THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1710 OF 2004 DATED 8th DECEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : The State of A.P. ..Appellant and Vattikonda Anjaneyulu & others ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1710 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused in Sessions Case No.706 of 1998 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, for the alleged offence under Sections 354, 324 and 325 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). Heard. The allegations against the accused are that on 15.02.1998 at about 10.00 a.m. when P.W.1 was attending work at the field of one G.Ravi, the accused pounced upon her and outraged her modesty by caught holding her. When P.W.1 raised hue and cry, P.W.2 stopped and saw A.1 caught hold of the right hand of P.W.1 and A.2 caught hold of left hand of P.W.1. When P.W.1 was narrating the incident to P.W.2, accused pounced on him and caused injuries to his left hand, left leg and on chest with sticks, axes, knives, etc. and ran away from the place. Hence, the case. Admittedly, in this case to establish the offence under Section 325 IPC, no Radiologist or Doctor was examined to prove that the injuries are serious in nature. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons possessed weapons like axes and knives, etc. but no evidence was led by the Prosecution in that regard. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the same and acquitted the accused. As far as an offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned, the main ingredient of section 354 IPC is the intention to outrage the modesty. In the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that all the four persons by possessing weapons tried to assault P.W.1. As such, what has happened between the accused and the de facto complainant cannot be termed as an offence under Section 354 IPC. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the evidence on the ground that no injuries were caused by the weapons possessed by the respondents herein and also he disbelieved the presence of the accused. In a case of acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if there is any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the lower Court. It is well settled that in a case of acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is pointing towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 08.12.2010 sur