The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu Criminal Appeal No.1456 of 2009 Judgment: 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 12.09.2008, in Sessions Case No.185 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, Nellore district, whereunder and whereby, the respondent-accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 I.P.C. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: P.W.1 is resident of Kalavakonda village, Chilakur mandal and P.W.2 is his daughter, who was studying in Social Welfare Hostel for Girls, Sullurpet. The accused is resident of the same village and he is husband of sister’s daughter of P.W.1. Wife of accused delivered a female child and in view of her ill-health, family planning operation was performed to her. But, the accused did not like it and quarreled with his wife and mother-in-law, and on that P.W.1 admonished him and supported the version of wife and mother-in-law of the accused. On that, the accused bore grudge against P.W.1. On 3.1.2008 at about 5.30 PM, the accused went to Social Welfare Girls Hostel-II, Sullurpet and informed P.W.2 that her grand mother died and her father asked him to bring her and asked her to accompany him. On that, P.W.2 he took permission from the Warden and followed the accused, who took her to Tada in an auto and informed P.W.3 by phone that he would kill her. P.W.3 requested the accused not to do any harm to P.W.2. But, the accused caught hold of neck of P.W.2 and began to press it. On that, P.W.2 wept bitterly and requested him not to do any harm to her. Then, the accused took P.W.2 to Kalavakonda and handed over to P.W.3. On 6.1.2008, on the report of P.W.1, police registered crime no.3 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 364 and 307 I.P.C., and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. 3. The trial Court took cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 341 and 307 I.P.C. against the accused. When the charges were framed for the offences under Sections 341 and 307 I.P.C., read over and explained the same to accused in telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondent/accused for the charges leveled against him and accordingly acquitted him. Challenging the same, State preferred the present appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 I.P.C. 8. The learned Counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that though P.Ws. 1 and 3 did not support the case of prosecution, the evidence of P.W.2, who is victim, would clearly go to show that the accused kidnapped her and tried to kill her, and hence, acquittal recorded by the trial court is not sustainable and hence she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 10. P.Ws. 1 and 3 did not support the case of prosecution. The entire case of prosecution rests upon the evidence of P.W.2. Though P.W.2 stated that about 8 months back, the accused went to her hostel, took her out from the hostel with the permission of the Warden and had taken her into forest in auto and tried to press her neck, and that she requested the accused not to kill her, and thereafter, the accused took her to her house, and then she narrated the incident to her parents. But, in cross-examination, she stated that she was deposing against the accused as tutored by her father and nothing had happened to her and the accused did not take her from the hostel and did not try to kill her. So, in view of the clear admission made by P.W.2 that she was not kidnapped by the accused nor the accused tried to kill her, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. The evidence of P.W.4, who is the Warden, would go to show that the accused came to the hostel and requested her to permit P.W.2 to go along with him and so she accorded permission. P.W.5, who is cook in the hostel, also stated in the same lines. When the victim herself clearly stated that she was not kidnapped by the accused, the trial court rightly acquitted him. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 12.09.2008, in Sessions Case No.185 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, Nellore district. _____________ (K.C.Bhanu, J) 4th November, 2009 drk The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu Criminal Appeal No.1456 of 2009 Date: 04.11.2009 Between: The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Appellant And Doddi Ramanaiah …Respondent The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu Criminal Appeal No.1456 of 2009 04.11.2009