1of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020)
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM- JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SHADNAGAR,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
(Thursday, dated this the 7 th day of May, 2026)
Present:Sri. Kotha Ravi
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District.
C.C.No. 481 of 2020
Between
State through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Jilled Chowdarigudem. …Complainant
AND
Sri Shabad Ramesh S/o Narsaiah, aged about 36 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Padmaram village,Jilled-Chowdarigudem Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused
This case coming before me for hearing on 21.04.2026 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and in the presence of Sri. B. Ramesh, counsel for the accused; and after having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Jilled-Chowdarigudem, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.47 of 2020 of P.S. Jilled-
Chowdarigudem, registered for the offence punishable Under Sections 354, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).
2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2.1The accused and the defacto complainant-cum-victim of alleged offence viz., Smt. Bommagalla Laxmi are residents of Padmaram village.
Accused used to harass the victim of alleged offence to fulfill his sexual desire. She refused the same and informed the same to her husband.
2of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020)
Hence, a panchayath was conducted in the presence of elders, who advised the accused to change his attitude.
2.2.On 08.05.2020, at 09:00 hours the victim of alleged offence went to attend Upaadhi Haami pathakam works, at Veerappa Pond (Chervu).
Accused also came there and he hidden at the down side of village tank bund. When the victim of alleged offence went down of the tank bund, to attend nature calls, the accused caught hold her two hands and tried to outrage her modesty, forcibly, to fulfill his sexual desire. When she tried to raise hues and cries, the accused beat her with stick on her legs and hands, due to which she received simple bleeding injuries. However, the victim of alleged offence escaped from his clutches and fled away. Hence, the victim of alleged offence lodged report with complainant police.
2.3.Based on the report of the victim of alleged offence, the police registered a case in Crime No.47/2020 for the offences punishable under
Sections 354, 324, 506 of IPC against the accused, and took up investigation.
2.4.During the course of investigation, the complainant police examined the victim of alleged offence, her husband and four other witnesses, conducted a scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators, and upon completion of investigation and on receipt of wound certificate of victim of alleged offence, filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that he committed offence punishable under Sections 354, 324, 504, 506 IPC.
3of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020)
3.This case was taken on file for offence under Section 354, 324, 506 of IPC against the accused and on appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him.
4. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of allegations leveled against him in his vernacular language, to which he denied, hence, charge is framed against the accused for the offence under sections 354, 324, 504, 506 of IPC, the same is read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 to
PW10 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
7. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused. Perused the record.
8. Defence of accused:- 8.1Defence is total denial of allegations and the case of prosecution is false and foisted. Specific defence of the accused is that he is falsely implicated in this case and no alleged incident took place and that the witnesses, who supported the prosecution’s case, are related to each other. Further defence of the accused is that there is no evidence of 4of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020) independent witnesses and the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; and that there is delay in lodging report with complainant police, which is not explained by the prosecution and hence, prayed to acquit the accused.
9. POINT: -
Now the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution could successfully bring home the guilt of the accused by proving the charge for the offence punishable under section 354, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
10. REASONS :- 10.1. This Court read the depositions of all witnesses on record and all documents. In Ex.P1/report, PW1 stated that on 08.05.2020 at about 09.00 A.M., she along with her villagers went to Veerappa Cheruvu situated at village outskirts to attend works under Upadi Hami padakam and that when she get down the bund of tank to attend nature calls, the accused, who was waiting there, approached her from behind, firmly grabbed her hands, and demanded her to fulfill his sexual desire, then she became frightened, screamed, and shoved him away. Then, accused intimidated her by abusing her as “emi chusukoni neeku intha pogaru enduku naa korika thirchadam ledu” and by abusing so, the accused beat her with a stick and attempted to sexually assault her. Hence, discussion is made according to allegations leveled against accused in Ex.P1/report of PW1.
5of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020) 10.2. Before adverting to the allegations pertaining to the charges framed, it is pertinent to discuss the factual backdrop of the prosecution case. The prosecution alleges that, prior to the incident in question, the accused had been harassing PW1 with the intention of satisfying his lust, and that upon PW1 informing her husband, a panchayat was convened
before village elders, who admonished the accused. However, none of the
said elders have been examined before this Court. Though the complainant police, in the charge sheet, stated that PW2 and PW4 acted as elders in the said panchayat, neither of them has deposed to that effect before this Court. Further, though PW1 deposed that the accused admitted his guilt before the elders and assured that he would not repeat such acts, she did not depose the names of those elders and when the panchayath was convened. In these circumstances, there is no cogent evidence on record to establish that, prior to the alleged incident, the accused followed or harassed PW1 with a sexual intent.
11. OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 354 of IPC 11.1. The first allegation against the accused is that on 08.05.2020 at about 09:00 A.M., at the down side of tank bund of Veerappa Cheruvu, accused used criminal force against PW1, by grabbing her from behind and holding her hands, with an intention to outrage her modesty and to compel her to fulfil his sexual desire, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
6of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020) 11.2. In a case between Raja Pandurang V State1, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the essential ingredients of section 354 of IPC are as under :-
(i)That the assault must be on woman;
(ii)That the accused must have been used criminal force on her; and
(iii)That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty or knowing that his acts would likely to outrage her modesty.
11.3. In a case between Vidyadharan V State of Krala2 the Hon’ble Apex
Court held as under:- “..Intention is not the sole criterion of the offence punishable under section 354 IPC, and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects.
The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed…” .
11.4. In the instant case, PW1 and accused are residents of same village.
PW1 in her evidence deposed that on 08.05.2020 she went to village tank bund to attend upadhi Hami pathakam works and when she went to the down side of tank bund to attend nature’s call, accused came there and 1AIR 2004 SC 1677 22004 SCC (Cri) 264 7of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020) beat her with stick by catching hold her hands and demanded to fulfill his sexual desire.
11.5. The deposed incident got two parts. First part is beating her by catching her hands. Second part is expression of desire. Second part alone does not attract outrage of modesty. First part without second part lacks of knowledge and intention. As per PW1, both simultaneous. The point is whether the occurrence of incident is probable to believe.
11.6. The incident occurred at the down side of the tank bund of
Beerappa Cheruvu. In cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the distance between the place of occurrence and the place where they were working is about 50 yards, and that if she had raised hue and cry, it would have been heard by the other workers; however, no workers came to the scene of the offence. But, the witness clarified that she ran towards the workplace raising hue and cry, and thereafter she along with PW4, and other workers returned to the scene of offence, but the accused was not present there.
11.7. The defence of the accused is that there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The evidence of PW1, read with the rough sketch map, establishes that the scene of offence is located on the down side of the tank bund. According to PW1, she had gone there to attend to nature’s call. Women generally choose places affording privacy and seclusion for such purposes, which are not easily visible to others. The rough sketch map also indicates the presence of trees and a dump yard near the scene of offence.
8of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020) 11.8. It is not the defence of the accused that the scene of offence is an open and plain area devoid of trees or otherwise clearly visible to persons working near the tank bund. The offences of this nature are ordinarily committed in places where the offender is less likely to be seen, rather than in the presence of others. No criminal wants to commit a crime, especially crimes of this nature, while everyone is watching. They wait for an opportunity and choose the place which is not visible to others. Hence, the defence of accused that there are no eyewitness to incident is not probable defence.
11.9. PW1 deposed that when she came to the workplace by running and informed to Pw4 and other workers, they went to the scene of offence, but accused was not there.
11.10. As per the prosecution case, PW2 to PW4 and Bommagalla
Ramulamma were present at the village tank bund at the time of the incident. The defence of the accused is that PW3, who is cited as an independent witness, did not support the prosecution case. However, PW2 and PW4 have deposed that PW3 also attended the Upadhi Hami
Pathakam works. According to PW2 and PW4, the accused also came there along with another group to attend the said works.
11.11. PW4 deposed that PW1 went to attend nature’s call and returned after some time, weeping, and informed them that the accused misbehaved with her, and that when she refused his advances, the accused beat her with a stick. PW2 also deposed that at about 9:00 A.M., 9of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020)
PW1 went to attend to nature’s call and returned after some time and informed them that the accused misbehaved with her.
11.12. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by PW2 and Pw4 and their evidence is consistent. Though accused cross-examined PW1, PW2 and
PW4, at length, their evidence is unshaken. It is not the defence of the accused that there was any enmity between him and PW1. It is also not the defence of the accused that PW1 had ever levelled false allegations of a similar nature against him or any other person. In such circumstances, there appears to be no reason for PW1 to falsely implicate the accused.
11.13. From the aforesaid circumstances, it can be reasonably inferred that the accused chose the place and waited for an opportunity and when
PW1 came to attend to her nature calls, he caught hold of her hands, and by beating her, expressed his sexual desire. Since PW1 felt criminal force, she raised hues and cries and ran towards the place where the people were working.
11.14.The conduct of a person who commits such an offence is generally that, upon failure in his attempt and on noticing the presence of nearby persons, he would not persist in chasing the victim but would instead flee from the scene to avoid apprehension. The circumstances in the present case are consistent with such conduct. The sequence of events and the conduct of PW1 and the accused clearly indicate that the accused had the requisite culpable intention and expressed his intent in a manner that 10of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020) caused PW1 to become frightened and flee from the scene after she pushed him away.
11.15. Thus, from evidence on record, what this Court is able to understand is that accused caught hold the hands of PW1 and beat her with knowledge and intention of outraging the modesty of her.
11.16. It is pertinent to mention here the defence of the accused that PW2 and PW4 are none other than relatives of PW1 and as such they are interested witnesses and corroboration of such interested witnesses from independent source is essential, which is lack in this case and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
11.17. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of victim of alleged offence itself is sufficient to convict the accused and in this case, her evidence is corroborated by PW2 and PW4 and branding them as interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded and their evidence is sufficient to convict the accused.
11.18. It is an admitted fact that PW2, PW4 are relatives of PW1 and as such they are interested witnesses. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested witnesses evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and shall be accepted with caution.
11of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020) 11.19. The other defence of the accused is that, during cross-examination, it was elicited that several persons were present at the work site, including the field assistant, and that the police examined only the relatives of the victim of the alleged offence. However, PW2 has categorically deposed that the accused is also their relative, which aspect has not been specifically denied by the accused.
11.20. Further, the accused has failed to offer any explanation as to why
PW1, PW2, and PW4 would depose falsely against him. It is also not the case of the accused that there existed any family dispute or land dispute between the parties, which could have provided a motive for false implication.
11.21. Another defence raised by the accused is that no documentary evidence has been produced to establish that PW1 attended the said works. However, mere non-production of documentary evidence to prove
PW1’s attendance under the Upadhi Hami Pathakam cannot, by itself, be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case.
11.22. From the cross-examination, it is further suggested by the accused that PW1 lodged a false complaint due to political rivalry. However, the alleged political rivalry has neither been specifically pleaded nor substantiated by any material on record.
11.23. It is also the defence of the accused that the present case has been foisted due to previous enmity between PW4 and the accused. However, 12of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020) the nature of such alleged previous enmity has not been explained or established by any cogent evidence on record.
11.24. It is further defence of the accused that there is a delay in lodging the report. The alleged incident occurred on 08.05.2020, whereas the report was lodged on 09.05.2020. PW1 deposed that after the incident, she returned to her house and informed her husband at about 9:00 P.M., and thereafter, on the next day, she, along with her husband and brother- in-law, went to the police station and lodged the report.
11.25. In cases of this nature, a woman does not ordinarily approach the police immediately, unless she is advised or accompanied by her parents, in case she is unmarried, or by her husband, in case she is married. In the present case also, the complaint was lodged after due consultation and support from her family members. Therefore, the delay of one day in lodging the report is neither inordinate nor unexplained, and it cannot, by itself, be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. Except making bald allegations, nothing substantial has been brought on record to discredit the testimony of PW1, PW2, and PW4 11.26. From the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of PW1 is consistent, cogent, and trustworthy, and it stands duly corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and PW4. The chain of circumstances is so complete and well-connected that it inspires the confidence of this Court. Thus, on a careful appreciation of the totality of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record, it is 13of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020) held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used the criminal force against PW1 and beat her with knowledge and intention of outraging the modesty of
PW1 .
12.OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 324 of IPC 12.1. Next allegation against the accused is that he voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by beating her with a stick, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
12.2. It is alleged that accused beat PW1 with stick and thereby caused injuries on her hands and legs. It is true no stick was seized by the police.
But Ex.P5 wound certificate clearly shows that PW1 sustained one simple injury on her left arm. On the very next day of alleged incident, PW1 was examined by PW9, who mentioned in Ex.P5 report that the age of injury was one day. Though PW5 admitted that the injury sustained by PW1 may be caused when a person fell on stoning hard surface, it is not the defence of accused that PW1 fell down elsewhere on the date of incident. Further, in this regard, no suggestion was also given to PW1. Since, the prosecution failed to prove that the injury sustained by PW1 will cause only with stick and that as no stick alleged to have been used by the accused is produced, the accused cannot be punished under section 324 of IPC. However, from the circumstances and the discussion made for the offence under section 354 of IPC, it can be inferred that the injury of PW1 is caused by the accused, which attracts the ingredients of Section 323 of
IPC.
14of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020) 12.3. As per Section 222 of Cr.P.C., when a person is charged with a major offence and the facts proved constitute a minor offence, the accused may be convicted of the minor offence even though he was not separately charged.
12.4. In the present case, the accused was charged with the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Section 323 of IPC is a lesser/minor offence included within Section 324 of IPC. Therefore, conviction under Section 323 of IPC is legally permissible, and the absence of a specific charge under Section 323 of IPC is not fatal, subject to the condition that no prejudice has been caused to the accused in his defence, as contemplated under Sections 215 and 464 of Cr.P.C. If the evidence relating to hurt was fully put to the accused and he had an opportunity to defend himself, such conviction is valid.
12.5. Though the charge was framed under Section 324 of IPC, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused used stick. However, the evidence on record clearly proves that accused voluntarily caused hurt to
PW1. Since Section 323 of IPC is a minor offence included within Section 324 of IPC, by virtue of Section 222 of Cr.P.C., the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 323 of IPC. No prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused due to the non-framing of a separate charge, as he was already informed of the allegation of beating PW1, and the accused also cross-examined prosecution witnesses by putting forth his defence.
15of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020)
13.OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 506 of IPC 13.1. It is further alleged that accused criminally intimidated PW1 by beating her and coercing her to submit to his sexual demands, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.
13.2. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C the intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim. Mere expression of words, without any intention to cause alarm, would not suffice. To constitute an offence under Section 506 I.P.C. it must be shown that the person charged actually threatened another with injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with the intention to cause alarm.
13.3. In Ex.P1/report, it is specifically mentioned that the accused abused her as “emi chusukoni neeku intha pogaru enduku naa korika thirchadam ledu” and by abusing so, the accused beat her with a stick and attempted to sexually assault her. However, PW1 did not depose before this Court regarding the alleged abusive threats. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offence under Section 506 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
14. OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 504 of IPC 14.1. It is further alleged that accused intentionally insulted PW1 by using abusive language intending to provoke her and cause breach of peace, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 504 IPC.
14.2. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 504 I.P.C , the prosecution has to prove that accused intentionally insulted PW1, thereby 16of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020) intended to give her provocation; the accused knew that it was likely that such provocation would cause that person to commit a breach of the peace or to commit any other offence.
14.3 Though PW1 alleged in her report that accused abused her, she did not depose the same before this Court. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offence under section 504 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
14.4. For above reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under
Sections 324, 506 and 504 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt, but the prosecution proved that accused committed the offence under sections 354 and 323 of IPC.
15. Decision :- 15.1. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence under
Sections 324, 506 and 504 of IPC, and consequently accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence under sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC. But, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under sections 354 and 323 of IPC and consequently, he is convicted under section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C., for the offence under sections 354 and 323 of IPC.
Typed to my dictation on Computer by the copyist, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, on this 07th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District.
17of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020)
16.Upon hearing the accused/convict, on the quantum of sentence to be awarded, accused submitted that he is having three kids, wife and he is having old aged parents and his entire family is depending on his earnings, he is agriculturalist and if he is sent to jail, his family will starve for food and his children life will be ruined.
17.The offence under section 354 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine and that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons mentioned in the Judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term which may be less than five years but which shall not be less than two years. The offence under section 323 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
18.Having considered the submissions made by the accused, having regard to the nature of offence committed by accused, and as there is no material on record that accused is habitual or repeated offender, and considering the circumstances of the case, if accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of
Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC and is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC, the same would meet the ends of the justice.
18of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020)
19. Result:- 19.1. Accused is, therefore, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence under section 354 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
He further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence under section 323 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused is informed about the right of appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by the court for which accused submitted that he knew that he has right to prefer appeal against the judgment and sentence and on sufficiency of means to prefer appeal, the convict submitted that he has sufficient means to engage counsel. A copy of judgment shall be given to accused as per section 363 Cr.P.C., R/W Rule 72 of Criminal Rules of practice at free of cost. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be in force for a period of 6 months in terms of section 437-A Cr.P.C. No property.
Typed to my dictation on Computer by the copyist, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, on this the 07th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District 19of 19
C.C.No.481 of 2020)
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution:
PW.1(LW1)Bommagalla Laxmi: Petitioner and victim. PW.2(LW4)Bommagalla: Eye-Witness and villager. Narsimhulu PW.3(LW5)Smt. G. Alivelu: Eye-Witness and villager. PW.4(LW3)B. Srinivas: Eye-Witness and own brother- in-law of victim
PW.5(LW6)B. Ramesh: Circumstantial witness and Husband of the victim PW.6(LW8)D. Venkatesh: Panch witness for scene of offence. PW.7(LW10)Smt. Alivelu, WHC.: LW1’s Statement recorded PW.8(LW11)T.Venkataiah,: 1st Investigation Officer Head-Constable. PW.9(LW9)Dr. B. Madhuri: Medical Officer and treated the Lw-1 PW.10(LW13)S. Krishna, Sub-: Investigation officer and filed Inspector of Policecharge sheet. For Defence :: NONE
::EXHIBITS MARKED ::
For Prosecution :: Exhibit DescriptionMarked through Ex.P1Report, Dt.09.05.2020. PW1
Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, dt.09.05.2020. PW3
Ex.P3Scene-of-offence panachanama, dt.09.05.2020. PW6
Ex.P4First Information Report, dt.09.05.2020. PW8
Ex.P5Wound Certificate, dt.09.05.2020. PW9
For Defence :: -NIL-
MATERIAL OBJECTS
-NIL-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District.