Page 1 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, BHADRACHALAM.
Present : Ms. A. Durga Bhavani Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.
Wednesday, the 13th day of May 2026.
CC.No. 646 of 2021
(PS Cherla )
Between:
State Police through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Cherla
...Complainant
//And//
Lanjapally Venkateswarlu, S/o Late Narasaiah, Age : 40 yrs, Occ : Coolie,
R/o Kothapally Village of Cherla Mandal.
... Sole Accused
This case came before me for final hearing on 12-05-2026 for the disposal in the presence of Shri. Kunta Srinivas, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri. Avuluri Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the Accused.
Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T :
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Cherla has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No 07/2015 for the offences under Section 354 and 294(b) of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Page 2 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
a) on 19-01-2015 at 15:00 hours while the complainant after collecting the dry washed clothes and going into her house, her villager namely Lanjapally
Venkateswarlu/ Accused came to her house and caught hold of her hands and closed her mouth and tried to outrage her modesty.
b) this incident occurred when nobody was at home i.e., the husband of the complainant went to Yedulla Bayyaram to attend the death ceremony and whereas her in-laws went for coolie work.
c) later she narrated the incident to her husband after his arrival, and on the same day complainant’s husband during evening hours asked Lanjapally
Venkateswarlu/ Accused about the incident, to which the accused abused him in filthy language.
d) further the complainant has stated that accused told her and her husband that in previous occasions he paid some amount to other persons and in the same way he will pay to the complainant and her husband.
e) Lw8 registered a case in Cr.No. 07/2015 under Section 354 and 294(b) of IPC and took up the investigation.
f) During the course of investigation: Lw8/Shri. N. Ravinder Sub-Inspector of
Police (PS Cherla) did investigation in following sequence- a. Examined and recorded the statements of Lw’s 1 and 2 in Part-II Case
Diary;
Page 3 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 b. Visited the scene of offence (situated at Kothapally village) on 25/01/2015, and inspected crime scene and drafted Crime Detail Form in presence of mediators i.e., Lw’s 6 & 7; c. Examined and recorded the statements of Lw’s 3 to 5 in Part II Case
Diary; d. On 27/01/2015 accused got arrested and sent to judicial custody on the same day i.e., on 27/01/2015.
e. The Lw1 is the complainant/victim, Lw2 is the husband of the complainant, and Lw’s 3 & 4 are the family members i.e., father-in-law and mother of Lw1
g) Investigation done so far revealed that :- The accused is also from same village and community as that of the complainant and his house is situated at the back side of the complainant’s house.
That the complainant and her husband/Lw2 had a love marriage in the last summer season and both are residing in the thatched house in the same locality, and both are attending coolie works for their livelihood.
It is alleged that since the time of complainant’s marriage, the accused had bad eyes on her and ever since he was waiting for an opportunity and finally on 19-01-2015 during morning hours when no
Page 4 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 one was at home and also the complainant was unable to secure coolie work on that day due to which she stayed back home and upon noticing the same while the complainant was alone in the house, the accused took advantage of the situation and outraged her modesty as above-mentioned.
And that the complainant made hue and cries / raised an alarm to which the accused fled from that place leaving her and after arrival of her husband she narrated to her husband as to what had happened and further when complainant’s husband questioned accused about his misbehavior, the accused abused the complainant and her husband in a filthy language.
3. COGNIZANCE: After perusal of Chargesheet, Case Diary Part II, and FIR placed before this court, this court is of the considered opinion that there is a prima facie case against the accused for committing offence under Section
Section 354 Indian Penal Code, 1860 for outraging the modesty of Lw1 and
Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for abusing Lw1 and Lw2 and thereby this court took cognizance of the said offence against the
Accused/Lanjapally Venkateswarlu.
4. The Accused appeared before this court after issuance of the process on 25/05/2021 and subsequently accused was furnished with all the copies in compliance with Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.
Page 5 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026
5. FRAMING OF CHARGES: The Accused was examined on 10/12/2020 under
Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the charges were framed for the offence under Section 354 and Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and the charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION:
To substantiate its case, the Prosecution listed 8 witnesses out of them Pw1 to Pw5 got examined and Death certificates of Lw3, Lw5 and Lw7 were filed and Ex. P1 got marked through Pw1 and Ex. P2 and P3 is marked through
Pw5.
7. EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CRPC :
After closure of the Prosecution evidence, accused is examined under
Section 313(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by explaining the incriminating circumstances, appearing in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.
8. ARGUMENTS: Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the documents available on record.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the 5 days delay is explained by the Pw1 in her cross-examination where she stated that on the day of the said incident her husband was not present hence there is a delay for lodging of this complaint. The learned Assistant Public
Page 6 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026
Prosecutor further argued that the Prosecution witness No. 1 to 3 have withstood in entire Cross-examination and the testimony of Prosecution witness No.1 to 3 is of sterling quality. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is 5 days delay from the date of complaint to the date of lodging FIR, i.e., incident alleged to have taken place on 19- 01-2015 but the report i.e., Ex.P1 is lodged on 24/01/2015 and that
Pw5/investigating officer admitted during Cross-examination that the delay reason is not mentioned in Column No.8 of the FIR in the Charge
Sheet and further argued that as per Section 44 of the Police Act, 1861 which mandates that every officer in charge of the police station shall maintain a General Diary and that generally each and every incident/series of events on day to day basis are recorded in General
Diary in serial wise having General Diary number for each said entry and that the Pw5 stated that he does not remember the general diary number and it is not mentioned in FIR whereas the learned APP counter argued that the Pw5 stated in his Cross-examination that he made an entry in General Diary but only stated that he does not remember the
GD entry number.
The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no medical examination of the victim and that all the eye-witnesses in this case are relatives of Pw1 and none of the neighbors were examined by investigating officer and also that there are no eye-witnesses to this case. The learned Counsel for the accused further argued that the Pw1 stated in Ex.P1 that “the accused came to her house and suddenly the
Page 7 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 accused closed her mouth, caught hold of her both hands behind her back and tried to misbehave with her” whereas the Pw1 during her Chief examination stated that the accused touched her private parts i.e.,
Chest and the learned APP counter argued that FIR i.e., Ex.P1 is not an encyclopedia and that in Ex.P1 the Pw1 stated that the accused misbehaved with her and nothing new is introduced in Chief of Pw1 and
Pw1 being a rustic witness it is normal for such witness to state in their vernacular language in that way at the time of lodging report.
The Learned APP further argued that there is no need of medical examination as the victim did not report any kind of injuries and further argued that there is mens rea on the part of the accused as the very act of the accused shows that he had an intention to outrage the modesty of Pw1.
The learned counsel for the accused argued that there are many houses situated nearby the house of Pw1 and when the Pw1 shouts there is every chance that some or the other person would come to the alleged place of offence and when nothing of that sought happened the very occurrence of said offence is doubtful and moreover the investigation is not done properly as none of the neighbors (nearby houses) were examined by the Pw5 nor they were made as a witness. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the accused is falsely implicated due to previous grudges by the complainant/Pw1.
Page 8 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 The learned counsel for the accused argued that in Ex.P1 the Pw1 stated that she went to Bhadrachalam Hospital and whereas the Pw2 stated during Cross-Examination that Pw1 has undergone treatment at
Government Hospital, Cherla. The learned counsel for the accused brought the attention of the court that to prove the case of prosecution under Section 354 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients mentioned in Section 354A of Indian Penal Code.
The learned counsel for the accused argued that even the panch for CDF i.e., Pw4 resiled from his previous statement and nothing could be elicited even during Cross-examination by Learned APP.
9. NOW THE POINTS THAT ARISE FOR DETERMINATION ARE AS UNDER:
1) Whether the prosecution proved its case and established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond reasonable doubt?
2) Whether the prosecution proved its case and established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond reasonable doubt?
3) To what relief ?
10.POINTS:
It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 19-01-2015 at 15:00 hours while the complainant after collecting the dry washed clothes and going into her house, the Accused namely Lanjapally Venkateswarlu came to her house
Page 9 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 and caught hold of her hands and closed her mouth and tried to outrage her modesty and that the said incident occurred when nobody was at home i.e., the husband of the complainant went to Yedulla Bayyaram to attend the death ceremony and whereas her in-laws went for coolie work and that later she narrated the incident to her husband after his arrival, and on the same day complainant’s husband during evening hours the Accused about the incident, to which the accused abused him in filthy language.
To prove this case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Pw1 to Pw5.
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/VICTIM 11.The listed witness No. 1 got examined as Pw1 and during chief-examination of Pw1/Defacto Complainant/Victim/Smt Macha Mounika
Pw1 stated that on 19-01-2015 approximately around 3 PM while she was present at her home and collecting dried washed clothes and going inside her house, the accused caught hold of her hands and closed her mouth and he outraged her modesty by touching her private parts i.e., her chest to which Pw1 pushed the accused aside and she ran away to her parents’ house.
She further stated that on the above said date her husband went to Yedulla
Bayyaram to attend a death ceremony and when he came back in the evening, she informed him regarding the said incident and lodged a report in
Police Station, Cherla i.e., Ex. P1.
During Cross-examination of Pw1
Pw1 admits that she resides in Kothapally Village and a particular caste by name Madiga reside in the said area and she further admits that there are
Page 10 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 other houses situated near her house (neighbor houses). She deposed that the alleged incident happened after 3 years from the date of her marriage (i.e., love marriage) and that she was a minor when she got married and that
Pw1’s husband was her relative prior to her marriage. She denied the suggestion made to her that she used to go for coolie work near to the fields of accused’s and also denied the suggestion made that the accused questioned her for being with another person in accused’s fields. Pw1 further denied the suggestion made that since her house is situated very near to other neighboring house hence there is no chance of no one being present when the said incident took place and further Pw1 adds that there were none present when the incident took place. She admits that the witness cited are her relatives. She further admitted to the fact that she was 19 years old when she filed the present case and whereas the accused was approximately 53 years. Pw1 denied the suggestion made as to no such incident took place and accused behaved well with her since her childhood.
And further denied the suggestion that her colony consists of many houses and there will be a chance that someone would respond to her voice but she added that none were present there. She further deposed that the said incident took place on 19-01-2015 whereas she lodged the report on 24-01- 2015 and admitted to the fact that there was a delay of 5 days for lodging the said complaint and further she adds that on the day of incident her husband was not present due to which there was a delay for lodging of this complaint. She denied the suggestion made to her that due to family grudges she filed a false case against the accused. She states that she
Page 11 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 studied up to 10th class and she knows how to write Telugu and Ex.P1 was drafted by her husband upon her instructions. Pw1 denied the suggestion made as to wrong complaint being drafted by her husband. Further she stated that police examined her and recorded her statement in the police station on the same day of lodging of the report and it was recorded by one constable. She denied the suggestion made that she filed a false case just to harass the accused.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL WITNESSES
12.The listed witness No. 2 got examined as Pw2/Macha Ramu/Husband of
Pw1/Macha Ramu chief-examination:
Pw2 states that on 19-01-2015 approximately at 3 PM while he was not there at home and when his wife/Pw1 has collected the daily washed clothes and while going inside their house the accused came to their house and caught hold of her hands and closed her mouth and he outraged her modesty by touching her private parts i.e., her chest to which Pw1 pushed the accused aside and she ran away to her parents’ house. He further stated that on the above said date he went to Yedulla Bayyaram to attend a death ceremony and when he came back in the evening, he was informed about the said incident by Pw1 and hence they lodged a report in Police Station, Cherla i.e.,
Ex. P1, which was written by him/Pw2 and police examined him and recorded his statements.
Page 12 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026
During Cross-examination: - Pw2 states that he came to house after 2 days of the alleged incident and he was informed about said incident after 2 days of alleged incident. Pw2 further admits that he came back to his house on 21- 01-2015 and that he did not lodge a report on 21-01-2015 but after the treatment i.e., on 24-01-2015 they lodged this report. And Pw2 further states that Pw1 has undergone treatment at Govt Hospital Charla and also admits that they have not informed regarding the said treatment to the police. PW2 states that he cannot recollect whether he has submitted any outpatient receipts to the police. PW2 admits to the fact that the neighboring houses are situated to their house and that the houses are very close to one another. PW2 denied the suggestion made to him that no such incident took place hence they lodged the report very late and further that
PW2 has lodged a false report to harass the accused. Death Certificate of
Listed witnesses i.e., Lw3, Lw5 and Lw7 is filed before this Court on 29/10/25.
13) The listed witness No. 4 got examined as Pw3/Mother of the victim i.e.,
Pw1/Smt Vallepogu Vara Laxmi in her Chief-Examination stated that about 4 years back while she was not present at home, and when PW-1 was collecting the daily washed clothes and while she was going inside her house, the
Accused came to her house and caught hold of her hands and closed her mouth and he outraged her (Pw1) modesty by touching her private parts i.e., her chest and she pushed him aside and ran away to her house. And When
Pw3 returned from work PW-1 informed about the said incident to Pw3. And that Police examined her and recorded her statement.
Page 13 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026
During Cross-examination of Pw3:-
Pw3 states that she came to know about the said incident on the same day approximately at 6 PM and that Pw3’s husband also went to work and came approximately at about 7 to 8 PM. Pw3 denied to the suggestion made to her that as there were many houses surrounded to
PW-1 house there will be a chance of someone being present when the said incident took place. Pw3 further states that they have not lodged this report on the same day as PW2 is not present. Pw3 admitted that they went to Hospital for treatment. Pw3 denied to the suggestion made to her that no such incident took place and that they have filed a false complaint on accused and further that she is deposing false as PW-1 is her daughter and also denied the suggestion made that Police never examined or recorded her statement.
PANCH FOR CRIME DETAIL FORM
14)The listed witness No. 6 got examined as Pw4/Panch for CDF/Macha
Hymavathi in her Chief-examination stated that:-
Police Cherla neither conducted any panchanama nor drafted any document in her presence. And that she has not signed on any document.
And further in her Cross Examination by learned APP
Pw4 denied the suggestion made to her that on 24.01.2015 Police Cherla conducted spot panchanama in her presence and in the presence of LW7 and obtained her signature and that she is deposing false to help the accused.
Page 14 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026
INVESTIGATING OFFICER
15) The listed witness No.8 got examined as Pw5/Shri. N. Ravinder who is an
Investigating officer deposed in his Chief Examination that on 24.01.2015 at 1700 hours the complainant (PW1) along with her husband (PW2) came to Cherla Police Station and lodged a complaint and based on the said complaint he registered the case in Crime No. 07/2015 under
Section 294(b) and Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Ex. P2 is FIR).
During the course of investigation, he has recorded the statements of
PW1 and PW2 at Cherla Police Station and on the same day he visited the scene of offence i.e., Macha Mounika’s (purigudisa illu) at kothapalli and conducted scene of offence panchanama by drawing rough sketch in the presence of PW4 and LW7 and prepared Crime Detail Form (Ex. P3 is
CDF). And also, that he secured the presence of LW3, PW3 and LW5 and examined them and recorded their statements. Pw5 further deposes that on 27.01.2015 he arrested the accused and produced before Court for judicial remand. And then he filed a charge sheet.
During Cross-examination Pw5 deposed that :
Before proceeding to scene of offence, he made an entry in General
Dairy but he does not remember the General Dairy entry number. Pw5 admitted that he has to make GD entry after receipt of the complaint and that GD entry number is not mentioned in FIR but Pw5 adds further that he made an entry in General Dairy. Pw5 admitted that GD entry is as
Page 15 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 important as FIR and that each and every entry is made in General Dairy.
Pw5 admits that there is delay in lodging the complaint (incident - 19.01.2015 to FIR – 24.01.2015). Pw5 admits to have not mentioned the delay reason in the Charge sheet as stated in column no. 8 of FIR and Pw5 adds that the facts mentioned in Charge sheet shows the delay reasons where the husband of complainant went to Yedullabayyaram to attend death ceremony and upon his arrival the complainant stated about alleged incident to him. Pw5 admits that he went to place of offence at 1800 hours. Pw5 admits that he mentioned date and time in CDF and also motive of crime is stated in CDF. Pw5 admits to have not mentioned date and time in column number 8 of Ex. P3 but Pw5 states that he has mentioned the date at the end of Ex. P3. Pw5 denies the suggestion made to him that since Ex. P3 is incomplete it goes to show that he did not go to scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama.
Pw5 admits to have not filled certain columns in Ex.P3 as they are not necessary for this case facts. Pw5 states that he only made the rough sketch in Ex. P3. Pw5 denies the suggestion made to him that there is a need of indicating the scale in rough sketch and further Pw5 adds that only in the cases of physical evidence like knife or any physical article we mention the scale in rough sketch. Pw5 admits to have recorded the statements of LW3, PW3 and LW5 at the scene of offence. Pw5 denies the suggestion made to him that apart from LW3, PW3 and LW5 there were other villagers present at the scene of offence but he has not examined them but Pw5 adds that when he went to place of offence only
Page 16 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026
LW3, PW3 and LW5 were present. Pw5 denies the suggestion made to him that he has only conducted table investigation and did not collect evidence properly.
POINT NO.1
16)In order to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 the word sung, recited or uttered, in or near any place should have caused annoyance to others. The basic requirement for prosecuting a person under Section 294(b) is that the person should have sung, recited or uttered any obscene song, ballad or words to the annoyance of others.
17) Annoyance to somebody is necessary to constitute an offence under this
Section. This section is intended to prevent obscene acts being done in the public to the annoyance of the public at large and it does not limit the scope of the word “others” to mean the person who is the intended victim of the obscene act of the accused. The defacto complainant stated in Ex.P1 and in her 161 statement that “….తేది 24-01-2015 సాయం�త్రం�� నా భర్త� లం�జపల్లి� వెం�కటేశ్వ�ర్లు� ను విషయం� అడిగినం�దుకు నా భర్త�ను, నంను బయంటకు పిల్లిచి త్రంనం నోటికి వచి)నం మాటలు మాట�దినాడు- గత్రం�లో కొం�త్రం మం�దిని డబ్బు4లు కటి5నంను అదేవిదం�గా నా భర్త�కు కూడా డబ్బు4లు కడతానంని నానా ర్తకాలుగా అనా డు......."(in her vernacular language) but the complainant/Pw1 nor her husband/Pw2 whisper about this incident in their depositions. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed about the alleged incident much less in or near public place causing annoyance to others.
Page 17 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026
18) In order to satisfy the test of obscenity the words uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the mind of its hearers and whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. In the instant case also, from a mere perusal of the materials available on record, it can be seen that the only allegation raised by the de-facto complainant is that the accused have used humiliating, abusive, vulgar or defamatory words in her 161 statement and not even a remote whisper is anywhere therein more particularly before court by either
Pw1 or 2 that the words used contained lascivious elements or prurient elements or using sexual thoughts or feelings or that the words must have the effect of depraving persons, and defiling morals by sex appeal or lustful desires, etc. Therefore, offence under Sec.294(b) is not made out in the facts of this case.
19) A vague or general statement in the FIR that the accused uttered obscene words is not enough to constitute an offence under Section 294(b) Indian penal code. Though the complainant stated about the vulgar language used by the accused in her 161 statement but the same is not deposed before court which creates doubt in the mind of the court as to whether the alleged use of abusive language by accused ever took place and moreover even in Ex.P1 the complainant did not state that the accused used such vulgar language in a public place or to show that it caused annoyance to others as there are no eye witnesses to this alleged
Page 18 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 incident so as to attract the offence under the Section 294(b) of Indian penal code.
20) To attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC the words uttered must be obscene and it must be to the annoyance of others and it must have been uttered in or near any public place. The sine qua non application of
Section 294 is an annoyance unless annoyance is caused, the act will not be punishable. Even if the words uttered are construed to be obscene, unless the act complained of is committed in a public place causing annoyance to members of public, offence under this section would not be made out. Hence, in the light of above discussion the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence the Point No.1 is answered in favor of the accused and against the prosecution.
Point No.2
21) The other question before this court is as to whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt with respect to the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
Code 1860). A bear perusal of Section 354 of Code, 1860 reveals that for it to apply, the offence must be committed against a woman; criminal force must be applied against her; and such application of force must be with the intent to outrage her modesty. The ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender/accused such as could be perceived as one which is capable of
Page 19 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter.
22) It is well settled proposition of law that the best witness in a case of outraging the modesty of a woman is the woman herself and the victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her testimony should receive the same weight. Upon perusal of the deposition of the Prosecution witness No.1 who stated that on 19- 01-2015 approximately around 3 PM while she was present at her home and collecting dried washed clothes and going inside her house, the accused caught hold of her hands and closed her mouth and he outraged her modesty by touching her private parts i.e., her chest to which Pw1 pushed the accused aside and she ran away to her parents’ house and the same is corroborated by Pw2 and Pw3. The court is of the considered view that failure on part of defense to take out any contradiction with regard to her molestation by accused the defense of absence of eye- witnesses to the alleged offence cannot be taken into consideration and moreover when a woman/Pw1 feels offended on account of catching her hand, then by itself the accused must be held to have outraged her modesty and in this case when the accused is said to have caught hold of her hands and also touched her private parts, there is no doubt that the accused is said to have outraged the modesty of Pw1 as the overt act of accused closing the mouth of Pw1 and committing such act no doubt attracts the ingredients of Section 354 of Code, 1860 where it clearly outlines the intent or mens rea of the accused. Hence the defense taken
Page 20 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 by the accused that if Pw1 would have shouted then there is every chance that the nearby people/neighbors would have come to her rescue and since the neighbors of the neighboring houses which are closely situated were not examined and no one witnessed the scene of offence the alleged incident is said to have not happened at all whereas the court is of considered view that, even if the defense of the accused is taken into account the Pw1 did not state anywhere that she shouted, she stated that she pushed the accused and ran to her parent’s house and moreover the version of prosecution is believable as the Pw1 to 3 consistently stated the same. And even if the version of defense is taken into consideration that in Ex.P1 the Pw1 stated that the accused misbehaved with her but during chief she stated that accused touched her private parts which is contradictory in nature and even then the Pw1 consistently held about closing mouth and holding her both hands towards her back both in Ex.P1 and in her chief examination which itself is enough to prove the prosecution case under Section 354 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
23) Therefore, where an accused is tried for an offence under Section 354 and an assault is proved, the next question to be considered is whether he did so with intent to outrage the woman’s modesty or with knowledge that it would be outraged. So far as offence under Section 354, is concerned, intention to outrage the modesty of a woman or knowledge that the act of the accused would result in outraging her modesty is the gravamen of the offence. The Accused’s overt acts
Page 21 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 indicating his intention to outrage Pw1’s modesty is very clear in this case as in the eyes of ordinary prudent man no one would go to a woman when she is alone and do such act without intent to outrage her modesty. In this case the act of the accused clearly shows his intention and also the subsequent reaction of the Pw1 shows that her modesty is outraged by the accused where she protested by pushing herself from the clutches of the accused and therefore, where prosecution proved that the accused tried to outrage modesty of the complainant/Pw1 by holding her hands and touching her private parts which was protested by her and thereafter she went to her parents’ house as deposed by her
before court is believable and thus the act of accused falls within the
offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
24) As far as the Burden of proof is concerned: the best witness in a case under this section is the woman herself against whom the offence is said to be committed and there is no warrant for lying down the wide proposition that in a case under Section 354 or for the matter of that in any case relating to a sexual offence excepting rape, independent corroboration of the prosecutrix’s evidence can be insisted upon.
Therefore, the evidence of sole witness viz. the victim/Pw1 corroborated by post occurrence witnesses (Pw2 and 3) as victim/Pw1 narrated the incident to them i.e., to Pw2 and 3 who supported the prosecution case can very much relied upon to base the conviction of the accused. Even during cross-examination a suggestion was made two times where she consistently held that no one were present at the time of alleged
Page 22 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 incident i.e., “Pw1 denied the suggestion made to her that since her house is situated very near to other neighboring house hence there is no chance of no one being present when the said incident took place and further Pw1 adds that there were none present when the incident took place.
25) The other defense taken by the accused is the Delay in lodging FIR by the victim where the prosecution clearly stated that the delay was caused since victim’s husband was not present in village and when Pw2/Husband of Pw1 returned home she narrated whole incident and then they lodged report i.e., Pw1 stated during her chief-examination that “her husband went to Yedulla Bayyaram to attend a death ceremony and when he came back in the evening, she informed him regarding the said incident and lodged a report in Police Station, Cherla i.e., Ex. P1.” Even during her
Cross-examination she admitted that “there was a delay of 5 days for lodging the said complaint and further she adds that on the day of incident her husband was not present due to which there was a delay for lodging of this complaint” and also the Pw2 and 3 corroborated the version of Pw1 where Pw2 stated that “he went to Yedulla Bayyaram to attend a death ceremony and when he came back in the evening, he was informed about the said incident by Pw1 and hence they lodged a report in Police Station, Cherla i.e., Ex. P1” and also Pw3 stated that “they have not lodged this report on the same day as PW2 is not present.” and it is also relevant to see from the eyes of ordinary prudent man where it is not always possible for women to go to police on their own and
Page 23 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 moreover some women are also scared to take steps at their own in absence of husband so that latter may not be annoyed with her for that reason and also due to social stigma that is normally attached to the victim of sexual offence wherein not only the honor of the victim is at stake but also that of the whole family of the victim and further the court is of considered opinion that there is no reason existed to discard evidence of the victim/Pw1.
26) As per the suggestions made by learned counsel for the accused i.e., a
Plea of false implication on ground of family grudges is hardly tenable since in conservative society woman would not be used as pawn to wreak a vengeance. And moreover, no proof of enmity between victim or family member of victim with accused is shown and no case of false implication is made out with cogent proof by the defense.
27) The Learned APP argued that in a criminal trial the suspicion entertained by the defense by making suggestions could be of no consequences for that alone could not lead to discredit the prosecution witnesses.
28) The learned Counsel for the accused argues that the Pw2 and 3 being interested witnesses the same cannot be relied upon by the court and hence the prosecution failed to established the case beyond reasonable doubt since none of the villagers/neighbors were examined. Therefore, it is relevant to discuss as to who is an “interested witness”. The word “Related” is not equivalent to “interested”. A witness be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of
Page 24 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 a litigation, in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. Thus, the evidence of a closely related witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the victim. And moreover, when the testimony of the witnesses i.e., Pw1 to 3 is consistent, straight forward and cogent in all respects and where there is no motive for false implication, then their testimony cannot be ignored on minor discrepancies such as mentioning of hospital as Bhadrachalam in Ex. P1 and as Cherla in Pw2’s cross examination. Even if the Pw2 and 3 are considered as interested witnesses law is well settled that evidence of interested witnesses, who are related to the victim is not to be thrown away on the ground of such relationship, but it is to be scrutinized carefully and where the evidence of Pw2 and 3 has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy the same can be relied upon and the same need not be rejected.
29) The learned counsel for the accused argued at length by stating that investigation is not properly done and the very investigation is doubtful as Pw5 did not state the GD entry number and also Pw5 in not examining neighbors of the Pw1. It is well nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious, the rest of evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise, criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have predominance and preeminence in criminal trials over the action taken by the investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made the casuality for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in
Page 25 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a victim/witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit investigating officer’s suspicious role in the case. This being the position of law and when the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case except for the Pw4 who is a panch for Crime detail form which by itself will not affect the consistent testimony of Pw1 to 3.
And when the evidence is scrutinized independently it can be clearly seen that the accused outraged the modesty of Pw1.
30) It is well settled principle of law that evidence of injured witnesses has greater value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly and that in cases of sexual assault the evidence of prosecutrix is to be treated as that of an injured witness, so much that no corroboration is necessary. By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual assault alone to convict the accused. And that seeking corroboration of a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus to be taken as a whole. In the present case at hand the Evidence of victim/Pw1 is natural and inspiring confidence and though there is no need of corroboration the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, where Pw2 and 3
Page 26 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 supported the case of prosecution and hence the Point No.2 is answered in favor of the prosecution and against the accused.
31) Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused for the offence under Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for an offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and hence he is liable to be convicted. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favor of the accused and against the prosecution whereas Point No.2 is answered in favor of the prosecution and as against the accused.
32) IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under
Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and accordingly the accused is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Further, the accused is found guilty for an offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and accordingly convicted under Section 248(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period as contemplated under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973.
(Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of May, 2026.)
Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam
Page 27 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026
HEARING ON THE QUANTUM OF SENTENCE
33)The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and it envisage punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
34) Heard the Accused with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. The accused did not state anything and this court is of considered view that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence and material available on record, the
Court sentenced him to imprisonment of 1 year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees thousand only) for the offence under Section 354 of
IPC and in default payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
35) The period of detention undergone by the accused i.e., remand period of the accused, if any, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
36) The Accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against the conviction and sentence of this Court, and about his right to seek for free legal aid provided by the Legal Services Authority, Kothagudem to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble Sessions Court if he is not having counsel
Page 28 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026 to prefer an appeal. When the accused is enquired about his means, he informed that he has means to engage counsel in preferring the appeal.
37) A free copy of this judgment is furnished to the convict under due acknowledgment in compliance of Section 363 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
38) In the result, the accused is found guilty under Section 354 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and is convicted under Section 248(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
39) The Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (01) one year for the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. As there is no property in the present case, hence no order as to the property.
(Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of May, 2026.)
Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam
Page 29 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:
I. WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION–
PW.1/LW.1Smt. Macha MounikaDefacto Complainant PW.2/LW.2Shri. Macha RamuHusband of Victim/ Circumstantial Witness PW.3/LW.4Smt. Vallepogu Vara LakshmiMother of Victim/ Circumstantial Witness PW.4/LW.6Smt. Macha HymavathiPanch for CDF PW.5/LW.8Shri. N. RavindraInvestigating Officer
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE–
-NIL-
II. EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION–
Ex.P1Is the Report of PW1 Ex.P2Is the First Information Report(FIR) Ex.P3Is the Crime Detail Form (CDF)
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE–
-NIL-
III. MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED-
-NIL-
ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
BHADRACHALAM
Page 30 of 30 C.C.No. 646 of 2021 Dt : 13-05-2026
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
BHADRACHALAM
CALENDER CASE NO. 646 OF 2021
Date Of Offence19-01-2015
Date of Complaint24-01-2015
Date of Apprehension27-01-2015
Commencement of Trial 29-10-2025
Closure of Trial on22-04-2026
Date of Judgment13-05-2026
ComplainantState Police through Sub Inspector of Police Cherla P.S.
Lanjapally Venkateswarlu, S/o Late Narasaiah, Age : 40 Name of the accused yrs, Occ : Coolie, R/o Kothapally Village of Cherla Mandal.
Offenceunder Section 354 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
FINDING OF THE COURT Found Not Guilty / Acquitted for the offence under Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Found Guilty / Convicted for the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
BHADRACHALAM