HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.R.C. No. 142 of 2005 DATED: 16.12.2009 Between: K. Varalakshmi .. Revision Petitioner And 1. Kollumalla Yesu 2. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated 18.11.2004 delivered by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pithapuram in S.C.No.284 of 2004 whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and acquitted him. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.07.2004, at about 11.00 A.M., PW1, namely K.Vara Laxmi, carried manure to her land, and while she was collecting firewood, the sole accused appeared there saying “Deeni Pani Pattali” and placed his hands on her from behind, caught hold of her and dragged her towards gedda in the land, and there was a scuffle, during the course of which, she raised cries and in the process, her blouse and saree were torn and her bangles broken. She also suffered bleeding injuries to her hands. On hearing her cries, Gangayamma and Yerrayamma came there, on seeing whom, the accused ran away from the place. However, PW1 lodged a police complaint on 14.07.2004 i.e. three days after the incident, and the police registered the complaint as a case in Cr.No.76 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and after completing investigation laid charge sheet. The prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.Os.1 to 3 on its behalf. DWs.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the defence, however, no documents were marked. Considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as other material placed on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused, and accordingly, acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner is absent and there is no representation on behalf of the de facto complaint. On 19.11.2009, he was reported not keeping well, hence, the case was posted to 01.12.2009, on which date, again he was not present. Hence, the matter was posted to today. Heard both the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-accused submits that the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pitapuram, after satisfying himself that there was no sufficient material warranting conviction of the accused, though the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8, and finding fault with the prosecution and also extending the benefit of doubt to the 1st respondent, found him not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and acquitted him of the said charge. He further submits that the trial Court observed in clear terms that there was uncorroborated evidence on record with no material contradictions except some minor discrepancies, therefore, according to him, it was not a fit case for conviction and that the 1st respondent-accused was rightly acquitted. He further submits that the trial Court has also considered the delay of little more than three days in lodging the complaint brushing aside the prosecution version that it was due to the fact that it related to the prestige of a woman, and therefore, sensitive in nature. He also submits that the trial Court was justified in extending the benefit of doubt to the 1st respondent owing to the improper investigation of the case by the Investigation Officer. The learned counsel pointed to this Court the observation made by the trial Court at paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment inter alia that “It is also the contention of the accused that PW7, the Investigation Officer, sent a word to PW2, who is the husband of PW1 and others, and later, at their instance, this case is foisted against the accused, and therefore, it is alleged that Ex.P1 - complaint is an after-thought report to foist a case against the accused. Therefore, this itself creates a doubt in the prosecution case. Further, however strong the suspicion may be, the accused cannot be convicted. The Investigation Officer also has not placed truth before the Court by mentioning about the report of the accused given earlier to him and sending the accused to Government Hospital. PW7 deposed in his cross-examination that he did not remember whether the accused gave a report to him or whether he sent the accused to the Government Hospital with requisition in Memo No.33/Hosp/04, dated 12.07.2004, therefore, the Investigation Officer suppressed the facts and not placed the truth before the Court. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.” Referring to the above background, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-accused submits that there is political rivalry between the parties and that the present case is a counter case inasmuch as the 1st respondent had also preferred a complaint before PW7, the Investigating Officer prior to the complaint of the de facto complaint herein on 11.07.2004. He also pointed out that the delay of three days in preferring the complaint by the de facto complainant (PW1) is indicative of the fact that it is the result of the political rivalry and an after-thought to falsely implicate the 1st respondent. Lastly, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-accused submits that the present Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits, and the same may be dismissed. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of the acquittal of the trial Court stating that for want of sufficient evidence and also extending the benefit of doubt, the trial Court acquitted the 1st respondent of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. After hearing the learned counsel for the 1st respondent- accused and the learned Public Prosecution for the 2nd respondent- State and also having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that political rivalry between the parties and there being a case and counter case since both sides preferred police complaints in general, and having regard to the evidence of PW7, the Investigation Officer, in particular, the trial Court cannot be said to have committed any error or irregularity in acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, and alternatively, by extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails, and the same stands dismissed. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 16th December, 2009 bcj