IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.135 of 2009 Between: The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Bojja Sreenu .. Respondent JUDGMENT: The acquittal of the accused in S.C. No.165 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda by the judgment dated 01-05-2007 led the State to ﬁle the present criminal appeal through the learned public prosecutor. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nalgonda Rural ﬁled the charge sheet in crime No.28 of 2006 against the accused alleging that on 18-02-2006 morning when Perla Laxmamma went to her agricultural well with cattle and was returning in the evening to her house, the accused suddenly came in her opposite direction, caught her and had bitten her on right cheek. The accused also fell on her and outraged her modesty and on her raising cries, Bolleddu China Narsaiah and Balragonda Saidamma rushed to her. On seeing them, the accused snatched the tiﬃn box of Laxmamma, beat her and absconded. On the report of Laxmamma to the police at 9 P.M. on the same day, the crime was registered and investigated into. As Laxmamma alleged that she was bitten on the right cheek, she was sent to the Government Headquarters hospital for treatment and issuance of wound certiﬁcate and the scene of oﬀence was examined under a panchanama before mediators. The accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and hence, the charge. 3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda who took cognizance of the oﬀence, furnished copies of documents to the accused when he entered appearance and on committal to the Court of Session in P.R.C. No.20 of 2006, the Court of Session made over the case to the trial Court. To the charges under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code framed against the accused by the trial Court, he pleaded not guilty and during the trial, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked by the prosecution. 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 Exs.D.1 to D.7 were marked on his behalf. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment ﬁrstly observing that P.W.1 alleged in her evidence that the accused came from her behind, pulled down the ﬁrewood bundle from her head and then dragged her into a nearby paddy ﬁeld, whereas in Ex.P.1 report it was alleged by her that the accused came opposite her. Ex.P.1 was noted to have not mentioned about the ﬁrewood bundle being pulled down from the head of the victim or about the accused biting P.W.1 after she fell on the ground. The details of the incident as spoken to by P.W.1 and as speciﬁed in Ex.P.1 were, thus, found to be totally discrepant and the denial of P.W.1 of having stated to the police as in Ex.D.1 about the accused coming in opposite direction or that the accused all of a sudden held her tightly and had bitten her on right cheek and then dragged into a paddy ﬁeld was also noted. Exs.D.1 to D.4 contradictions in the statement of P.W.1 recorded by the police as against her evidence before the Court were considered to throw doubts on the veracity of P.W.1’s version. When P.W.1 did not know the name of the accused till Ex.P.1 was prepared and there was no chance of knowing the name of the accused, her claim during cross-examination that the accused himself while going away, told about his name, was considered unnatural. Omission to state about the same earlier was also referred and the evidence of P.W.2 that the police told him that the person who ran away was the accused, was considered to have gone to the root of the case. The evidence of P.W.2 was also noted to contradict P.W.1 about the accused himself telling his name and asking P.W.1 to tell the villagers if she so desired. The evidence of P.W.3 was noted by the trial Court to be contrary to the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 when she claimed that the accused going in a drunken state was shouting his name and village also and the statement of P.W.3 to the police in Ex.D.7 that P.W.2 identiﬁed the accused was denied by P.W.3 in her evidence. The trial Court, therefore, considered the evidence to be not consistent about identifying the name of the accused and mentioning the same in Ex.P.1. The trial Court also observed that P.Ws.1 to 3 contradicted each other even about the manner in which the accused was found running after the incident and P.Ws.1 to 3 were also noted to have not stated about the accused snatching the tiﬃn box of P.W.1, biting her and running away as alleged by the prosecution. Whether the accused ran away on road or in paddy fields is also found to have been contradicted and the diﬀerent versions given by P.Ws.1 to 3 were not considered to be solely due to the lapse of time between the incident and the evidence. The absence of any medical evidence about ﬁnding any bite injury on the right cheek of P.W.1 in spite of her being examined within 3 hours after the alleged incident was also noted to be creating a doubt and the scene of oﬀence being by the side of Zilla Parishad road where people frequently move as per Ex.P.2 scene of oﬀence panchanama was also considered to be creating a doubt as to whether anybody will attempt to rape a lady at such a place. The trial Court further observed that there was no convincing and proper explanation as to how the name of the accused was known to P.W.1 or her husband and the defence of the accused was found to be more probable from the circumstances made out by the evidence on record. Therefore, the trial Court extended the beneﬁt of reasonable doubt to the accused and acquitted him of the charges. 5. In appeal, it was contended herein that the necessary ingredients to constitute the oﬀences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code have been made out by the prosecution and the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 could not have been so interpreted by the trial Court. The minor discrepancies and innocuous improvements were over emphasised by the trial Court and therefore, it is desired that the judgment in acquittal be reversed. 6. Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor for the appellant and Sri M. Jayarami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. 7. The point for consideration is whether there are any strong and convincing grounds to interfere with the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court ? 8. Point: The earliest version in Ex.P.1 speciﬁcally alleged that near the canal the accused came opposite P.W.1 who was returning home and suddenly caught hold of her preventing her from moving and had bitten on the right cheek, after which he pushed her down and attempted to rape her. Ex.P.1 speciﬁcally stated that it was after P.W.1 raised cries that P.Ws.2 and 3 came to the scene, on which the accused snatched the tiﬃn box from her, beat her and escaped. Ex.P.2 panchanama said to have been conducted before independent mediators on the next day gave an altogether diﬀerent version about the accused trying to catch the hand of P.W.1 and P.W.1 avoiding the same and rushing to the ﬁeld and then the accused pushing her and biting her on the right cheek. The panchanama Ex.P.2 also does not refer to the accused snatching away the tiﬃn box from the hands of the victim. Ex.P.3 rough sketch of the scene of oﬀence shows that the scene of oﬀence is just adjoining Seshammagudem – Kesharajupally Zilla Parishad road and the alleged time of the incident being at about 6 P.M., as per Exs.P.1 and P.2, the movement of people on the main road would have been but natural. As observed by the trial Court whether any reasonably prudent person would have attempted to rape a lady at such a location is also to be not brushed aside. The ﬁrst information report reached the learned Magistrate only after two days on 20-02-2006 and more insigniﬁcantly in spite of being examined within 3 hours after the alleged incident, during which the accused allegedly had bitten on the right cheek of P.W.1, Ex.P.5 medical certiﬁcate clearly stated that there were no external injuries. Exs.D.1 to D.7 portions of statements of the witnesses recorded by the police, which were denied by them, were asserted to have been so made by the investigating oﬃcer and the claim of the accused is that P.W.1 had to pay Rs.2,100/- to him towards ploughing charges for her field with the tractor of the accused, which was not paid in spite of demands and that there was also a dispute about the cattle of P.W.1 grazing in the land of the accused’s elder brother, which led to foisting a false case. 9. The evidence of P.W.1 is about the accused coming from behind her and pulling down the firewood bundle from her head, after which he dragged her into a paddy ﬁeld, threw her on the ground and then had bitten on the right cheek before attempting to commit rape. The manner in which the incident was described by P.W.1 in her evidence was contrary to what was stated in Ex.P.1 and her statement to the police under Section 161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As already stated, P.Ws.2 and 3, who were attracted to the scene on hearing the cries of P.W.1, could not have been eye witnesses to the occurrence and while admittedly the accused was not known to P.W.1 even a moment before the incident, his identity was claimed by P.W.1 to have been known with the accused himself telling while leaving the scene that she was at liberty to inform the villagers about his name and village which he mentioned. This claim was never made earlier and Ex.P.1 does not indicate the absence of any acquaintance between P.W.1 and the accused before the incident. The very claim of the accused so proclaiming while leaving is quite unnatural and if he escaped from the scene on seeing P.Ws.2 and 3 rushing to the scene, such proclamations would not have been possible. P.W.1 does not even know who was the person who drafted Ex.P.1 report given by her to the police and P.Ws.1 to 3 contradicted each other about the place of the incident as stated in detail by the trial Court in its judgment. P.W.3 claimed that the accused was in such a drunken state as to move in a zig zag manner on the road, about which P.Ws.1 and 2 made no reference and as stated by P.W.2 what he has seen was only accused running away from the scene, but not the accused being in physical contact with P.W.1 as alleged in the earlier versions. P.W.2 himself claimed about the accused running on the road while P.W.3 stated it to be across the paddy ﬁeld and P.W.2 admitted that he did not state the name of the accused in his statement to the police. If the version of P.W.1 itself was discrepant on each occasion like in Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and the evidence, any credibility for the prosecution version could not have been presumed by the trial Court, which could have found the accused guilty only on any proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Without further replicating the various grounds on which the accused was found not guilty by the trial Court, it can be concluded that there are no strong or convincing reasons to deviate from the impressions of the trial Court about the credibility of the witnesses, more so when it had the beneﬁt of observing their demeanour physically and the discrepancies and circumstances referred to by the trial Court could not have been dismissed as insigniﬁcant or inconsequential. Therefore, the criminal appeal has to fail. 10. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18-11-2011 Svv