THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1826 of 2007 16-12-2014 BETWEEN:
State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for The State of Telangana and the State of A.P., …..Appellant AND Pinapati Manikya Rao …..Respondent/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1826 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 17.04.2006 passed in S.C.No.629 of 2005 passed by the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Sections 354 IPC and 324 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That P.W.1 and the accused are neighbours and they are known to each other. As P.W.3 suffered from ill-health, P.W.1 was going to fields to graze their cattle. Observing the same, the accused was following her and asking her to give kisses, and the same was refused by P.W.1. P.W.1 informed the same to P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 and L.Ws.3 and 4. Though the matter was brought to the notice of the parents of the accused, they paid deaf ear. Again on 18.07.2005, when P.W.1 went to the fields to answer calls of nature, the accused followed her, caught hold of her hand, neck, caused injuries and demanded to quench his lust, outraged her modesty. However, P.W.1 was escaped from the hands of the accused, and the matter was reported to P.Ws.3 and L.Ws.3 and 4. On that P.Ws.4 and 5 called the parents of the accused, but they did not turn up and further directed to do whatever they wish. P.W.1 gave complaint to the police and basing on which, a case was registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 354 IPC and 324 IPC, and the matter was investigated into. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 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 observing as under.
The prosecution case does not inspire the confidence of the Court because of the behaviour of P.W.1 on the following admitted grounds. (1) that P.W.1 alone went to graze their she-buffaloes (not cattle according to Ex.P.1) away from the other people those who are grazing cattle. She did not assign reasons as to why she alone went to a separate place though she knows that the accused is following her and teasing her. (2) No complaints were given in respect of earlier events of incidents during which the accused asked P.W.1 to give him a kiss. According to P.W.1, previously only one such incident was taken place. But as per P.W.3 previously two incidents were taken place. In spite of it, no complaint was given. (3) On the date of incident on 18.07.2005 at about 8.00 p.m., in the darkness P.W.1 alone went to answer calls of nature. According to her to a distance of 50 to 100 yards away from their house. But as per the Investigating Officer, it is at a distance of 250 yards away from the house of P.W.1. Another important point is that she did not raise cries though the accused caught hold of her and pushed her towards pillipesara chenu. So, the tendency of P.W.1 appears to be consenting party. Whenever a woman went alone to answer calls of nature that too during night at about 8.00 p.m., while it is darn, when she was caught by another person, certainly she will raise cries. But in the case on hand, admittedly P.W.1 did not raise any cries. So, it shows that the case might have been foisted s contended by the defence counsel to take vengeance.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
As seen from the records and the observation made by the learned trial Judge, this Court is of the view that the behaviour of P.W.1 and her evidence in connection with the occurrence and the manner it took place, that too at 8.00 p.m., is highly unbelievable and that too when the accused misbehaved with P.W.1 on an earlier occasion, she has not given any report to the police. P.W.1 stated that when the accused misbehaved with her on the earlier occasion, she has informed the same to her family members and that a Panchayat was held in that connection. But, the prosecution has failed to examine any of the panchayatdars to prove the fact that a Panchayat was held on the complaint of the P.W.1. Hence, the same cannot be believed.
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 16.12.2014 pln