THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1649 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.244 of 2004 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet, by the judgment dated 19.8.2004 led the State to file the present appeal through the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The factual background of the appeal is that the accused was prosecuted for the alleged offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that he caught hold of Sangam Renuka from behind with a view to have sexual intercourse with her when she was alone working in the agricultural land at Pallerla on 2.7.2003 at about 4.p.m. When Renuka raised cries, her husband Ramakrishna Reddy, mother- in- law Sayamma and Ananthamma attending the agricultural operations in the adjacent fields rushed there, on seeing whom, the accused escaped. On a report given by Renuka on the next day, a crime was registered by the Police and investigated into. A scene of offence Panchanama was conducted and accused was arrested and produced before the court. A charge sheet was filed accusing the accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused on his appearance and the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session. To a charge under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code framed, the accused pleaded not guilty and PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he had no defence evidence. 4. The trial court rendered the impugned judgment finding the prosecution to have failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as per the analysis of the evidence placed before it. It consequently acquitted the accused, against which, the State preferred the present appeal contending that mere delay in Ex.P.1 report to the Police is explicable due to the reluctance of any woman to approach the Police immediately in case of outrage of her modesty. It was claimed that the evidence of victim alone was sufficient to convict the accused and the accused could not have been acquitted on surmises and conjectures. 5. Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri Palle Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the accused are heard. 6. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt? 7. PW1 was the victim while PWs 2 and 3 were her mother-in-law and husband, while PW.4 was also admittedly related to PWs 1 to 3. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 was therefore necessarily interested evidence. Though every interested evidence is not necessarily false evidence, it will be safe to follow the established rule of prudence to look for satisfactory independent corroboration before accepting such evidence. Such corroboration appears to be totally lacking in the present case. If PWs 1 to 4 were attending the agricultural operations in their fields, and if PWs 2,3 and 4 heard the cries of PW.1 from the scene of offence, in the other neighbouring fields also, either the landlords or their workers would have been naturally present to attend the agricultural operations and would have been attracted to the incident, like PWs 2 to 4, but no such neighbouring landlord or worker was cited or examined during investigation or trial. There was an admission about the stage of the crops in the neighbouring lands being similar to that in the land of PWs 1 to 4 at the relevant time and PW.1 conveniently claimed to have not observed any persons present in the neighbouring lands. PW.4 admitted the presence of such persons in the neighbouring fields and the investigating officer never made an attempt to ascertain the presence of others in the vicinity or to examine any such persons about their knowledge of the alleged offence, even as per his evidence as PW.6. The delay of about 18 hours since the incident before Ex.P.1 report was given to the Police was sought to be explained only due to the time taken to give such report only after confirming with the father-in- law of PW.1. While non- availability of any Telugu type machine in the village as stated by PW.3 left the question of where Ex.P.1 report was typed in Telugu unanswered and Venkat Reddy who was claimed to be the person who prepared Ex.P.1 was also not examined to establish the link between the delay and his arrival in the village, the admissions about existence of rival groups in the village and the affiliation of respective parties to rival groups also make a more close and careful scrutiny of the evidence imperative before acceptance. While there was further delay of about a day in sending the First Information Report to the Court, the alleged escape of the accused from the scene surrounded by agricultural lands in which number of persons were attending to agricultural operations also appears not quite natural and the omission to state earlier before their evidence about the accused catching hold of the hands of PW.1 was rightly observed by the trial court to be an important omission in the version of the witnesses to the Police. If the accused had really misbehaved with PW.1 earlier also as alleged in Ex.P.1, why such incidents were never reported to the Police or any elders, was also unexplained and PWs 1 to 4 had not stated about earlier incidents in their evidence. PW.5 did not even know the contents of the scene of observation Panchanama Ex.P.2 allegedly attested by him and the evidence of investigating officer apart from not being totally independent, was no direct evidence about the incident itself. On such evidence, the trial court cannot be considered wrong in acting upon the distinction between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ and concluding that the guilt of the accused was not established beyond the reasonable doubt. Interference with the acquittal on merits requires very strong and positive grounds and reasons, which cannot be considered to be present herein in the light of the various circumstances elicited above. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be considered susceptible to any interference in this appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 11.11.2009 Stp