HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.490 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment dated 27-11-2008 in Sessions Case No.111 of 2008, whereby the respondents-accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 354,323, 509 and 506 read with 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07-11-2007 at 7.00 PM when one Pyla Demudamma, who is the victim, was preparing food at her house, the cow of A-2 came and started fighting with her buffalo. Then, she drove that cow away by abusing it for creating nuisance at her house. Thereafter, A-1 came to the house of the victim and started altercation with her, abused and caught her tuft, fisted on her back, tore her blouse by using criminal force and outraged her modesty. A-2 and A-3 also came there and abused and threatened her with dire consequences. On a report given by the victim, police registered a case in Crime No.118 of 2007 against the respondents - accused for the aforesaid offences. 3. When the charges under Sections 354 and 323 IPC against A-1 and charges under sections 506 & 509 read with 34 IPC against A-1 to A-3 were framed read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 5 and exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-4, besides marking MO1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. 5. The trial Court, upon appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges framed against the accused and accordingly, acquitted the accused under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. 6. Heard. 7. The victim was examined as PW-1, her husband was examined as PW-2 and her son was examined as PW-3. Neighbour of PW-1 was examined as PW-4. Apparently, PWs.1 to 3 belong to one family. The Investigating Officer, who was examined as PW-5, has stated that previously there are land disputes between PW-1 and the accused. The charges framed against the accused are under Sections 354, 323, 509 and 506 read with 34 IPC. But, the independent witness, who was examined as PW-4 has not stated anything about the said assault or attack. His evidence is that when he was taking tea at 7.00 PM at Iruwada Junction, he heard the cries from the house of PW-1 and when he went there, he found the accused abusing PW-1 and on seeing him, they fled away. 8. In my considered view, from the said evidence, it cannot be inferred that the respondents have committed the said offences. Further, there are clear discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. All these things prompted the trial Court to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the respondents - accused and the same appears to be correct. Thus, I see no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J October 07, 2010. KTL