GUTTRTHI ESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gutturthi Eswara Rao, the accused in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1997, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1997 on the file of Court of Session , Manila Court, Visakhapatnam, dated 25-9-1998 had preferred the present criminal appeal.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Inspector of Police, II Town Law and Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam City laid charge-sheet against the accused alleging that he trespassed into the house of Busha Ramaymma@ Bhanu-PW.1 on 10-8-1996 at about 23.3o hours and outraged her modesty by touching her legs punishable under Sections 354 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short referred to as IPC' for the purpose of convenience). The learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, took the charge-sheet on file and registered the same as PRC.No.15 of 1996 and committed the same to the Court of Session, Visakhapatnam and the said Court had made over the same to the Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, and the learned Judge after framing the charges, recorded the evidence of PWs.l to5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-3 and ultimately arrived at a conclusion that appellant-accused committed offences under Sections 448 and 354 IPC and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 354 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 448 IPC and both the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal had been preferred.

(3.) Sri C Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel representing appellant made the following submissions: The learned Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.P-1 and had pointed out that there is no reference to the alleged letter in Ex.P-1 and the aspect of throwing chilli powder into the eyes of the accused also had not been specified. According to the learned Counsel these are material omissions. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW.1 and had pointed out that there is no controversy that the accused filed a case against PW. 1 and against her four brothers alleging that they beat him and caused injuries and the said case was pending in V Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in CC.No.388 of 1996. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 cannot be believed since the same is unnatural. At any rate PW.2 is an interested witness, the mother of PW.l who is having enmity with the accused and hence, the same cannot be believed. The learned Counsel also would submit that the learned Judge committed a grave error in relying upon such evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and also the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 the Investigating Officers. The learned Counsel emphasized on the aspect that the letter spoken to by PW.1 in her deposition, was neither produced before the Court nor mentioned in Ex.P-1 and this would throw serious doubt on the version of the prosecution. The Counsel would submit that in view of the enmity only, this case had been foisted against the appellant-accused. While concluding, the Counsel would contend that mere tapping on the legs of the PW.1 and nothing beyond, may not amount to outrage the modesty of a woman and hence, the ingredients of Section 354 IPC are not attracted. The Counsel also would contend that as far as Section 448 IPC is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence and the evidence of PW.1 in this regard cannot be believed.