CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS:: KOVUR, SPSR NELLORE
Present: Ms.Sagire Shiva Namratha
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur On this Monday, this the Thirteenth (13th ) day of April, 2026
CALENDAR CASE No.1293 of 2021
The State of A.P., represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,
Dagadarthi Police Station. .. Complainant.
Versus:
Swarna Surendra
S/o Masthaniah, aged about 36 years
R/o Turimerla Village, Dagadarthi
SPSR Nellore .. Accused.
This case is coming on 28-11-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor N. Sukanya on behalf of the State and the Legal Aid Counsel Ch. Chandra Mohan for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1) The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Dagadarthi Police
Station filed charge sheet in Crime No. 145/2021 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324, 354 of
Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as ‘IPC’) alleging as follows:
1 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
2) The victim–complainant/LW.1/Parri Lakshmi Kanthamma, a resident of Harijanawada, Turimerla village, living by doing coolie work, was allegedly subjected to indecent remarks by the accused on 08.08.2021 at about 10:00 hours while she was collecting cattle dung on the street. The accused, while passing on a motorcycle, made sexually coloured remarks stating she was “very sexy”. LW.1 informed the incident to her husband/LW.3/ Parri Srinivasulu over phone, who reprimanded the accused, to which he apologized and left. Later, around 14:00 hours, when LW.1 was alone at home, the accused allegedly entered her house armed with knives, abused her in filthy language. On hearing about the incident, Lws.7/Chaginam
Uma and LW 8/ Chaginam Madhar (sister and brother-in-law of the accused) intervened and took him away.
3) Subsequently, at about 18:00 hours, when LW.2/ Parri Radha
Krishna (son of LW.1) went to the provision store of LW.6/Penumala
Bujjamma, the accused, still holding grievances from the morning incident, assaulted LW.2 with a stick on his left wrist and knee, causing swelling. On hearing his screams, LWs.1 and 4 to 6 reached the spot. When LWs.1 and 3 (parents of LW.2) attempted to rescue him, the accused also beat LW.3 on the head with the 2 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021 same stick, causing contusion. He further abused LW.1 in filthy language and, in the public street, allegedly tore her blouse, thereby outraging her modesty.
4) On 09.08.2021 at about 11:00 hours, LW.1 lodged a report at
Dagadarthi Police Station. Basing on the report, LW.10/K. Venu
Gopal registered FIR in Crime No.145/2021 under Sections 324 and 354 IPC and took up investigation. LW.10 examined LWs.1 to 8, inspected the two scenes of offence and prepared a rough sketch.
LW.2 and LW.3 were referred to LW.9 Medical Officer, who treated them and issued wound certificates opining the injuries as simple in nature. Considering the nature of allegations, LW.10 issued notice to the accused under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, LW.10 filed charge sheet on the file of this Court.
5) This Court took cognizance under Section 324 and 354 of IPC against the accused.
6) On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of relevant case records were furnished to him as required under Section 207
Cr.P.C.
7) The accused was examined under Section 239 of CrPC, the contents of prosecution case were explained to accused in Telugu, 3 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021 the accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed
Trial and This court has framed charges under Section 324, 354 of
IPC and the matter was accordingly settled for Trial.
8) During the course of Trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to
PW9 and got Exhibits P1 to P8 on their behalf.
9) The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, in respect of incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.
10) Heard both sides and Perused the record.
11) Point for adjudication
Whether the accused, on 08.08.2021 at various intervals,
(i) made sexually coloured remarks towards LW.1 and later
outraged her modesty by abusing her in filthy language and
tearing her blouse, and (ii) voluntarily caused simple
injuries to LWs.2 and 3 by beating them with a stick,
thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 354
and 324 IPC; and whether the prosecution has proved the
same beyond all reasonable doubt?
4 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
12) Analysis of Prosecution Evidence to determine point for adjudication
PW1/ Parri Lakshmi Kanthamma has deposed before this court that on 08.08.2021 at 10:00 AM, while collecting cattle dung on the street, the accused passed by on a bike and addressed her as “You are sexy”, using indecent language. She immediately communicated this incident to her husband (LW3/Parri Srinivasulu-
PW3) via phone, who arrived and admonished the accused. The accused apologized at that time. Later, around 02:00 PM, the accused allegedly returned armed with two knives, again speaking indecently to PW1 while she was alone. LWs 7/Chaginam Uma-
PW4 & LW8/Chaginam Madar intervened and took him away.
Subsequently at 06:00 PM when PWs 2 & 3 returned home and
PW2 went to the provisions shop, the accused, keeping the morning incident in mind, attacked LW2 with a stick, causing contusion injuries. When PW1 and PW3 went to intervene, the accused also hit PW3 on the head with a stick. In the same sequence, he caught hold of the jacket of PW1, tore it, insulted her publicly, and outraged her modesty and she lodged a report the following day (Ex P1 dated 09.08.2021), 5 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
13)During cross-examination, PW1 fairly admitted general facts regarding the political background of her husband (PW3), who had contested in the 2021 panchayat elections on behalf of YSRCP and lost by a margin of 2–3 votes, and the accused family having social acquaintance with hers due to the marriage of LW7 with LW8. She also admitted that the accused was known to her as one like a son out of some relationship. However, she categorically denied the suggestions that the present case was foisted at the instance of her husband due to political rivalry or with the support of the YSRCP
Sarpanch. She firmly rejected the defence hypotheses that the accused did not utter indecent words in the morning, did not come armed with weapons at about 2.00 PM, did not assault LW2 and
PW3 with a stick, and did not tear her jacket and outrage her modesty in a public place. She further denied the suggestion that the injuries sustained by LW2 and PW3 were due to a fall from a motorcycle and falsely attributed to the accused.
14)PW2/ Parri Radha Krishna, son of PW1 deposed that the said incident took place on 08.08.2021 at about 10:00am while PW1 was lifting cattle dung in their street, the accused proceeded on a motorcycle and addressed her indecently by stating “You are sexy”.
6 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
He stated that PW1 immediately informed PW3 over the phone, following which PW3 came to the spot and admonished the accused, who then apologised and left. PW2 further stated that at about 2:00 p.m. the same day, the accused, armed with two knives, came to their house and again spoke indecently to PW1 while she was alone, but was admonished and removed from the spot by PWs.4 and LW. 8. He continued that at about 6:00 p.m., after he and PW3 returned home, PW1 narrated the earlier incidents to them. He then proceeded to the provision store, and the accused, keeping the earlier morning incident in mind, assaulted him with a stick on his left wrist and knee, causing contusion injuries. On hearing his cries, PW1 and PW3 rushed to the spot, and when PW3 attempted to intervene, the accused assaulted PW3 on his head with a stick, also causing contusion.
PW2 further stated that in the same sequence, the accused caught hold of PW1 and tore her jacket in a public place, thereby insulting her and outraging her modesty. He stated that on the following day,
PW1, along with himself and PW3, went to the police station where
PW1 lodged the report.
7 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
15)In cross-examination, PW2 admitted certain neutral facts, including that the accused is a native of Damaramadugu Village and that his sister LW.7/PW4 is married to LW.8 at Turimerla, from which there exists some social acquaintance. He further acknowledged that PW3, his father, had contested in the 2021 panchayat elections as a 3rd Ward Member from YSRCP and lost by a margin of 2 or 3 votes, and that similar narrow-margin electoral contests occurred in neighboring wards. He also admitted that their house is located at the end of the street and described the positions of nearby houses. While confirming these background facts, PW2 categorically denied the suggestions that the present case was filed at the instance of PW3 due to political rivalry or with the support of the YSRCP Sarpanch. He denied the defence suggestion that the accused did not utter indecent words to PW1 in the morning, did not return armed with weapons at 2.00 p.m., did not assault him and PW3 at the provision store, and did not tear the jacket of PW1 and outrage her modesty in public. He also repudiated the suggestion that the accused is being implicated despite treating PW1 as his mother. Although he admitted that he reported the wounds to the doctor, he denied that the injuries 8 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021 sustained by him and PW3 resulted from a fall from a motorcycle and were misused to foist the case against the accused.
16)PW3/ Parri Srinivasulu, husband of PW1 evidence corroborated with that of PW1 and PW2 on all material aspects. He deposed that at about 10:00 a.m., while PW1 was lifting cattle dung in their street, the accused proceeded there on a motorcycle and addressed her indecently by stating “You are sexy”. PW3 stated that PW1 informed him of the incident when he returned home from work, and on being apprised, he immediately went to the spot, admonished the accused, who thereafter apologised and left.
PW3 further stated that he then proceeded to graze cattle. He deposed that at about 2:00 p.m., while PW1 was alone at their house, the accused came armed with two knives and again spoke indecently to her, and that LWs.7 and 8 intervened and took the accused away. PW3 further stated that at about 6:00 p.m., he returned home along with PW2, where PW1 narrated the earlier incidents to them. He stated that thereafter PW2 went to the provision store, and in connection with the earlier incidents, the accused assaulted PW2 with a stick on his left wrist and knee, causing contusion injuries. On hearing the cries, PW3 along with 9 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
PW1 rushed to the spot, and when he attempted to intervene, the accused also beat him on his head with a stick, causing him contusion. He further deposed that in the same sequence, the accused caught hold of PW1 and tore her jacket in a public place, thereby insulting her and outraging her modesty. He stated that on the following day, PW1, along with himself and PW2, went to the police station where PW1 lodged the report, and his statement was subsequently recorded by the police.
17)During cross-examination, PW3 admitted certain neutral and background facts, such as the accused being a native of
Damaramadugu and PW.7 being married to LW.8 at Turimerla, from which their families share social acquaintance. He further acknowledged that he had contested in the 2021 Panchayat elections as 3rd Ward Member on behalf of YSRCP and lost by a narrow margin of 2–3 votes to a TDP candidate, and similarly narrow margins existed in other ward elections. He also confirmed the location of his house in the street and the surrounding houses.
18)However, despite these admissions, PW3 categorically denied the suggestion that the case had been filed at his instance due to political rivalry or with the support of the YSRCP Sarpanch. He 10 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021 denied the defence suggestion that the accused did not address
PW1 with indecent words, did not come armed to the house at 2:00 p.m., did not assault PW2 and PW3 with a stick, and did not tear the jacket of PW1 and outrage her modesty in public. He also firmly rejected the defence theory that the injuries sustained by himself and PW2 were due to a motorcycle fall and falsely attributed to the accused.
19)PW4/ Chaginam Uma; PW5/Ukkala Koteswaramma;
PW6/Penumala Bujjamma; PW7/Penumalla Malleswari who were cited as material witnesses by the prosecution, have turned completely hostile during their examination. They categorically stated that they do not know anything about the case or the incident in question. Even during the cross-examination conducted by the learned APP treating them as hostile witnesses, no material fact supporting the prosecution was elicited from their testimony.
Their evidence, therefore, does not lend any support to the prosecution case.
In these circumstances, the testimonies of PW4 to PW7 are devoid of any evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon for corroboration of the material facts alleged by the prosecution.
11 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
20)PW8/K. Venu Gopal, Investigating Officer of this case has deposed that on 09.08.2021 at about 11:00 hours, while he was present at the Police Station, PW1 appeared before him and lodged a report, based on which he registered Crime No.145/2021 under
Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. He stated that the original
FIR was submitted to the Court and copies were forwarded to all concerned authorities. On the same day, he examined PW1 at the
Police Station and recorded her statement. Thereafter, he proceeded to Thumimerla Village, secured PW2 (Parri Radha
Krishna) and PW3 (Srinivasulu), recorded their statements, and sent them for medical treatment through PC 2473. He further stated that he examined PW4 to PW7 and LW8, and recorded their statements. He then prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is marked as Ex.P7. PW8 stated that on 13.08.2021, he served a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. to the accused, and on 25.08.2021, he received the wound certificates pertaining to
PW2 and PW3, which indicated simple injuries. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
21)In his cross-examination, PW8 admitted that the reasons for delay in lodging the FIR were not mentioned in Column No. 8 of the 12 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
FIR. He further admitted that the details of the motorcycle allegedly used by the accused were not recorded and that the weapons purportedly carried by the accused were also not seized during the course of investigation. He also stated that he did not know whether PW3 belonged to any specific ward number.
However, PW8 categorically denied the defence suggestions that the case was foisted due to political vengeance on account of the accused allegedly being a supporter of TDP and PW1 being affiliated to YSRCP. He specifically refuted the allegations that the case was intentionally fabricated at the police station, that the accused had no involvement in the crime, and that he had never visited the scene of offence or prepared the rough sketch. He further denied the suggestion that he failed to examine LW4 to LW7 or that the rough sketch lacked reference to neighbouring houses.
22)PW9/ Dr. G. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Medical Officer, deposed that 09.08.2021 at about 3:15 p.m., he examined PW2, who informed that he was assaulted by known persons using sticks and hands. Upon examination, PW9 noticed:
(i) abrasion of 0.5 x 0.5 cm over the left forehand region;
(ii) swelling of 3 x 1 cm over the same region; and 13 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
(iii) contusion over the left lower leg region.
He opined that the injuries were simple in nature and issued Ex.P8 wound certificate. PW9 further stated that at the same time on the same day, he examined PW3, who reported similar assault by known persons. On examination, PW9 found:
(i) abrasion of 1 x 0.5 cm over the left side parietal region. He opined that these injuries were also simple and issued Ex.P9 wound certificate.
As per Exs.P8 and P9, PW2 and PW3 sustained minor abrasions and contusions on the left forearm, lower leg and parietal region respectively. PW9 has opined that the said injuries were simple in nature
23)During cross-examination, PW9 admitted that neither the age, colour, nor specific shape of the injuries were mentioned in the certificates. He also confirmed that the examination time for both injured persons was noted as 3:15 p.m. in Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. While acknowledging that such injuries could also be sustained if a person falls down due to a motorcycle skid, he denied the suggestion that the witnesses were never subjected to medical examination.
14 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
24) FindingsThe evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that PW1, the victim, has narrated the occurrence of the incidents on 08.08.2021 in a manner that is natural, consistent, and devoid of material contradictions. Her testimony withstands rigorous cross- examination and is corroborated in all essential particulars by PW2 and PW3, both of whom are injured eyewitnesses. Their presence is natural and their evidence is supported by the medical records (Exs.P8 and P9), which confirm the presence of simple injuries consistent with assault by a blunt object. The Investigating Officer (PW8) and Medical Officer (PW9) further lend procedural and medical corroboration to the prosecution case.
25)The defence raised a plea of political animosity, suggesting false implication due to alleged factional rivalry between YSRCP and
TDP members. However, this remains a mere suggestion unsupported by any substantive evidence. No credible material was elicited to indicate any animus between the accused and the complainant’s family strong enough to motivate false implication.
On the contrary, PW1 to PW3 have admitted acquaintance with the accused, which detracts from any theory of deliberate false implication. It was also brought forth that the reasons for delay in 15 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021 lodging the FIR were not mentioned in the prescribed column.
However, the evidence on record demonstrates that the complaint was lodged on the following morning.
26)With regards to delay in lodging of FIR It is further settled in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, it was held that “The courts cannot over-look the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family.” and Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 714 held that “no straight jacket formula can be laid down in this regard. In case of sexual offences, the criteria may be different altogether. As honour of the family is involved, its members have to decide whether to take the matter to the court or not. In such a fact-situation, near relations of the prosecutrix may take time as to what course of action should be adopted. Thus, delay is bound to occur. This Court has always taken judicial notice of the fact that ordinarily the family of the victim would not intend to get a stigma 16 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021 attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the First Information
Report in a case of this nature is a normal phenomenon"
Therefore it crystallizes that delay in lodging FIR in cases of sexual assault or offence affecting the dignity of a woman is not material where the delay is satisfactorily explained. Human behaviour varies in response to trauma, and immediate reporting is not always practicable.
27) In the present case, although the reason for delay is not specifically mentioned in the FIR nor expressly stated by the witnesses, the delay is only of one day. Considering the nature of the offence involving dignity of a woman and the rural background, such brief delay is reasonably attributable to normal hesitation and family deliberation. Hence, non-mention of the same in Column No.
8 of FIR does not go against the prosecution case.
28)Appraisal of Quality over Quantity Principle:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573, has held that corroboration is not a rule of law but merely a rule of prudence, and where the testimony of the victim is consistent, natural and inspires confidence, conviction may validly be based on her sole evidence. Furthermore, in State of Himachal 17 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
Pradesh v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71, it was held that non- examination of independent or public witnesses cannot be a ground to disbelieve truthful ocular evidence of natural witnesses.
29) Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court finds that PW1 has clearly and coherently narrated the sequence of incidents beginning at about 10:00 a.m, followed by further indecent conduct at 2:00 p.m., and culminating in physical assault and the act of outraging her modesty at about 6:00 p.m.
Her testimony is substantially corroborated by PW2 and PW3, both of whom are natural and injured witnesses. The fact that PWs 4 to 7 have turned hostile or that no independent witness has supported the incident does not diminish the evidentiary worth of consistent and trustworthy testimony of PW1 to PW3. Their presence at all relevant times is natural, and their evidence has remained unshaken during cross-examination. In line with the settled principle that quality of evidence prevails over quantity, this
Court finds the testimony of PW1, duly supported by PW2 and PW3, to be credible and sufficient to sustain conviction.” 18 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
30)Application of Section 222 CrPC:
Though the accused was charged under Section 324 IPC1 the prosecution failed to prove use of any deadly weapon, as no seizure was effected and medical evidence does not indicate injuries caused by a sharp object. However, the evidence conclusively establishes that the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW2 and PW3 by use of a stick.
The relevant provision is encapsulated under Section Section 323 of IPC-
“Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both”
31) Accordingly, in terms of Section 222(2) Cr.P.C.2, where the facts proved reduce the charge to a minor offence, the accused may be convicted of such minor offence even in the absence of a specific charge. Thus, the accused is held guilty of the lesser offence under 1Section 324 of IPC : Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 2Section 222(2) of CrPC- When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may he convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
19 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
Section 323 IPC, being included within the charge under Section 324 IPC.
32) Determination of guilt under Section 354 of IPC
Firstly, it would be pertinent to extract Section 354 of IPC
354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished 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.
To establish an offence under Section 354 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused used criminal force upon PW1 with the intention, or with the knowledge, that such act would outrage her modesty.
33)In the present case, the allegation of the prosecution is that the accused caught hold of PW1 and tore her blouse in a public street, thereby outraging her modesty. However, upon careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove this charge beyond reasonable doubt for the following reasons. The torn blouse, which is the most crucial piece of material evidence to establish the offence under
Section 354 IPC, was neither seized by the Investigating Officer 20 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021 during the course of investigation nor produced before this Court as a material object. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution for this significant omission. No medical examination of
PW1 was conducted at any stage to document any injury, scratch mark, or sign of physical force on her person that would be consistent with the alleged act of tearing her garment. PW2 and
PW3, who are the only witnesses supporting the prosecution case, have deposed regarding the general altercation and physical assault on themselves, but their testimony regarding the specific act of tearing PW1’s blouse and the accused’s intent to outrage her modesty is neither clear nor conclusive. PW4 to PW7, who were cited by the prosecution as independent witnesses and who were allegedly present on the public street when this specific incident occurred, have retracted from their Section 161 CrPC statements that were previously made
34)Even upon cross-examination by the learned APP, no material fact supporting the allegation under Section 354 IPC could be elicited. Most importantly, Section 354 IPC is not a mere offence of physical contact but requires proof of a specific mens rea, that is, the accused must have intended to outrage the modesty of the 21 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021 woman or must have known that his act was likely to have that effect. In the absence of the torn garment, in the absence of medical evidence on PW1, in the absence of clear testimony from
PW2 and PW3 on the specific act and intent, and in the absence of any support from independent witnesses, this Court holds that the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC, particularly the element of intent to outrage modesty, have not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt and is accordingly acquitted of the charge under Section 354 IPC.
35)However, the position with regard to the offence of voluntarily causing hurt stands on an entirely different evidentiary footing.
Though the accused was originally charged under Section 324 IPC, which requires proof of causing hurt by means of a dangerous weapon or instrument likely to cause death, the prosecution has failed to prove the use of any such weapon. The knives allegedly carried by the accused were never seized, and the medical evidence does not indicate any injury caused by a sharp or dangerous instrument.
22 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
36)However, the evidence on record conclusively establishes that the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW2 and PW3 by beating them with a stick. PW1, PW2, and PW3 have consistently and without material contradiction deposed that the accused assaulted PW2 with a stick on his left wrist and knee and assaulted
PW3 on his head with the same stick. Unlike the allegation under
Section 354 IPC, this testimony is independently and objectively corroborated by the medical certificates issued by PW9. Ex. P8 confirms that PW2 sustained an abrasion of 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the left forehand region, swelling of 3 x 1 cm on the same region, and contusion on the left lower leg. Ex. P9 confirms that PW3 sustained an abrasion of 1 x 0.5 cm on the left side parietal region. PW9 has opined that all injuries were simple in nature and consistent with assault by a blunt object. This independent medical corroboration provides the crucial distinction between the two charges.
37)The credibility of PW1 to PW3 on the assault charge is fortified by objective medical evidence that confirms their version, whereas no such corroboration exists for the Section 354 allegation.
Accordingly, invoking the provisions of Section 222(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits conviction for a minor offence 23 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021 when facts proved reduce the charge to such minor offence, this
Court holds the accused guilty of the lesser offence under Section 323 IPC, which is included within the charge under Section 324 IPC
38)In the result, prosecution has successfully proved that the accused caused simple hurt to PW2 and PW3. Thereby accused is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC for a period of three months Simple
Imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500/- and he is acquitted under
Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 354 of IPC.
Typed by me in my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, Printouts taken by Typist on this 13 h day of April 2026.
Sd/- S.Shiva Namratha,
I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
KOVUR.
SENTENCE
The accused is questioned on the quantum of sentence to be imposed by this Court. He pleaded that “he has old parents and he belongs to Damaramadugu Village. He went to Gummaladibba
Village as his brother in law was not feeling well and he passed away. He is a bread winner of the his entire family and he working 24 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021 as coolie and he have 6 dependent persons on him. (Mother,
Father, Sister and her Children). He pleads that he will not involved in any crime and will never resort to any sort of such activity and repents the same” and
The counsel for accused filed an application praying the court to apply Probation of Offenders Act against the accused.
39)Thus, he prayed this Hon’ble Court to take lenient view. His plea is recorded in writing, which is annexed to section 313 Cr.P.C, examination papers and is also noted in this judgment as mentioned above.
40)In the exercise of the powers under Section 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, the accused is hereby released on the probation of good conduct for a period of one year by furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety or to the like sum to the satisfaction of this court with the following conditions:
1) Accused shall keep peace and be of good behavior during this period of probation.
2) The accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission.
25 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
41)In the event of breach of any condition, he shall be liable to be called back and the sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment and fine herein shall be executed against him.
42)The accused is released forthwith on furnishing the requisite bond and surety as stated above.
43)The accused was informed that, he got right of appeal against the judgment passed by this court and the Calendar and Judgment is made ready in order to receive the same by him. The office is directed to supply the copy of the Calendar and Judgment immediately to accused at free of cost.
Sd/- S.Shiva Namratha,
I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
KOVUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCEE:- NIL
PW1: Parri Lakshmi Kanthamma PW2: Parri Radha Krishna PW3: Parri Srinivasulu PW4: Chaginam Uma PW5: Ukkala Koteswaramma PW6: Penumala Bujjamma PW7: Penumala Malleswari 26 of 27
CC 1293 of 2021
AJMFC, Kovur, SPSR Nellore Date of Judgement: 13.04.2026 u/s 324 and 354 of IPC
APNE0C0017402021
PW8: K. Venu Gopal, Sub-Inspector of Police. PW9: Dr. G. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Civil Assistant Surgeon.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil
Ex.P1: Report given to the police by PW1 dated 09.08.2021 Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of LW7/P.W 4 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of LW4/PW.5 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of LW5/PW.6 Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of LW6/PW7 Ex.P6: FIR dated 09.08.2021 Ex.P7: Rough Sketch Ex.P8: Wound Certificate of PW.2 (Parri Venkata Radha Krishna) Ex.P9: Wound Certificate of PW.3 (Parri Sreenivasulu)
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
Nil
Sd/- S.Shiva Namratha
I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
KOVUR
27 of 27