Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said even an intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment coupled with house-trespass would constitute the offence punishable under Section 451, IPC.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol confirmed the conviction of a man for house trespass and for the offence under Section 354, IPC, along with the consequential imposition of a sentence to undergo imprisonment for one year.

The court partly allowed the appeal filed by Didde Srinivas for a reduction of the sentence.

However, responding to a plea by the appellant to reduce the sentence, the bench said, "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 court noted that the very proven case of the prosecution was that the appellant had committed those offences by taking advantage of the situation where the victim was alone at her home at 3:00 PM on January 29, 1999. Later, the victim committed suicide. However, there was no charge against the appellant under Section 306 IPC, and the same, though charged against the co-accused of the appellant, resulted in acquittal.

"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 two to one year rigorous imprisonment would be the comeuppance for the commission of the offence," the bench said.

The appellant challenged the validity of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order of March 16, 2023.

The Trial Court convicted him under Section 376 read with Section 511 , besides under Section 451 of the IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence of ‘rape’ and for one year and a fine of Rs 200 for the offence under Section 451, IPC. 

In an appeal, the sessions court in West Godavari District confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 451 IPC and modified the conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC to a conviction under Section 354 IPC. Consequently, for the conviction under Section 354 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo a two-year term. The fine imposed for the conviction under Section 376 IPC was upheld for the conviction under Section 354 IPC.

The High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence for both offences.

On scanning the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the bench said, "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," the bench added.

The court, after hearing the counsel on both sides, took into account the evidence on record, and further noted the fact that originally there was no prescription of minimum sentence for custodial 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," the bench said.

The court directed the appellant to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

Case Title: Diddie Srinivas Vs State SHO Podduru Police Station and Anr