Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Sexual Assault Case After 25 Years

The Supreme Court of India, in Didde Srinivas v. State SHO, Podduru Police Station & Anr., partially allowed an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 354 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence considering the prolonged litigation and the age of the appellant at the time of the incident.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to January 29, 1999, when the appellant was accused of house trespass and attempting to outrage the modesty of a woman. The victim later committed suicide, but the appellant was not charged under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide). The prosecution alleged that the appellant entered the victim’s house at around 3:00 PM, took advantage of her being alone, and committed acts leading to his conviction under Sections 354 and 451 IPC.

Trial Court’s Decision

The Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasapur, convicted the appellant under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC (attempt to commit rape) and Section 451 IPC (house trespass to commit an offense).
The appellant was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for the attempted rape charge and one year of R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200 for house trespass.

Appellate Court’s Findings

The Sixth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narasapur, modified the conviction under Section 376 IPC to Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty).
The sentence was reduced to two years of R.I. for Section 354 IPC while maintaining the sentence for Section 451 IPC.

High Court’s Ruling

The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amravati confirmed the appellant’s conviction under both Sections 354 and 451 IPC.
The Court upheld the revised sentence imposed by the appellate court.

Key Legal Issues Considered

Whether the conviction under Sections 354 and 451 IPC was justified based on the prosecution’s evidence.
Whether the sentence should be further reduced given the passage of 25 years since the offense.
Whether the appellant’s age at the time of the offense and lack of prior criminal antecedents merited leniency.

Arguments of the Appellant (Didde Srinivas)

The appellant had already undergone 64 days of incarceration, and the remaining sentence should be commuted.
The conviction was based solely on the testimony of two witnesses (PWs 4 and 5) without substantial corroboration.
Given the appellant was 21 years old at the time of the offense and had no prior criminal record, leniency should be shown.

Arguments of the Respondents (State of Andhra Pradesh)

The prosecution successfully established the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The testimonies of PWs 4 and 5 were credible and sufficient for conviction.
The appellant committed the offense when the victim was alone at home, demonstrating premeditation.

Supreme Court’s Observations

On the Validity of the Conviction

The Court reaffirmed the findings of the lower courts, stating:

“The creditworthy testimonies of PWs 4 and 5 were rightly believed by the courts below, and the conviction under Section 354 IPC was justified.”

On the Reduction of Sentence

While upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court considered mitigating factors, including:

The prolonged passage of time (25 years) since the incident.
The appellant’s young age at the time of the offense (21 years).
The lack of prior criminal antecedents.

Accordingly, the Court ruled:

“Reducing the sentence for the conviction under Section 354 IPC from two years R.I. to one year R.I. would be an appropriate punishment in the circumstances.”

On the Sentence for House Trespass

The Court maintained the sentence of one year of R.I. for the conviction under Section 451 IPC, stating:

“Since the appellant committed house trespass with the intention to commit an offense punishable with imprisonment, the conviction and sentence under Section 451 IPC are maintained.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal:

The conviction under Sections 354 and 451 IPC was upheld.
The sentence for Section 354 IPC was reduced from two years of R.I. to one year of R.I.
The sentence for Section 451 IPC remained at one year of R.I.
Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The appellant was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

Implications of the Judgment

Reaffirms the credibility of witness testimony in sexual assault cases.
Emphasizes judicial discretion in modifying sentences based on mitigating factors.
Sets a precedent for reducing sentences in prolonged cases with no prior criminal history.
Reiterates the importance of maintaining proportionality in sentencing.

The judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to balancing justice with fairness, ensuring that punishment aligns with the gravity of the offense while considering individual circumstances.

Petitioner Name: Didde Srinivas.
Respondent Name: State SHO, Podduru Police Station & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 12-11-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: didde-srinivas-vs-state-sho,-podduru-p-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-11-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Criminal Defamation
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category