KURUVA LOKANATHAM, KURNOOL TOWN., v. THE STATE OF AP., REP PP.,

2

beauty directly by saying that "on seeing her he is going into dreams . She was being a woman unable to reveal his acts to anyone. Taking advantage of the same, the accused frequently asking her to fulfill his sexual desire, for which, she refused to oblige. He also tortured her in many ways to achieve his goal and he inspected ICDS office at Atmakur when was working there and instructed the officials to give charges against her and she was suspended, but the enquiry officer gave

clean^chit to PWl. Accused used to run Dhyana Kendra and forced PWl to come there after office work. She took the said fact to the notice of higher officials and so accused was suspended ^from the service. The accused also threatened her with dire consequences stating that he would not leave her until she comes into his route. PWl lodged complaint before the higher officials and necessary action was initiated and accused dismissed from the service. When collector was

recommended for

criminal case, accused was arrested on 25.08.2010 and sent to the Court for remand.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet same was numbered as S.C.No.llO of 2011 Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, , trial found the accused is guilty of the offence was filed and the

on the file of the learned

and after completion of

under Section 354 and

3

506 IPC and accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer ^SIfortwoyears^and also to pay a fine of Rs.lOOO/- for the offence under

Section^354IPC, in default, to suffer SI for three months. He is further

sentenced^to undergo SI for one year for the offence under Section ^506IPC.Itis ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred ^an5. appeal and got numbered, i//o'eCrl.A.No.74 of 2015

before^theCourt^of learned III I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and ^thesamewas partly allowed and partly dismissed (modified), judgment,

dated 13.09.2017, passed by the trail Court that the accused ^isconvicted^for the offence under Section 509 IPC and sentenced to

undergo SI for a period of 3 months and with a fine of Rs.lOOO/-, in

default,^tosuffer^SI for one month. The fined already paid by the accused ^fortheoffence under Section 354 IPC is treated as fine amount for ^theoffence under Section 509 IPC. Further, the conviction and sentence ^ofaccused^for the offence under Section 506 IPC is set aside and

accordingly acquitted for the said offence under Section 386(b)(1)

Cr.P.C.^The remand period undergone by the accused i.e., from 26.08.2010 ^to 21.09.2010 shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court,

the6. present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

4

7. Heard Sri S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner ^andMs. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-state.

the

8.

Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate

Court?"

9. Sri S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conviction imposed by the appellate court is contrary ^tolawand material on record. When the petitioner is not charge sheeted for the offence under section 509 IPC, the appellate Court ought convicted the petitioner for the said offence.

not to have

PWl was found

misappropriating the Government money while she was working as Senior Assistant in ICDS Project at Atmakur. The courts below failed to see that the accused has nothing to do with the inspection conducted by the Project Director, DW and CDA, Kurnool, when he was not working in that office at that time. There i:

preferring the complaint to the police. The

implicated in false case with all frivolous allegations, brother of accused questioned the transfer of PWl IS in ordinate delay in

petitioner herein is

The younger

and that was the

giving false complaint against the accused. immediate cause^for Hence, prays to allow the revision.

5

10.

Per contra, Sri P. Akhila Naidu, learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the ingredients ^ofSection

509 IPC clearly attracts against the accused as rightly ^heldbythefirst Appellate Court. The accused harassed the defacto complainant ^with sexual overtures and unusual utterances. The accused

directly demanded the PWl to satisfy his lust and on that regard ^heharassed her. The accused by touching hand of the PWl outraged ^hermodesty. The prosecution clearly established the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt by examining PWs 1 to 4 who are punch

witnesses and exhibiting Ex.Pl to P5, thereby prays to dismiss ^therevision. Pointi-Takino through the entire evidence on record ^andthe11. impugned judgment, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the impugned judgment of conviction is contrary to law and evidence on record; that the approach of the first appellate Court in holding that the accused is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC is also wholly untenable and perverse resulting in grave injustice to the accused/appellant.

12.

The first Appellate Court taking into consideration

of the fact that no criminal force or assault used to outrage the modesty of PWl hold that Section 354 IPC is not applicable against ^theaccused^and would attract section 509 IPC since there are only utterances insulting the modesty of PWl.

6

13.

Now, the moot question before this Court is to see whether the ingredients of Section 509 IPC attracts against the appellant/accused?

Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code provides that, whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending ^thatsuchword or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.

Utterance of any word or making of any sound or gesture by a person, intending to insult the modesty of a woman,

attracts^the offence punishable under Section509 LP.C, if such act was made intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture shall be seen by such woman. There is distinction between an act of merely insulting a woman and an act of insulting the modesty of a woman.

14.

15.

16.

In order to attract Section 509 I.P.C, merely insulting is not sufficient. Insult to the modesty of a woman is an essential ingredient of an offence punishable under Section 509 I.P.C. The of the offence is the intention to insult the modesty ^of The case of the prosecution is that PWl and accused are working in the same office and accused used to harass her with sexual a woman

crux

a woman.

17.

7

overtures and several times touched the hand of PWl ^andusedto praise her beauty stating that immediately on seeing ^hersomething^is happening to him. But, as rightly pointed out by the

first appellate Court, without there being any corroborative evidence, ^itisunsafe^to hold that the above incidents are true and accused ^isliable^for punishment under Section 354 IPC.

The material on record clearly shows that the major

incident18. that lead to filing of a complaint is that on 22.11.2007

around 14.00 hours while PWl was in corridor after completion of

video conference. the accused met her and threatened her with dire consequences ^and he would not leave her till she comes to his route, ^forwhich,^she refused to co-operate with him raising her voice. On ^thatincident,^PWl lodged a complaint before the District Collector on

24.11.2007^and charged were proved against the accused in the departmental

enquiry. PWl in support of her case got examined PWs 1 to 7 ^andgot19. marked Ex.Pl to P5. The accused also in support of ^hiscontention marked Ex.Dl to DIO.

Ex.Pl is report dated 24.8.2010 and Ex.P3 is the complaint^20. dated 24.11.2007 to the District Collector. PWl informed

her superior officers about the harassment made out by the accused

towards^her. which is supported by the complaint raised by the PWl

before^the District Collector on 24.11.2007. As rightly held by ^thefirst Appellate

8

Court as well the trial Court, the presence of PW2 on the specific date of incident is doubtful, however, her evidence with regard to accused praising PWl and shown ICDS symbol with amorous feelings ^is believable. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 speaks about ^the departmental enquiry and dismissal of the accused from the service. As discussed above, utterance of any word or making of any sound or gesture by a person, intending to insult the modesty of a woman, attracts the offence punishable under Section 509 I.P.C, if such act was made intending that such word or sound shall be heard that such gesture shall be seen by such woman. In the present case hand, the entire evidence on record clearly depicts that the ingredients of Section 509 IPC attracts against the accused, as rightly held by the first Appellate court.

In that view of the matter, the Sessions Court categorically ^held that the testimony of prosecution witnesses clearly goes to show that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the petitioner/acc^used beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 509 IPC. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings ^onfacts by the trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the

21.

, or on

22.

23.

9

trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses. Thereby,

there^isno apparent failure on the part of the Sessions Court in appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offence. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by the Sessions Court in convicting the accused for the said offences.

24.

Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is

of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere ^withthewell- articulated judgment of the Sessions Court and thereby, ^thisrevision has no merits. Consequently, the present revision is

liable^tobe dismissed.

25.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

confirming the Judgment, dated 13.09.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.74 ^of2015on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge,

Kurnool. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Copy of this order shall be marked to the trial Court

concerned. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if ^any,shall stand closed.

Sd/- V. DIWAKAR

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool

District. (With records)

2. The Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool,

Kurnool District.

f

3. The Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

4. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool,

Kurnool District.

5. One CC to Sri S.Jagadish, Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of

Andhra Pradesh^at

12

HIGH COURT

BSV

DATED:28/01/2025

ORDER

CRLRC.No.2639 of 2017 ^ Current Seotlon^^ '''"^^....^5 opr

P

W

Hx

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

13