THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.132 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal, under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), is preferred by the State, against the judgment dated 28.08.2008 in S.C.No.225 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, whereunder and whereby, both the respondents/A1 and A2 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code {IPC}, and accordingly acquitted. 2. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as follows. On 10.04.2006 while P.W.1 was taking dinner, both the accused forcibly entered into her house, threatened her and placed their hands on her breast, removed her veil and outraged her modesty. Basing on the complaint given by P.W.1, a case was registered in crime No.23 of 2006 under Sections 452 and 354 IPC and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. 3. Both the accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and when charges under Sections 452 and 354 IPC were framed, read over and explained to them, both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and marked the signature of P.W.1 on complaint as Ex.P1 and the statement of P.W.1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ex.P2. As there was no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused, their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with and the accused did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. 5. The trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 6. P.W.1, who is the complainant, did not support the case of the prosecution and therefore, the prosecution declared her as hostile. During her cross examination by the prosecution, she denied to have stated before the police that the accused outraged her modesty as stated in Ex.P2. In view of the fact that P.W.1 herself turned hostile, absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the accused trespassed into her house and outraged her modesty, and so, the trial Court acquitted both the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 7. The appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 27th January 2010 RRB