1Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas
// Fair Copy //
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :
AT SECUNDERABAD.
PRESENT : Ch.Panchakshari,, X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
SECUNDERABAD.
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021
C.C. No. 323 of 2015
Between: State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda P.S.
.... Complainant
A N D Tathari Srinivas @ Sreenu, S/o. T. Yadagiri, Aged 33 years, Occ : Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 12-7-141/B, Mettuguda, Secunderabad.
….Accused
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 06-04-2021 in the presence of Learned Sr.A.P.P, for the State and of Sri. Jahangir, Learned Counsel for Accused, after having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
The Sub Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda have laid charge sheet against the
Accused for the offence u/Secs.354(D)(1)(i), 506, 509 and 323 of IPC, on completion of investigation of the case, registered on the report lodged by the
Complainant/Smt. J.Sabitha/PW1.
2.The gist and kernel of the case of prosecution is follows as here under:
On 16.04.2014 at about 8.00 PM, the PW1/Complainant Smt.J.Sabitha lodged a Report stating that about 7 years back her husband passed away in an accident. Thereafter, she along with her two daughters staying at Mettuguda,
Secunderabad and eking out her livelihood by working as a Home-Guard in DGP
Office. Since last two years one of her neighbour and friend of her husband by name T.Srinivas i.e., this accused harassing her, by moving behind her and torturing her to marry him, though he was married and having children. Further contended that the accused used to wait at Alugaddabavi Bus Stop by passing vulgar comments, gestures and threatened her with dire consequences, if she did not accept the accused.
2.1. On 15.04.2014 at about 9.30 PM, when she had been to Alugaddabavi Bus
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
11:57:55 +0530 2Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas
Stop in order to go to her duty, PW1 was waiting for bus at there, in the meantime this accused/Srinivas approached her, passed vulgar comments and harassed her for marriage. When the complainant shown her ignorance, all of a sudden, the accused slapped on her cheek, bet her on the head and went away from the scene, due to which the PW1 sustained a swelling over her cheek. Thus the accused outraged the modesty of the complainant/PW1.
2.2. Basing on the said Report, LW7/M.K.B.Chalapathi Rao, Head Constable registered this case, issued First Information Report and handed over the C.D., file to PW4 for investigation.
2.3. In the course of investigation, the PW4 examined and recorded the statement of the Complainant/PW1, referred her to hospital for treatment. In the course of investigation, PW4 examined and recorded the statements of PW2, PW3 and
LW4/Gajula Rani. While the efforts are in progress to apprehend the accused, PW4 apprehended the accused on 11.05.2014 at his residence, brought him to Police
Station and interrogated. On interrogation the accused have admitted his guilty. On voluntary confession made by accused as to commission of this offence, PW4 effected the arrest of accused and produced him before court for judicial custody.
2.4. Later the LW9/G.Bhaskar Reddy, Sub-inspector of Police, taken up investigation of the case. On completion of investigation, the SI of Police/LW9 collected the Wound Certificate from LW5/Dr.Sandeep, who treated the PW1 and filed charge sheet, with a pray to punish the accused for the offence u/Secs. 354(D) (1)(i), 323, 506 and 509 of IPC
3.This court had taken cognizance for offence u/Secs. 354(D)(1)(i), 506, 509 and 323 of IPC against Accused, on perusal of the charge sheet. On appearance of accused herein, copies of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to him as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.
4. The Accused is examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. A charge for the offence
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
11:58:21 +0530 3Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas u/secs.354(D)(1)(i), 506, 509 and 323 of IPC have been framed and the contents of the charge have been explained to the accused in his language. For which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the same.
5.In order to prove the offence against accused, on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW4 are examined, Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4 were got marked and closed its evidence.
6.On closure of the evidence for prosecution, the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining incriminating evidence on record against the accused.
For which, the accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence on behalf of the accused.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned APP.
8. Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilty of accused herein beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/Secs.354(D)(1)(i), 506, 509 and 323 of IPC ?
9. POINT:The accused herein is facing trial for the offence u/Sec. 354(D) (1)(i) of IPC, as he committed the act of stalking, further the accused criminally intimidated the PW1 as such facing trial for the offence u/Sec.506 of IPC; further the accused herein used bad words intended to insult the modesty of PW1 in a public place at Bus Stop, as such the accused is facing trial for the offence u/Sec.509 of IPC; and for the offence u/Sec. 323 of IPC, as the accused bet the PW1 with hands on the cheek and head of PW1.
10.To bring home the guilty of the accused for the above said offences, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 through them.
The PW1 is the Victim in the hands of accused, who lodged Report/Ex.P1. The PW2 and PW3 are the Circumstantial Witnesses and PW4 is the Investigating Officer.
Ex.P1 is the Report, basing on which Ex.P2/First Information Report was issued against this accused. Ex.P.3 is the Wound Certificate issued by Dr. Sandeep,
CMO of Gandhi Hospital, who treated the PW1 and opined that PW1 received
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
11:58:33 +0530 4Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas simple injuries. Ex.P4 is the Section Alteration Memo filed by Investigating Officer.
11.The learned APP representing the State have argued that the evidence of
PW1 who is a victim supporting the case of the prosecution and there are no improvements made in her evidence and even not shattered and unshaken even in the cross examination of the learned counsel for the accused. Hence, prayed the court to consider her evidence. Further argued that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is also supporting the testimony of PW1 put together, prosecution is able to prove the offences against the accused for the charged offences. It is further argued by the learned APP that mere because, there is no evidence collected from the independent witnesses at Alugaddabavi Bus Stop, the evidence of PW1 shall not be brushed aside. She being a lady cannot speak false by spoiling her character. Hence prayed the court to give due weight to the testimony of PW1 and punish the accused according to law.
12.The learned counsel for the accused refuting the arguments of the learned
APP argued that there is a delay of nearly one day in lodging the Report with the
Police, which was not explained by the PW1, though the Police Station Chilkalguda is very near to the scene of offence. Further submitted that there is no medical evidence to prove that the PW1 received injuries. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the Sec. 323 of IPC. It is further submitted that this is a case foisted against the accused to avoid the amount due to the accused by the complainant and her family; further argued that there were cordial relations in between the accused and
PW1 and her family, hence the PW1 filed this false case. It is further submitted that when the accused harassed her for two years, the PW1 should have exposed the same to the locality people and lodged the report against the accused. But in this case, the PW1 kept quite for two years and lodged this report with false allegations to evade the payment of loan amount to the accused. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of PW1 cannot be believed to
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
11:58:47 +0530 5Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas prove the offence u/Sec.509 of IPC, since she did not state the abusive words specifically in her statement to the Police and Report. Further, submitted that as no independent witnesses were examined in this case, no person was examined by the
PW4 who witnessed the incident at Alugaddabavi Bus Stop. Hence, prayed the court to acquit the accused by discarding the testimony of PWs.1 to 3.
13. Before proceeding into the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, this court feels that it would be relevant to refer the ingredients of offences which prosecution must prove against the accused before this court and it would be very easy to appreciate the evidence of witnesses once, the ingredients are referred.
13.1. In order to found the accused guilty for the offence u/Sec.354(D)(1)(i) of
IPC., the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt on record that:
(1). Any man who follows a woman; (2). Contact, or attempt to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly; (3). Despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman
The said offence is subject to the certain exceptions:
(I). If the said act is done for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the said act has been entrusted by State;
(ii). If the said act was done under any law or ;
(iii). If the said act is reasonable and justified in the given circumstances.
13.2. That causing insult to the modesty of a woman is an essential ingredient for the offence u/sec.509 of IPC. That insult is caused intentionally.
13.3.The prosecution must prove the following ingredients to attract the offence u/sec.506 of IPC: They are:
1. That the accused threatened some person;
2. That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of some one in whom he was interested;
3. That he did so with intent to cause alaram to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do,
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
11:59:02 +0530 6Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
14.In this case, the incident was occurred on 15-4-2014 at about 9-30 AM, at the Alugaddabavi Bus stop, when the PW1 was present there to board a bus to go to her office. The report was lodged on 16-4-2014 at 8 PM with the police
Chilkalaguda. The PW1 have explained the reasons for lodging the report with delay.
15.Now coming to the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The victim is examined as PW1, who lodged the report/Ex.P1 against the accused on 16.04.2014 at 8 PM i.e., on the next day of incident. In the evidence PW1 had categorically deposed stating that on 15.10.2014 in the morning hours at about 9.30 AM when she was standing at the Alugaddabavi Bus Stop to go to her office, the accused also have come to the Bus Stop started abusing the PW1 “LANJEDANA YEVARITHO
THIRUGUTUNNAVU, NA VEMBADI RAADU, OFFICE LO YEVARAINA VUNNARA NEEKU, ANDUKE
NAA VEMBADI RAAVU” and bet on the cheek and head of PW1. It is further deposed by
PW1 that this accused threatened her to marry the accused or otherwise, the accused threatened to kill the PW1 and her children. It is specific evidence of PW1 that the accused followed her since the year 2008 and she did not reveal the same to her family members, but informed about the incident occurred on 15.04.2014 to her Mother-in-law and later lodged the Report with the Police Chilkalguda to take action against the accused herein.
16. In the course of cross-examination, the PW1 have admitted that there were cordial relations with the accused family and the locality people and the house of accused is opposite to the house of PW1 and further admitted that at about 9.30
AM, generally there will be huge gathering of persons going to offices and schools at the alugaddabavi bus stop. By taking this admission, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the non examination of the persons present and witnessed the incident occurred at Alugaddabavi Bus Stop is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
But this court is not inclined to concede with the argument of the learned counsel
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
11:59:16 +0530 7Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas
for the accused, for the reason that the Alugaddabavi Bus Stop is a public place, no
one stays permanently at the Bus Stop, public will be moving on from time to time.
Hence, the non examination of the persons who were present and witnessed the incident is not at all fatal to the prosecution case as it would be difficult to the investigating officer to gather the persons. As such, this court finds no strength in the argument of the learned counsel for the accused.
17.In the cross examination of the PW1, the PW1 denied the suggestions given by the learned counsel for the accused. The defence of the accused is that she lodged a false report against the accused, with the help of Police in order to avoid the repayment of loan amount taken from the accused. But this suggestion was also denied by the PW1 and also denied by PW2, who is Mother-in-law of PW1 and the
PW2 have categorically deposed in her further cross-examination that her husband earned Rs.50,000/- and also the PW1 was earning, hence there was no need to avail loan from this accused. Except putting suggestion nothing have been stated or produced by the accused to prove his defence to believe that this case was foisted falsely to avoid the payment of loan amount. Even it is not suggested to PW1 or
PW2 as to what was the loan amount availed by the family of PW1. Hence, this court is also of the view that there was no strength in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused, as the accused failed to prove that the fact of availing of loan amount by the PW1. The accused has failed to probabilise that there was loan amount due to him by the family of the PW1, as it was within his knowledge. But he failed to prove the same. Considering the evidence of PW1 as deposed by her on oath before this court, which is supporting the contents of the Ex.P1/Report lodged by her. This court is of the view that the PW1 evidence is a trustworthy one and creditworthy one.
18.Considering the same this court is of the opinion that the accused herein followed the PW1 with an intention to contact her repeatedly, inspite of her
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
11:59:32 +0530 8Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas disinterest towards the accused as he was already married and having children. Even one can not presume that the widow having children and parents in law, tries to develop interest towards the accused. If the PW1 had any such interest, this incident should not have happened. Hence, this court is of the view that the PW1 was disinterested in him. Further the evidence of the PW1 also proves that the accused used bad words with an intention to cause outrage the modesty of PW1 in the public place. Moreover, the accused had assaulted on her with hands in the broad day light in a public place.
19.In the evidence, the PW1 have deposed the abusive words which were uttered towards the PW1, which definitely hurt the feelings of a woman, as they were spoken in public place and they were caused the outrage to the modesty of
PW1. No doubt, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, the PW1 neither mentioned the abusive words in her Report nor stated in her statement of Police, but she had specifically mentioned the accused used “bad words” in the public place i.e. at the Bus stop. It is settled law that the Report is not an encyclopedia and the complainant should mentioned entire material in the report. There is no need to contain all the averments in the report, as argued by the learned APP. The non mentioning of Abusive words specifically in the Report, it can not be said that the accused had not committed any act of an offence u/Sec. 509 of IPC. This court is also of the view that the accused made an act of assault on the PW1 and used bad words at the PW1 with a specific intention and knowledge that the said words caused hurt to the PW1.
20.The other evidence is PWs.2 and 3 who are the Circumstantial Witnesses.
PW2 is the Mother-in-law of PW1 and PW3 is the Sister of PW1. They are not the direct witnesses to the incident and they have come to know about the incident occurred at Alugaddabavi Bus Stop through the PW1 and their testimony corroborates the evidence of PW1 in toto. Though the learned counsel for the
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
11:59:47 +0530 9Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas accused cross-examined the PWs.2 and 3 at length, nothing have been elicited to discredit the testimony of PW1. In view of the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, which supports the testimony of PW1, this court is of the view that the prosecution is able to prove the offences against the accused.
21.Coming to the evidence of PW4 who deposed in his examination in chief as narrated in the charge sheet and in the course of cross-examination, the PW4 admitted that there was a delay of one day in lodging the Report before the Police.
The PW4 deposed that the PW1 mentioned the reasons for the delay in lodging the report. Hence the lodging the report on 16.04.2014 can not be said that it was lodged with a delay without explaining the same. Because, the incident occurred in the morning hours when she was going to attend her duty, but returned in the evening and after narrating the incident to her Mother-in-law on the next day, the report was lodged. Hence, this court did not incline to concede with the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the delay was not properly explained.
22.The PW4 during the course of cross-examination have admitted that categorically stating that the PW1 did not mention the abusive words in the report and did not state in her statement u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Hence as stated supra, since the PW1 had mentioned in the Report Ex.P1 that the accused used bad words at her and before this court on oath, the PW1 narrated the words that were uttered by the accused is sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty for the offence u/Sec.509 of
IPC, as they caused insult to her modesty.
23.The PW4 in his cross-examination further admitted that he had not examined the person who were present at the Alugaddabavi Bus Stop and also the eye witnesses. It is also admitted further that the PWs.1 and 2 are Daughter-in-law and
Mother-in-law living under one roof. The learned counsel for the accused have argued that since the PWs.1 and 2 are none other than Daughter-in-law and
Mother-in-law, their evidence cannot be believed, as there is no evidence from the
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
12:00:00 +0530 10Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas independent witnesses as admitted by the PW4/investigating officer. But this court is not inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the accused for the reasons as stated above. Even in the absence of the evidence from the independent witnesses, the evidence of a victim can be relied if it is trustworthy and credit worthy one. Since, in Indian system of way of life, no woman dares to make an allegation by hurting herself.
24.In a case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai, Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1983 SC 756, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
“In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ?.”
In a case of State of Rajasthan vs. Biram Lal, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 714, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
“It is not the law that in every case version of the prosecutrix must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence on record. It all depends on the quality of the evidence of the prosecutrix, if the court is satisfied with the evidence of prosecutrix is free from blemish and is implicitly reliable, then on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the conviction can be recorded. In appropriate cases, the court may look for corroboration from independent source or from the circumstance of the case, before recording the order of conviction”.
In a case of Lal Mohammed Vs State (NCT of Delhi), the Honble Delhi High
Court held that :
”14. It is settled principle of law that any case involving the
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
12:00:17 +0530 11Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas sexual assault/rape, it is generally difficult to find any corroborative witnesses, except the victim herself and therefore the evidence of the victim is sufficient for conviction, unless there is existing compelling reasons seeking corroboration. Thus conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence and the same
principals have been re-iterated in Vijay Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 191, it was held that “14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue as to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration, the court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix”.
25.In the case on hand, the evidence of PW1 is unshaken, unrebutted by the accused through the cross examination of the PW1, further no motive was shown by the accused to falsely implicate him in this case. Further the accused had not raised any specific defence in this case for lodging the false report as stated in the preceding paragraphs. Though the accused had taken defence of evading of loan amount by the family of PW1, but the same has not been proved through the cross- examination of PWs.1 to 3 or he entered into the witness box to substantiate the plea that this was the false case foisted to avoid payment of loan amount. In a case of Shambu Nath Mehra vs. The state of Ajmer, reported in 1956 SCR 199, it was held that:
“This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exception cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
12:00:30 +0530 12Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word “especially stresses that. It means fact that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge”.
26.Inview of the testimony of the PW1 to 3, this court is of the opinion that the accused has failed to prove the fact of indebtedness of the family of the PW1 to the accused, though it is in his exclusive knowledge. Hence, this court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the accused and holds that there is no strength in the said contention.
27.In view of the clear testimony of PW1, this court is inclined to hold that the testimony of PW1 is a reliable and trustworthy one. Hence this court proceeds to act upon the testimony of PW1, supported by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, even in the absence of the evidence from independent witnesses, as it was difficult to collect the independent evidence, as the incident occurred at Alugaddabavi Bus
Stop.
28.In this case, the accused herein bet the PW1 with his hands on her cheek and on her head. The Ex.P3/Wound Certificate issued by the Dr.Sandeep examination opined that the PW1 received simple injuries. He found swelling in the beaten area and also upon in the right side of frontal perital region and also in the neck region.
As the injury is simple even one can not see the hurt with naked eyes. Even according to the definition of “Hurt”, any bodily pain or infirmity to any person is said to be hurt as defined under sec.319 of IPC. As the oral evidence of PW1 is supported by Ex.P3/Wound Certificate which is marked without any objection, this court is inclined to hold that the prosecution has proved the case for the offence u/
Sec.323 of IPC.
29.The accused is charged for the offence u/Sec.506 of IPC, which prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation to PW1. In this case, the evidence of PW1 is specific that this accused threatened the PW1 to kill her and her
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
12:00:45 +0530 13Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas children, if the PW1 did not oblige the accused or act according to the words of the accused. On the day itself, the accused assaulted on her with hands in the public place, definitely the said act of the accused sufficient to create a threat and alarm in the mind of PW1 that he may do something against her and her children if did not oblige the accused. As far as this court is concerned that is sufficient to hold that the accused had committed criminal intimidation against the PW1.
30.In a case of Manik Taneja and another vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2015) 7 SCC 423 (SC), it was held that:
”11.xxxx A reading of the definition of “criminal intimidation” would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alaram to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of “criminal Intimidation”. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
12:00:58 +0530 14Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the mind of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty”.
31.Inview of the specific testimony of the PW1 which is credit worthy one, this court is inclined to hold that the act of the accused have created an alaram in the mind of the PW1 that the accused causes harm to her or her children. As deposed by the PW1 in her testimony, have clearly deposed that the accused by criminally intimidating the PW1, has assaulted on her with hands. This itself is sufficient to hold that the accused had intention of cause harm to the PW1. Considering the same, this court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove the offence under sec. 506 of IPC.
32.On considering the entire evidence, this court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution is able to bring home the guilty for the offence of stalking, voluntarily causing hurt and using bad words intentionally outraging or insulting the modesty of PW1 and also proved that the act of the accused had created an alarm of criminal intimidation in the mind of PW1.
33.In view of the above discussion, this court safely concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The point is answered, accordingly.
34. In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence u/Secs. 354(D)(1)
(i), 506, 509 and 323 of IPC, as such the accused is convicted of the same u/Sec.
248(2) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to Stenographer over phone, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of April, 2021.
Digitally signed by CH
CHPANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARIDate: 2021.04.09 12:01:12 +0530
X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
SECUNDERABAD.
35.The Accused is examined u/sec.248 (2) of Cr.P.C., appraising accused as to quantum of punishment prescribed for the offences u/Secs.354(D)(1)(i), 506, 509 and 323 of IPC. The Accused pleaded mercy. The Plea of accused is recorded in a separate sheet and prayed the court to acquit the accused in this case by taking a
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
12:01:46 +0530 15Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas lenient view in her favour.
36. The mercy pleaded by the accused is recorded and the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is having children and there is no one to look after them and no other cases are there against the accused. Having considering the same, this court is not inclined to take lenient view in favour of the accused to acquit him. Hence, I am of the view that sentencing the accused would be sufficient to bring a change in the accused and if the accused is acquitted by taking a lenient view, it will give erroneous signs to the persons in the society as the act of the accused is against a widow who is looking after her children after the death of her husband.
37.For the reasons as stated supra, this court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of probation of offenders act, as the accused had committed an offence against a woman. Hence, this court proceeds to convict the accused for the offence u/secs. 354(D)(1)(i), 506, 509 and 323 of IPC
38.This court informed to the accused as to the right to prefer an appeal against the judgment and conviction passed by this court.
39.This court also informed to the accused as to the right to seek legal aid to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble Sessions Court if the accused is not having counsel to prefer an appeal. The accused is being represented in this case before this court.
40.The Accused is furnished with the copy of judgment in compliance of sec.363 of Cr.P.C.
In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence u/secs. 354(D)(1)(i), 506, 509 and 323 of IPC, as such, the accused is convicted of the same under sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. The Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-(Rs.Three Thousands only ) in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months, for the offence
Digitally signed by CH CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09
12:02:01 +0530 16Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas u/Sec.354(D)(1)(i) of IPC. Further, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 1 Year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rs.Two
Thousands only ), indefault to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months, for the offence u/Sec. 506 of IPC. TheAccused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rs.Two
Thousands only ), indefault to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months, for the offence u/Sec. 509 of IPC .The Accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). In default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 months for the offence u/sec. 323 of IPC. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by the accused as under trial prisoners, shall be set off under sec.428 of Cr.PC. Total fine is of
Rs.8000/- (Rs.Eight Thousands only ).
Directly typed by me on the laptop,corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of April, 2021. Digitally signed by
CHCH PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARIDate: 2021.04.09 12:02:13 +0530
X ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
SECUNDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:- NIL - P.W.1 : J. Sabitha – Complainant/Victim - [LW1]. P.W.2 : J.Saroja – Eye Witness - [LW2]. P.W.3 : P.Vijayalakshmi - Eye Witness - (LW3). P.W.4 : G.Shravan Kumar – Eye Witness - [LW4]. : EXHIBITS MARKED : FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE : - NIL - Ex.P.1 : Report lodged by PW1. Ex.P.2 : First Information Report. Ex.P.3 : Wound Certificate of PW1. Ex.P4 : Section Alteration Memo. MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- - NIL - CHDigitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Date: 2021.04.09 12:02:35 +0530
X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
SECUNDERABAD.
@ Corrected.
17Of 16 C.C.No. 323 of 2015. X ACMM., Sec’bad. Date: 09-04-2021.State vs. T.Srinivas