BAIRU ANJAIAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the VIII-Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, passed in Crl.A.No.158 of 2014 dated 02.09.2016, by which the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years, imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. in S.C.No.607 of 2012 dated 14.11.2014 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, was modified to three years simple imprisonment, while confirming the sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the revision petitioner/ accused used to tease one Bairu Renuka (P.W.1) by saying that he fell in love with her and to fulfill his sexual lust, otherwise he would put an end to her life. P.W.1 and her husband Bairu Sekhar (P.W.2) reprimanded the revision petitioner/accused. On 13.07.2012, while P.W.1 was waiting for an auto to go to her village, the revision petitioner/accused came there, insisted her to come on his motor cycle to fulfill his lust, caught hold of her hand and also threatened that she would face dire consequences if she did not accept his demand. Hence, the revision petitioner/accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 and P10 to prove the guilt of the accused. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(3.) In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner/accused against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the learned VIII-Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence recorded by the trial Court as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused preferred this Criminal Revision Case.