THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1185 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The State is the appellant and this appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 06.08.2008, rendered in Sessions Case No.95 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet, whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent herein-accused of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: - T h e de facto complainant (P.W-1) and the respondent are wife and husband. As some differences cropped up between them, a decree of divorce was passed by the Lok Adalat, dissolving the marriage between them, at the instance of the de facto complainant, on 31.12.2005. While so, on 24.11.2006, at about 3 pm., when P.W-1 was resting in her room, the respondent entered into the room, bolted the doors, caught hold of her hands, twisted and attempted to commit rape on her. But, she got released her hands from the accused and informed about the said incident to the neighbours and when they raised cries, the accused opened the doors and ran away pushing them aside. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W-1, a crime was registered against the respondent, and after completion of the investigation, the Police filed charge sheet, which was numbered as P.R.C.No.16 of 2007 and the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, after following the usual procedure, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which was made over to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet, and it was renumbered as Sessions Case No.95 of 2008. The learned Judge after analysing the entire evidence on record found the respondent-accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and accordingly, acquitted him. Challenging the same, the State filed the present Criminal Appeal. Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondent- accused. Apparently, the marriage between the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W-1, and the respondent herein was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the Lok Adalat on 31.12.2005 and as such, the respondent has no business to enter into the house of victim i.e., P.W-1. But, the evidence of P.W-1, her father, who was examined as P.W-2, and her brother, who was examined as P.W-3, is not at all convincing. When the marriage between the de facto complainant and the respondent was subsisting and they were living together, it appears the de facto complainant filed two criminal cases against the respondent i.e., C.C.Nos.800 and 815 of 2005. The said aspect is borne out from the record, and it is also elicited in the examination of the prosecution witnesses that there is enmity between P.W-1 and the respondent-accused. P.Ws.2 and 3, being father and brother of P.W-1, respectively, are naturally very much interested in P.W-1. All these circumstances were taken into consideration by the leaned Sessions Judge in holding that the prosecution miserably failed in bringing home the guilt of the respondent herein for the offence under Section 354 IPC, which, in my considered view, appears to be correct. Accordingly, I see no merits in this Criminal Appeal, warranting interference of this Court in the impugned judgment, and the same is dismissed, at the stage of admission. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 10th November 2010 DR