GANJA SRINIVAS Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case under Ss. 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. assails the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Sec. 354 I.P.C. which was initially handed down by a judgment dtd. 31/3/2008 by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram in Sessions Case No.333 of 2006 and thereafter confirmed in appeal by a judgment dtd. 16/9/2008 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry in Criminal Appeal No.180 of 2008. Respondent herein is the State.

(2.) The assault or criminal force to a woman or a girl with an intention to outrage her modesty is punishable under Sec. 354 I.P.C. The accusation for such an offence is very easy to make and very difficult to rebut. Therefore, it is always felt necessary by Courts to see that the conduct of the victim is consistent with ordinary probabilities and independent corroboration is normally insisted upon. The entire surrounding circumstances require appreciation.

(3.) Crime No.77 of 2006 was investigated into by Sub-Inspector of Police, Draksharama Police Station and that resulted in filing a police report in terms of Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. alleging offence under Sec. 376 read with 511 I.P.C. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram complied with the procedure under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C. and committed that case to the learned Sessions Court, East Godavari. The accused was charged for the offence under Sec. 376 read with 511 I.P.C. and after due trial, he was found not guilty for that offence but was found guilty for a lesser cognate offence under Sec. 354 I.P.C. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram convicted and sentenced the accused directing him to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. The remand period was directed to be set off. In the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge there was due hearing and finally learned Sessions Judge found that the judgment impugned was right on facts and law and dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the guilt, conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the accused. All the principles of fair trial have been complied with as the record discloses it. The accused was furnished with copies of documents on which the prosecution intended to rely upon and was informed of the charge against him and his plea of not guilty was recorded and all the witnesses were allowed to be cross-examined by the defence and his response to incriminating evidence was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Althroughout the accused has been defended of his own learned counsel while the State has been represented by the learned Public Prosecutors at various stages. In this revision with reference to competence of the Courts that tried the case and that heard the appeal and the manner in which the trial was conducted and the appeal was heard, there are no challenges. Therefore, it is sufficient now to find out the substance of the case for the purpose of analysis.