Didde Srinivas vs State Sho, Poduru Police Station

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8028/2023)

Didde Srinivas ….Appellant

Versus

State SHO, Podduru Police Station and Anr. ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Leave granted.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order

dated 16.3.2023 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in

CRRC No. 1937/2004.

2. The appellant stood the trial in Sessions Case No. 109/2000 before the

Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasapur. The Trial Court convicted the

appellant under Section 376 read with Section 511 besides under Section 451,

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him for rigorous

imprisonment (R.I.) for three years for the offence of ‘rape’ and R.I. for one

year and a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 451, IPC. The Signature Not Verified

sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

Digitally signed by Dr. Naveen Rawal Date: 2024.11.25 14:07:29 IST

3. In appeal, Court of VIth Additional and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Reason:

Court), Narasapur, West Godavari District confirmed the conviction and

Page 1 of 5 SLP (Crl.) No. 8028 of 2023 sentence on the appellant under Section 451 IPC and modified the conviction

and sentence under Section 376 IPC to one under Section 354 IPC.

Consequently, for the conviction therefor, he was sentenced to undergo R.I.

for two years. The fine imposed for the conviction under Section 376 was

maintained in regard to conviction under Section 354, IPC. It is challenging

the same that the revision petition was filed which culminated in the

impugned judgment. As per the impugned judgment, the conviction and the

sentence for both the offences were confirmed by the High Court.

4. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for

the respondent State. The materials on record would reveal that the

conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 451, IPC is concurrent

based on the uncontroverted oral testimonies of PWs 4 and 5. The appellant

failed to establish perversity whatsoever in regard to the conclusion arrived at

based on their testimonies that the appellant had committed house-trespass.

But then, the conviction of the appellant is not for house-trespass simpliciter

punishable under Section 448, IPC and it is under Section 451, IPC. Hence, the

next question is whether he did so, in order to commit any offence punishable

with imprisonment or the offence of theft. As the only other offence for which

the appellant was ultimately convicted is under Section 354, IPC the answer to

the above question would depend upon the confirmation or otherwise of the

conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 354, IPC. Here again,

the finding is founded on the oral testimonies of PWs 4 and 5. The

creditworthy testimonies of PWs 4 and 5 were, according to us, rightly

believed by the courts below. The expression ‘in order to the committing of

any offence punishable with imprisonment’ used in Section 451 would reveal

Page 2 of 5 SLP (Crl.) No. 8028 of 2023 that an intention to commit such an offence following house-trespass would

justify a conviction thereunder.

5. In the case on hand, the Appellate Court modified the conviction under

Section 376, IPC to one under Section 354, IPC and it got conformance from

the High Court. On scanning the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, we do not find any

reason much less perversity warranting interference with conclusion arrived

at based on appreciation of their evidence in relation to the said offence.

Resultantly, we maintain the conviction of the appellant under Section 354,

IPC. In view of the position that even an intention to commit an offence

punishable with imprisonment’ coupled with house-trespass would constitute

the offence punishable under Section 451, IPC a conviction for the offence

under Section 354, IPC and the consequential imposition of sentence to

undergo imprisonment for a term would leave us with no option but to confirm

the conviction for the offence under Section 451, IPC. Hence, it is also

maintained.

6. In such circumstances, the only surviving question to be considered is

whether the sentence of R.I. for 2 years imposed for the conviction under

Section 354, IPC by the Appellate Court that was confirmed by the High Court

deserves a further reduction of sentence, as prayed for. After hearing the

learned counsel on both sides and taking into account the evidence on record,

and further taking note of the fact that originally there was no prescription of

minimum sentence for corporeal punishment for the conviction under Section

354, IPC on the date of commission of the said offence, we are inclined to

consider the prayer to reduce the sentence from two years.

7. The learned senior counsel for the appellant also submitted that the

Page 3 of 5 SLP (Crl.) No. 8028 of 2023 sentence imposed for the conviction under Section 451 IPC may also be

reduced. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the

appellant had undergone 64 days of incarceration and hence, the sentence for

the conviction for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period of

imprisonment already undergone. Though, we are inclined to consider the

prayer for reduction of sentence, we are of the considered view that the

prayer for reducing the corporeal sentence to the period of 64 days already

undergone would not be the proportionate punishment for the conviction

under Section 354 of the IPC. The very proven case of the prosecution is that

the appellant had committed the aforesaid offences taking advantage of the

situation that the victim alone was present her house, at 3.00 PM on

29.01.1999. Later, the victim committed suicide. There was no charge against

the appellant under Section 306 IPC and the same, though charged against the

co-accused of the appellant he was acquitted. Taking note of the nature and

gravity of the offences committed by the appellant, but then, the absence of

antecedents, that more than 25 years had lapsed since the incident, that the

appellant was then a boy aged 21 years, we are of the considered view that

reducing the sentence for the conviction under Section 354, IPC from 2 years

R.I. to 1 year R.I would be the comeuppance for the commission of the

aforesaid offence. It is ordered accordingly.

8. Now, we will deal with the prayer for reduction of sentence for the

conviction under Section 451, IPC. Since following house-trespass the

appellant had committed the offence under Section 354, IPC punishable with

imprisonment, we maintain the sentence of R.I. of one year imposed on the

appellant for the conviction under Section 451, IPC.

Page 4 of 5 SLP (Crl.) No. 8028 of 2023

9. In the said circumstances, this appeal is partly allowed. We confirm the

conviction of the appellant under Section 451 and the sentence imposed

therefor and also the conviction under Section 354, IPC. However, for the

reasons as aforesaid we reduce the sentence imposed for the conviction

under Section 354, IPC from R.I. for two years to R.I. for one year. Both the

sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The sentence of fine

imposed as relates conviction under Section 354, IPC is maintained.

10. The appellant shall surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks

from today to serve out the remaining sentence. In case, the appellant does

not surrender before the Court within the aforesaid period, he shall be taken

into custody for serving the remaining period of sentence, in accordance with

law.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Registry shall

forward a copy of the judgment to the Trial Court for appropriate action.

….……….................J. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)

.…………...............J. (SANJAY KAROL) New Delhi;

November 13, 2024

Page 5 of 5 SLP (Crl.) No. 8028 of 2023