The High Court · 2025

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V.V. Satish Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 7 1 HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL AppEAL No.4St OF 2Ot2 JTIDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, questioning the conviction rccorded by the Special Sessions Judge lbr SC & ST (poA) Act, 1989-cum-Addl.District and Sessions Judgt:, Ranga Reddy District, in SC.No.98 of 2OOg dated 30.05.2072, for the offences under Sections 44g, 354. and 5O9 of the Indian pena-l Code and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 44g of Indian penal code; to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal code; and to undergo six months for the offence under Section 509 of IpC. The sentences shall run concurre:rtly. 2. The appeliant was tried for the offences under rsections 120_8, 354, 509 of the Indian penal Code, and Section 3(1)(vr, (x), and (xi) of the SC/STs (poA) Act, 1989. This appellant/At was conyicted for the offences under Sections 44g, 354, and 5O9 of IpC. A2 was also tried along with A1, who is the wife of A1. A2 was also convicted under Section 448 of IpC, however, was released under Secl.ion 3(f ) of the Prohibition of Offenders Act. 2

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the grand mother of ( the Defacto complainant-PW. 1 sold the property to A1. However, there are disputes between them. On 03.12.2006, about 8.00 A.M., both Al arrd A2 went to the house of the grandmother of PW. 1, where PW. 1 was also staying along with her grandmother. A1 abused her in the name of caste, removed his pant zip, dragged her by catching hold of her 'chunni', and asked her to come out. In the meanwhile, PW.2, who is the husband of PW. l, went there and rescued PW. 1. Neighbors gathered when the incident took place.

4. After the incident occurred, on 03.12.2OO6, a private complaint was filed which was referred to the Police for the purpose of investigation. The crime in the present case was registered on l3.Ol.2OO7 . The Police, having investigated the case, filed a charge sheet against A1 and 42. The learned Special Judge accordingly convicted the appellant.

5. l,earned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there are disputes between the accused and the grandmother of PW.l. Deliberately, a false complaint was filed to overcome the civil disputes. In fact, two crimes were registered against PW'l and her husband-PW.2 even prior to lodging the present complaint' As a 3 retaliatory measure, the present complaint was filed after A1 lodged the complaints against PW.1 and PW.2. Learned counsel further argued that there is a delay in filing the complaint which is not explained.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on th€ other hand, supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

7. The following facts are not disputed: i) There is a sale agreement between A I and the grandmother of PW. 1, namely Kamalamma ii) The said Kamalamma was not examined during the course of the investigation. iii) Even prior to lodging of the present complaint, two criminal cases, vide Crime No.204 of 2006 and Crime No.574 of 20O(j, were filed by the appellant against PW. I before the Malkajgiri Police Station.

8. On the date of the incident, according to PW.l, the appellant -l entered the house and caught hold of her 'chunni'and dragged her outside. He also removed his pant zip, and threatened her family members with dire consequences. 4 \- \l\l g. Since it is admitted that there are civil disputes between the \ accused and the grandmother of PW. 1, it cannot be said that a false complaint was fi1ed. The motive is a double-edged weapon, and it cannot be said that the incident did not occur. As seen from the complaint ald counter complaint filed by the appeliant and PWs.1 and 2, there were dispute between them.

10. After going through the allegations frled against the accused by PW. 1, the same would amount to an offence under Section 509 of IPC and not under Section 354 of IPC-

11. Under Section 5O9 of IPC, a person who intends to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words or gestures in any manner, it would insult the modesty of a woman and amounts to an offence under Section 509 of the IPC. The act of the appellant in opening his pant zip and catching hold of 'chunni' of PW. 1 and dragging her out amounts to committing acts intending to insult the modesty of a woman. L2. For the reasons mentioned above, the conviction under Section 354 of IPC, recorded by the Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy 5 District, in SC.No.98 of 20Og dated 30.05.2O12, is set aside, while maintaining the conviction under Sections 44g and 509 of Indian Pena-l Code. The sentence of imprisonment under both counts is reduced to the period already undergone. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant acted in the manner aileged on the ground that pW. 1 belonged to the SC or ST communitv The incident haPpened when pW. I and pW.2 were objecting to the sale transaction between the grand mother of pW. I Long prior to the incident, money was admittedly paid towards purchase of property by appellant, but pW. I ancL pW.2 were objecting to the registration of propert5r and appr_.llant taking possession of properfiz' Under the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the appeliarrt acted in the maaner aJleged, for the reason of PW. I belonging to SC/ST caste. The offence under Sectron 3 (l)(x) of SC/STs (poA) Act, is not made out. the appellant.

13. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. //TRUE COPY// SD/: K. SRJNIVASA RAO \Jot NT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Sesr . n, i1g*lq1tq;**xalitli',ltlr+*il,-f,# t;*I' afi-, 5l:%u'r#vl , -- s. Two cD copies r' Satish, Advocate [opUC] Kam,igh HIGH COURT DATED:0710412025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.451 of 2012 z:i:-.-- q I rlE sIa r(. c( f c, '9 JlJ[l il[s 'I \ ,,n,,-t11-ir _ __r_-,- , PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL il1 +% 1' a