THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.351 of 2008 14-10-2014 BETWEEN:
Khajapasha @ Quayam …..Appellant/accused AND The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.351 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the Judgment dated 29.02.2008 passed in S.C.No.361 of 2006 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the learned Judge found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
The case of the prosecution, as recorded by the Court below, is as follows:
That on 13.03.2006 at 8.00 p.m., Smt Nondrana Jayalaxmi, W/o Prasada Rao, R/o Moosapet (L.W.1) lodged a written complaint stating that since few days one banana vendor Khaja Pasha @ Quayam was following and harassing her in unparliamentary language with an evil intention and on the previous day night i.e., on 12.03.2006 at 7.00 p.m., when she went to purchase vegetables in Bharathnagar Market and while proceeding to her house at Moosapet cross roads, the accused followed and caught hold and pulled her saree with an intent to outrage her modesty, then somehow she escaped from the hands of the accused and she informed the same to her husband (L.W.2) and when he questioned the accused about his behaviour, then the accused stated that he is having illegal intimacy with her and questioned what he can do. On that, the complainant (L.W.1) prayed for necessary action. Basing on that complaint, Sri P.Radhakishan Rao (L.W.7), the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.256 of 2006 under Section 354 IPC and entrusted the case to Sri K.Pentaiah, ASI of Police (L.W.8) for investigation. During the course of investigation, L.W.8 examined and recorded the statement of complainant and her husband and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators Sri G.Durgaiah (L.W.5) and G.Ramesh (L.W.6) and also recorded the statements of K.Raju (L.W.3) and M.Eshwar (L.W.4) and on 26.04.2006 at 12.00 hours the accused were apprehended and brought to the police station and the ASI of Police (L.W.8) effected his arrest and he has been sent to judicial remand. After completion of investigation, Sri Gangarao (L.W.9) filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused.
Heard and perused the entire material available on record.
P.W.1 is the victim and de facto complainant. She deposed that the accused is a banana vendor in their area and after purchasing vegetables, while she was returning to house, the accused followed her, pulled her saree and forced her to come along with him as he likes her company. She escaped from her clutches and informed the same to her husband. When her husband questioned about his behaviour, then the accused recklessly replied that he kept her as mistress for the last two years what he can do. P.W.2, who is the husband of the victim, deposed that his wife informed him that the accused is following her for the last few days and on that day, she was returning from vegetable market, the accused forced her to come with him by abusing her in filthy language. P.W.3 is the resident of the area. He deposed that he knows the accused and he used to sell bananas in their area. He deposed that he observed that P.W.2, husband of P.W.1, and the accused were quarrelling on the day of occurrence in their street and on his enquiry with P.W.2, he came to know that the accused pulled the saree of his wife when she went to vegetable market.
P.W.4 is also a resident of Moosapet. He deposed that about one year back, when he was returning to his house, he observed that some people gathered infront of the house of P.W.2 and the accused was in drunken state at that time and on his enquiry, P.W.1 informed that the accused pulled her saree by following her. P.W.5 is also a resident of Moosapet, in whose house P.Ws.1 and 2 are residing as tenants. He deposed that the police came to their house and prepared scene of offence panchanama and obtained the signatures of his junior paternal uncle, L.W.5 and himself and he came to know that on the previous day night, the accused misbehaved with P.W.1 in drunken state and a quarrel took place between the accused and P.W.2 in front of their house. P.W.6 is the first Investigation Officer, who deposed that he recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 at police station and on the next day morning he visited the scene of offence and prepared scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.W.5 and L.W.5 and also recorded the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 and apprehended the accused at his residence. P.W.7, who is another Investigation Officer, deposed that he took the CD file from P.W.6 and verified the investigation and prepared charge sheet against the accused and sent him to judicial custody along with charge sheet.
On perusing the entire evidence, this Court is of the view that except P.W.1, there is no other eye witness to substantiate the fact that the accused pulled the saree of P.W.1 and also abused her in filthy language. P.W.2, who is the husband of P.W.1, deposed that the accused was following P.W.1 for the last few days and uttering abusive words, and on the day of occurrence, while she was returning to her house from the vegetable market, the accused followed her and forced her to come with him and pulled her saree, abused her in filthy language. Except P.Ws.1 and 2, no other witness did state that the accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language. Curiously, either in the complaint, Ex.P.1 or in the statements recorded by the police, P.W.1 did not specifically mention the words allegedly uttered by the accused. Even in the chief examination also, P.W.1 did not mention the words uttered by the accused. Further, it is evident from the complaint that the accused is known to P.W.1 one year prior to the occurrence, whereas she has suppressed that fact in the chief-examination and deposed that she is not having any acquaintance with the accused and on that particular day, the accused pulled her saree and forced her to come along with him and he expressed that he likes her company. It is totally contradict the complaint lodged by P.W.1. Further, there is an inordinate delay of 24 hours in lodging the complaint even though the police station is within a span of five kilometers. In a serious offence of this nature, merely relying on the evidence of P.W.1, which does not inspire the confidence of this Court, it is highly unsafe to convict the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC and as such, the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal of the said offence.
The Judgment of the Court below in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charge. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties stand discharged. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 14.10.2014 pln