THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1595 of 2004 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is at the instance of the complainant against the acquittal of the accused in Sessions Case No.108 of 2003 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Razole, East Godavari District. 2 Appellant herein has filed private complaint against the respondents alleging that herself and the accused are residents of Pasarlapudi, B.Savaram and Chitapalli villages. About two or three years back, when A.2 and his men attempted to grab the property of the complainant she filed a suit for declaration and also permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The said suit was decreed in favour of the complainant. She filed an execution petition for recovery of the costs awarded in the said suit and got attached the property of the second accused due to which the accused bore grudge against the complainant and conspired together with a common intention to kill the complainant. In pursuance of their common intention, when the complainant and one B.Lakshmi Bhavani were planting tender coconut plants in their coconut garden, all the accused highhandedly trespassed into the garden and attempted to destroy the plants. Some of the accused removed the boundary stones and also attempted to plough the land. When the complainant objected and obstructed them, the other accused instigated A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.6 to remove the clothes of the complainant and at their instigation A.4 placed his hands on her breast and A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.6 caught hold of the complainant, torn her Saree and blouse in order to insult her and outrage her modesty. Immediately A.2 hacked the complainant with Erukula knife on her hands and when she raised her hand in order to ward of the blow on her neck, she sustained injuries on her hands. The remaining accused beat the complainant with hands and also with sticks. Though Bokka Guruprasada Rao, Bokka Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Bokka Surya Prakasa Rao and Bokka Lakshmi Bhavani were present at the spot, but due to fear of the accused, they did not interfere. Immediately she presented a report to the Police, Nagarm Police Station. But due to the influence of the M.L.A, the case was not registered on her complaint. Hence she was compelled to file the private complaint before the Magistrate of Razole. 3 The complaint of the complainant was registered as PRC No.20 of 2002 and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions of East Godavari District, which was made over to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Razole for disposal. 4 The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Razole framed the charges under Sections 354 IPC against A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.6 and under Section 307 IPC against A.2 and under Section 447 IPC against all the accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. 5 In order to establish the charges, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined on behalf of the prosecution and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked. Even though no witness was produced on behalf of the accused, but Exs.D.1 to D.5 were marked on their behalf. 6 Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Razole found the accused not guilty for the above said charges and thereby acquitted them. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the complainant. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to establish the charges under Sections 354, 307 and 447 of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 8 According to the prosecution, when P.W.1 was planting the coconut plants in her coconut garden, all the accused attacked on her and A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.6 tried to outrage her modesty and A.2 attempted to kill her with a knife and the other accused beat her with hands and sticks. Admittedly, there are civil disputes between the accused and P.W.1 with regard to the land and according to the prosecution that is the motive for the accused to attack on P.W.1. P.W.1 has stated about the individual acts of the accused in her evidence. As per the evidence of P.W.4 the Civil Assistant Surgeon, P.W.1 sustained three simple injuries i.e. 1) Abrasion of 2 cm X 1 cm over right knee, red in colour, 2) A scratch of 4 cm X 4 cm over right fore arm and 3) Two linear abrasions over left fore arm obliquely measuring about 4 cm X 4 cm. According to P.W.1, A.2 attacked her with a knife and caused bleeding injuries on her both hands when she warded of the said attack and the other accused beat her indiscriminately with hands and sticks. P.Ws.3 and 5 who are her sons were present at the time of the incident. They also stated about the attacking of P.W.1 by the accused with sticks and beating her indiscriminately. If the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 and the manner in which the alleged attack made on P.W.1 is believed, she ought to have sustained number of injuries that too bleeding injuries, whereas, she has sustained only three simple injuries, which are abrasions and scratches. Therefore, as rightly observed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 creates suspicion with regard to the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place. 9 As admitted by P.W.1, P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 were present at the time of the incident, but none of them have come to her rescue when the accused attacked on her. P.Ws.3 and 5 are the sons of P.W.1 and it is the natural conduct of the sons to rescue their mother when third parties attacked on their mother. When that was not done by the sons, who were present at the spot, it also throws suspicion about the occurrence of the incident as alleged by P.W.1. Moreover, P.W.1, in her complaint has not stated about the individual overt acts of the accused. Therefore, in view of the previous civil disputes between the accused and P.W.1 and in view of the above observations made, the P.W.1 might have filed the complaint only to harass the accused. 10 Thus, the complainant has failed to establish the offences punishable under Sections 354, 307 and 447 of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 11 In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ------------------------------ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. 18.11.2011 Kvsn