions Judge') convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one (1) year; convicting the appellant and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months, for the offence under Section 353 of IPC; convicting the appellant and sentencing him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three (3) months, for the offence under Section 506 IPC and convicting the appellant and sentencing him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month for the offence under Section 509 of IPC with a further direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The de-facto complainant/victim worked as Deputy Director, District Treasury Office, Visakhpatnam from 27.05.2011 to 17.08.2015. During the relevant period, the appellant was working as Sub-Treasury Officer in the District Treasury Office at Visakhapatnam. It is alleged on 26.07.2012 between 11:00 or 11:30 A.M. while the de-facto complainant/PW.1 was working in her Chamber, the appellant entered into her chamber, started misbehaving with her over change of seat, he threatened her and used un-parliamentary language against her. He also touched on her breasts. De-facto complainant/PW.1 raised hue and cry and PW.2 came to the spot. She narrated the incident to PW.2 and other witnesses namely PWs.4 and 5.

(3.) Written complaint, Ex.P-1 was lodged, resulted in registration of Crime 254 of 2012. In the course of trial, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 354, 353, 506 and 509 of IPC, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.