THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.174 OF 2009 Date: 5th November, 2011 Between: Ekkirala Mariamma …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., through S.I. of Police, Thallada, Khammam District, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.174 OF 2009 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order of acquittal passed in S.C.No.213 of 2007 dated 1.5.2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupalli (for short, “lower court’). According to the case of the revision petitioner that on 12.5.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. when she was returning from the sugarcane field, the accused went behind her, caught hold of her hands and used criminal force to outrage of her modesty and when she cried, the accused ran away. She claims to have stated to her husband and other family members and thereafter, a complaint was lodged on 15.5.2006 and a crime under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) was registered and investigated into. Thereafter, the case was committed to Sessions Court and charge under Section 354 of IPC was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. During the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupalli acquitted the accused. Challening the acquittal, the present revision is filed. The point that arises for consideration is whether the acquittal of the accused is vitiated and the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is not sustainable? POINT: The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the lower court has only considered the evidence of P.W.1 and did not properly appreciate the reasoning given by her for the delay in lodging the complaint and on the sole ground, the acquittal has been recorded and it has been held in several cases that mere delay in lodging the complaint in cases of this nature, is not fatal and the other evidence of the complainant is acceptable as the delay is properly explained. As seen from the material on record, P.W.1 is said to have gone to the field and while she was returning, the accused came behind her and pulled her hand and attempted to rape her. This is said to have happened in the field of Srinivasa Reddy on 12.5.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. and according to her, she reached the house and informed her husband, mother-in-law and others and four days after the incident, she gave the report to the police as his brother- in-law was not in the village and waited for his arrival. Her evidence does not show that there was any eye witness to the incident or any person present in the neighbouring fields. The presence or absence of Srinivasa Reddy and the nature of the crop in his field were also not mentioned. According to her, in cross-examination, on the side of the sugarcane field of Srinivasa Reddy, there is Scheduled Caste colony. She claimed to have met the other villagers on the way while going to the house and she did not disclose the incident to any one of them, though earlier it was stated that the delay of lodging the complaint was that the matter was placed before the village elders. Her evidence shows that the matter was not placed before the village elders. She admits that P.W.3, who is her brother-in-law, for whom they have waited for lodging of the complaint, is informed in many cases in Madhira Court. The evidence of P.W.2, the husband of P.W.1 is about P.W.1 coming to him and informed him about the incident and as his brother-in-law was not in village, they have waited for his arrival and therefore reported the matter to the police. The evidence of P.W.3 is that he was informed by P.W.1 that the accused committed assault on her near the sugarcane field of Srinivasa Reddy on 12.5.2006 and then they went to the police station and P.W.1 gave the complainant. The evidence of P.ws.1 to 3 is totally silent as to where P.W.3 has gone after 12.5.2006 and when he has retuned to the village. Even the evidence of P.W.3 is silent as to what date P.W.1 informed him about the incident. Therefore, if the reasoning given for the delay is to be taken as reasonable and true, the absence of P.W.3 in the village from 12.5.2006 till the date of lodging of the complaint has to be proved, but even the evidence of P.W.3 is not clear on this aspect. There is also no reason as to why P.W.3 has gone to Khammam and had to stay there for three days. The evidence of P.W.4 is only about the observation of the scene of offence and the evidence of P.W.5 is about the investigation done by him in this case. Therefore, from the material evidence on record apart from the fact that though the incident said to have taken place in the sugarcane fields and when people are said to have available as per the evidence of P.W.1, no other witness was examined and the delay sought to be explained by the prosecution is not believable and the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is interested and therefore, the lower court was not inclined to accept the delay and no other conclusions can be given by this court in the revision while appreciating the evidence. Therefore, there are no merits in the revision case and accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J 5th November, 2011 TJMR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.174 OF 2009 DATE: 05-11-2011 TJMR