THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRLA. No.255 of 2010 Date: 24.2.2010 Between: The State of A.P., rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Appellant. And Mandla Laxmaiah, Gopaldinne village, Pangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRLA No.255 of 2010 JUDGMENT: State has filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 13.4.2009 passed in S.C.No.421 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, whereby and whereunder the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found accused Mandla Laxmaiah not guilty for the offences under Sections 448 and 354 IPC. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.2.2007 at 6.00 P.M., P.W.1 tied cattle in front of her house and went inside the house to fetch water. While she was pouring water into a pot, the accused entered the house, caught hold of her saree and expressed his desire to have her. She escaped from the clutches of the accused, came out of the house and raised hue and cry. Thereupon, the accused took to heels. On return of her husband (P.W.2), narrated the incident to him. P.W.1 and P.W.2 placed the matter before the elders but the village elders did not bestow their attention to the issue. Therefore, P.W.1 accompanied by her husband-P.W.2 went to the Pangal Police Station and presented a report, which has been exhibited as Ex.P1, before the S.H.O., Pangal Police Station. The S.H.O received Ex.P1-report and registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 448 and 354 IPC and issued Ex.P4-First Information Report. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be submitted before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C No.36 of 2008 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, Mahaboobnagar. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C.No.421 of 2008 and made over the same to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, for disposal according to law. On appearance of the accused and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 448 and 354 IPC, read over and explained the charges to the accused in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the respondent/accused for the offences with which he stood charged, prosecution examined five witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4. The plea of the accused is that he has been implicated in the case due to disputes with regard to a Rastha between him and P.Ws.1 & 2. 3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution of the accused, found the accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 448 and 354 IPC and acquitted him accordingly, by judgment dated 13.4.2009. Hence this Criminal Appeal by the State. 4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Appellant-State and perused the judgment impugned in the appeal. 5. Leaned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State submits that the testimony of P.W.1, who is the victim, is corroborated by the evidence of her husband, who has been examined as P.W.2, and, therefore the appellant-accused is liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 354 IPC. 6. P.W.1 is the victim. According to her, the accused entered into the house and caught hold of her saree and expressed his desire to have her. This incident occurred on 26.2.2007 at 6.00 P.M., P.W.1 presented the report before the police on 5.3.2007 at 14.00 hours. There is a delay of nearly seven days. The prosecution tried to explain the delay on the ground that there was some mediation before the village elders. As could be seen from the material placed on record, names of the elders were not mentioned in the report presented by P.W.1. Even before the Court also, P.Ws.1 & 2 did not speak of the names of elders to whom they complained the matter. The investigation officer who has been examined as P.W.5 also did not speak on his examining elders in the village. Therefore, the ground urged by the prosecution for delay in filing the report before the police falls to the ground. P.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination about the disputes between the accused and her husband, with regard to a rastha. She also admits that the accused filed a criminal case against her husband and her father-in- law. As on the date of the incident, a criminal case was pending against her husband, who has been examined as P.W.2 and her father-in-law. Therefore, it can easily be inferred that there was serious enmity between P.Ws.1 & 2 on the one hand and the accused on the other hand in respect of rastha and indeed a criminal case filed by the accused against P.Ws.1 & 2 is pending as on the date of incident. Keeping in view of the serious enmity, the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 is to be evaluated. Indisputably, none of the elders before whom P.Ws.1 & 2 complained against the accused has been examined by the police during the investigation. The version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as to their reporting the matter to the elders is introduced to cover up the delay. In this background, the trial Court is justified in recording a finding the delay in presenting the report before the police is fatal. It has also come on record that P.W.1’s house is in residential locality and there are number of inhabitants in the nearby houses. The contention of P.W.1 that despite her cries, none responded appears to be unbelievable. In view of the serous infirmities in the evidence of P.W.1, the trial Court refused to place reliance on her testimony. I do not see any valid reason to interfere with the judgement of acquittal impugned in the appeal. 7. Hence this Criminal fails and it is dismissed. __________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:24.2.2010 mrb