THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1123 of 2014 06-11-2014 BETWEEN:
M.Santhosh Kumari …..Appellant/de facto complainant AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and another.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1123 of 2014 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the de facto complainant challenging the Judgment dated 04.08.2014 passed in S.C.No.214 of 2013 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused/second respondent for the offences under Sections 448 IPC and 354 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That on 07.11.2012 at about 3.00 or 3.30 p.m., when P.W.1 was in the house alone, the accused entered into the house and discussed about the family matters. All of a sudden, the accused caught hold of her right hand and abused her in filthy language alleging that she had some affair with another person. The accused pulled the victim towards him. Then the victim raised hue and cries, and then P.W.3 came to the house of the victim and admonished the accused after coming to know about the incident. Then the accused fled away from the spot. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.Ws.4 to 6 also came to the house of the victim and noticed the accused while escaping from the scene. P.W.1 gave complaint to the police and basing on the same, the police registered a case against the accused and investigated the matter. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 448 IPC and 354 IPC.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the following grounds.
P.W.1 did not mention either in the complaint, Ex.P.1, or in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that the accused caught hold of her hands and that her bangles were broken. She also did not mention in the complaint that P.W.3 admonished the accused. But, P.W.1 in her chief-examination deposed that on hearing her hue and cry, P.W.3 came to the spot and admonished the accused. P.W.1, in the cross- examination, stated that she did not mention the facts that P.W.3 admonished the accused and that P.Ws.4 to 6 came to her house when the accused escaped from the scene, in the complaint, Ex.P.1. It clearly shows that it is the improved version of the case.
The evidence of P.W.2 is only hearsay evidence. P.W.2 did not dispute the fact that he knows the accused since the time of his father and he used to call him as brother. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 were suggested to the effect that Ex.P.1 was lodged with false averments since the accused admonished P.W.1 not to claim any right in the house property from her mother-in-law. Whereas, P.W.3 gave altogether a different version contrary to the version of P.W.1 stating that after ten minutes, P.W.1 came into balcony and informed her that the accused caught hold her hand and pulled her towards him and she admonished the accused not to behave in such a manner being the aged person. The presence of P.Ws.4 to 6 is not at all deposed by P.W.3. P.W.3 even pleaded ignorance even about the name of the accused. Further, P.Ws.4 to 6, who are material eye witnesses, were completely turned hostile and deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case nor they witnessed the alleged incident. P.Ws.4 to 6 have gone to the extent of saying that they were not examined by the police nor they have stated to the police as in Exs.P.2 to P.4 at any time.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
On perusing the evidence available on record and the Judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given while acquitting the accused is in accordance with law. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 06.11.2014 pln