THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2304 of 2004 BETWEEEN: The Public Prosecutor … Appellant AND Vadde Venkata Swamy … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2304 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal against acquittal. The lower Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 354 and 325 I.P.C. In support of the prosecution case, the victim was examined as PW1 and her uncle who is stated to be an eyewitness, was examined as PW2. It is evidence of PW1 that when she was returning from calls of nature at about 7:00 or 7:30 P.M. and reached near thrashing floor of Venkata Swamy, the accused caught hold of her left hand and pulled her expressing his desire to have sexual intercourse with her. It is further evidence of PW1 that the accused caught hold of her saree and pulled her down and also bite her left ear and that when she raised cries, PW2 rushed there and that on seeing PW2, the accused ran away. Medical evidence of PWs 3 and 4 disclose that PW1 was having grievous injury on her left ear. There was loss of tissue in about one inch in the middle of left ear. But medical evidence reveals that the said injury could not have been caused by biting. In case of bite injury, then the injury would be semi-circular with teeth bite marks in the said injury. Absence of the said indication in the injury ruled out the same to be a bite injury. This circumstance was one of the grounds taken by the lower Court to disbelieve PW1’s evidence. Apart from lack of medical evidence, the lower Court relied upon another circumstance of PW1 not reporting the matter to her husband. Instead, PW1 and PW2 preferred to go to Police Station and give report to the Police. It is not PW1’s case that her husband was not in the house or in the village on that day. There was no reason why PW1 kept information regarding the offence away from her husband. The lower Court further pointed out discrepancy with regard to scene of offence. The prosecution evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the Investigating Officer, PW5 coupled with Ex.P5- rough sketch of the scene, discloses divergent versions of the scene. The divergency is whether it was near thrashing floor of Borugula Venkata Swamy or near Eekala Venkata Swamy or near thrashing floor of the accused himself. In the light of the above discrepancies, improbabilities and lack of supporting medical evidence, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion in favour of the accused. There are no circumstances to come to a different conclusion in this appeal and to reverse finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 2. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:28.11.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2304 of 2004 Dt:28.11.2011 ysk