THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.704 of 2008 25-11-2014 BETWEEN:
K.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi AND …..Appellant State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.704 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by sole accused challenging the judgment dated 10.06.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in S.C.No.51 of 2007 whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 448 and 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer, S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 354 IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 448 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:
P.W.1 is the wife of P.W.2 and they are residents of Uppalaru village. The accused is also resident of the same village. While so, on 17.12.2005, at about 10.00 p.m. night, while P.W.1 was alone in their house and while she was lighting candle, the accused trespassed into their house and caught hold of her tightly from her behind with his hands asking her to satisfy his lust. Then P.W.1 raised hue and cries. On hearing her cries, the neighbours i.e. L.Ws.3 to 6 gathered there and on seeing them the accused ran away. In that midnight when her husband-P.W.2 came to their house P.W.1 informed the incident to him. On the report given by P.W.1 on the next day at about 12.00 Noon under Ex.P.1, P.W.7-Head Constable registered a case and issued F.I.R. and took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. P.W.8-Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 27.12.2005 at 9.30 a.m. and forwarded him to the concerned court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the appellant-Accused for the offences alleged.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. On behalf of defence, Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked.
After evaluating the entire evidence brought on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material brought on record.
P.W.1 is the aggrieved person. P.W.2 is her husband, who is not an eyewitness to the incident. P.W.1 in her chief-examination deposed as per the case of the prosecution. The other witnesses i.e. P.Ws.3,5 & 6, who are neighbours of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are alleged to have witnessed the accused- appellant running away from the place of occurrence, turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. As far as the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, she has not mentioned the name of the accused while deposing before the Court, but whereas, his name is found in the complaint, which was lodged on the next day of the incident. The reason for delay in lodging the complaint, according to P.W.1 is that since her husband-P.W.2 returned home in the midnight, they went to the police station on the next day morning at 7.00 a.m. Whereas, P.W.2 deposed that they went to the police station on the next day morning at about 12.00 Noon. Except that, P.W.1 has not deposed regarding her acquaintance with the appellant-accused. She has not even deposed that the accused is her neighbour or a stranger to her or a person known to her or that he is also of the same village. Without there being any evidence regarding the identity of the accused, merely on the basis of evidence adduced by P.W.1, the only witness to the occurrence, this Court is of the view that it is highly unsafe to convict the appellant that too for an offence under Section 354 IPC under which a minimum punishment of 5 years is prescribed. Hence, this Court is of the view to acquit the accused- appellant of the offences by extending benefit of doubt.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Thee convictions and sentences imposed on the appellant-accused for the offences under Sections 448 and 354 IPC are hereby set aside and he is found not guilty of the offences and acquitted of the said charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be returned to him.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO,J 25.11.2014 Tsr