THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.318 OF 2006 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.961 OF 2007 15-12-2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.318 of 2006 BETWEEN:
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 …..Appellant AND Muppidi Nangalayya …..Respondent/accused AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.961 of 2007 BETWEEN:
Kothapalli Musalamma And another.
…..Petitioners/de facto complainants 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 and another.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.318 OF 2006 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.961 OF 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT:
Since the Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision Case are arising out of the same occurrence, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
Criminal Appeal No.318 of 2006 is filed by the State and Criminal Revision Case No.961 of 2004 is filed by the de facto complainants challenging the Judgment dated 20.05.2004 passed in S.C.No.308 of 2003 by the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows.
That P.W.1, mother of P.W.5, lodged a complaint alleging that the accused has pressed the chest and outraged the modesty of P.W.5, who is deaf and dumb, but can inform anything by gestures and sings. The alleged incident was happened at 6.00 p.m., whereas the complaint was lodged by P.W.1 at 11.45 p.m on the day of occurrence. Basing on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, a case was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC and the case was investigated. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC, and as such, acquitted the accused. Aggrieved over the same, the State and the de facto complainants have preferred the criminal appeal and the Criminal Revision Petition respectively.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
P.W.5 was not examined during the course of investigation either with the assistance of interpreter or by any competent person to know the gestures and signs made by her, to speak about the alleged incident. Curiously, the prosecution filed a Memo before the Court below to record the evidence of P.W.5 with the assistance of an Interpreter and the same was allowed and that P.W.5 was examined with the assistance of the Interpreter.
On perusing the entire evidence and also on hearing the arguments, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC observing as under.
It is also another circumstance to disbelieve the prosecution case that as per the evidence of Investigation Officer immediately after P.W.5 was examined by the medical officer, she was sent before the Head Mistress of Deaf and Dumb School, where P.W.5’s statement was recorded and the said Head Mistress informed the Investigation Officer that they will send the statement to the Court directly in due course. If really the story of the prosecution that immediately after the incident P.W.5 was examined by the H.M., Deaf and Dumb School, and she narrated about the incident making gestures or signs in the presence of P.W.1 and the Investigation Officer, certainly, it should be filed into the Court by the Investigation Officer. But, till today no such record was received from the H.M., of the said School to speak that P.W.5 was examined and she has spoken about the incident by making gestures and signs. Further, the prosecution also did not cite the said H.M., of the Deaf and Dumb School as witness.
… Further, P.W.5 went to the extent of denying the admitted fact that earlier they filed case against Boyya Durgayya on the allegation that he committed rape against her. If that is so, when she is denying the admitted fact that earlier they filed criminal complaint against said Durgayya and the same was ended in compromise before the elders, and when the defence counsel put some questions to P.W.5 through the Interpreter, particularly to know about the fact that her evidence is tutored by her mother, the witness did not give any answer, which shows that she is highly influenced and tutored by her mother, particularly when her demeanour is taken while giving answers to the questions put by the defence counsel.
This Court is of the view that only when the entire evidence of the prosecution clinchingly prove the guilt of the accused, this Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. This Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal simply because two views are possible. The Court below correctly came to the opinion that it is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 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 and the Criminal Revision Case are accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in these cases, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 15.12.2014 pln