CRLRC/131/2015 of BODDU NAGENDRA, NELLORE DIST. Vs P.P., HYD on 6 November 2025

1. BODDU NAGENDRA, NELLORE DIST., S/O. RAJU, R/O. PERAMANA VILLAGE, SANGAM MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT

...PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order:

Against an Order of sentence by learned Trail Court, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and also a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, the Petitioner approached Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.108 of 2013. Learned IV Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Nellore has confirmed the Order of conviction, against which the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred.

2. Mr. G. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Order of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate is improper. He submits that a fact suggests that on the date of incident, there was a festival of Lord Ganesh Idol immersion. He submits that the Accused person belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and the family of the defacto complainant belongs to Upper Caste Community. There are disputes between two Communities regarding immersion of Lord Ganesh Idol, which resulted to false implication of present Petitioner.

3. He further submits that father of the victim has lodged a complaint with the Police in delay i.e after 5 days of incident. There is no immediate complaint, thus, there may be falsity in the allegations. He further submits that learned Courts below has not properly scanned the evidences of PWs and came to an erroneous finding. He further argued that the allegation against the Petitioner was he caught hold the hand of the victim and pulled chunni of PW-2. PW-1 has categorically stated in his evidence that they approached the village elders to minimize the dispute. He further argued that the learned Appellant Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and confirmed the Order of conviction.

4. Mr. C. Panini Somayaji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State raised strong objections and submits that the Order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is well founded and is on the basis of evidences on record. He further argued that the alleged offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC has been sufficiently proved by way of direct evidences. PWs-3 and 5 are eye witnesses to prove the offences before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that on the basis of evidences on record, the offence against the present Petitioner has been sufficiently proved. He again argued that there is no iota of doubt regarding the commission of the offence by the Petitioner.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the charge framed against the Petitioner is under Section 354 of the IPC.

6. The allegation against the Petitioner is that, in the public place, at the time of Lord Ganesh Idol immersion, he caught hold the hand of the victim and pulled her chunni in the presence of PWs-3 and 5 to outrage the modesty of victim girl. It appears from the evidences that though there are some incident regarding the conflict between two Communities, but the allegation that commission of an offence by the Petitioner/ Accused has been witnessed by PWs 3 and 5. The evidences of PWs 2, 3 and 5 is sufficient to prove the fact that the Accused in the public place has caught hold the hand of the victim and pulled her Chunni. The act itself constitutes the offence of outrage modesty of the victim girl, aged about 15 years. It appears that during the course of examination of the Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he denied the allegation, but not led any evidence to support the defense.

7. Considering the entire aspect, it appears that learned Appellate Court has also clearly gone through the evidences on record and after scanning the record he supported the version of the learned Trial Court. Considering the entire aspect, I find no justification to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. The allegation against the present Petitioner regarding the intention to outrage modesty of victim girl has been well proved.

8. However, the offence was committed in the year 2011. The present Petitioner is now aged about more than 30 years. The present Petitioner has also gone through the entire process of long pending litigation.

9. Under these circumstances, I think it is necessary to reduce the sentence. The Petitioner is directed to undergo sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year, instead of two years, but enhanced the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), instead of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only).

10. Under the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The Order of sentence has been modified as above.

i) The Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within two (02) weeks from today to serve out the remaining portion of sentence, failing which learned Trial Court is at liberty to issue Non Bailable Warrant of arrest against the Petitioner to comply the order.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J

Date: 07.11.2025

Note: Issue C.C by today B/o KK