IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.414 OF 2003 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Peddakurva Krishnaiah & another ..... Accused/Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.414 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, by the State under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 19.11.2001, in Sessions Case No.197 of 2000, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool, whereunder and whereby Accused No.1 was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), and Accused No.2 was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: On 23.05.1999 at about 7.30 p.m., P.W.1 was giving water to her cattle through the hand bore well, situated in the outskirts of Wanapatla Village. Accused No.1 came there and caught hold of the hand of P.W.1 and outraged her modesty. Accused No.1 having pushed P.W.1 on the ground, had torn her blouse and laid upon her. Then P.W.1 raised hue and cries. Upon hearing the cries of P.W.1, her husband-P.W.2 rushed to the spot and witnessed the incident and separated Accused No.1 and P.W.1. Then, P.W.2 beat Accused No.1 with hands indiscriminately. In the meantime, Accused No.2, who is the brother of Accused No.1, rushed to the spot armed with stick and beat P.Ws.1 and 2 with stick and caused simple injuries. On hearing their cries, P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the neighbours, rushed to the spot and witnessed the incident. On the next day, i.e., on 25.05.1999, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1-complaint. The police sent both P.Ws.1 and 2 to the hospital and observed the scene of occurrence in the presence of the Mediators. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When the charges under Section 354 I.P.C. against Accused No.1 and Section 324 I.P.C. against Accused No.2 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked. 6. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was a delay in lodging Ex.P1-complaint, that the present complaint is a counter blast to the complaint given by Accused No.1 against P.Ws.1 and 2, that the injuries allegedly sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2 are shown to have been caused two to three hours prior to the examination and therefore, the lower Court has not placed any reliance on the evidence of prosecution witnesses and accordingly acquitted them. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against Accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. and against Accused No.2 of the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is very clear that on 23.05.1999 at about 7.30 p.m., when P.W.1 was giving water to her cattle through the hand bore well, situated in the outskirts of Wanapatla Village, Accused No.1 came there and caught hold of the hand of P.W.1 and outraged her modesty; that Accused No.1 pushed P.W.1 on the ground, tore her blouse and laid upon her; that then P.W.1 raised hue and cries; that upon hearing the cries of P.W.1, her husband-P.W.2 rushed to the spot and separated both Accused No.1 and P.W.1; that therefore, the offence is made out under Section 354 I.P.C.; that P.W.2 beat Accused No.1 with hands; that in the meantime, Accused No.2, came there and beat P.Ws.1 and 2 with stick and caused simple injuries, and therefore, the case under Section 324 I.P.C. is made out against Accused No.2. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal, though Appellate Court has got full power to reappreciate the evidence available on record, but it will be slow in interfering with the findings in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons while interfering with the order of acquittal. 10. The accused and P.Ws.1 and 2 are the agnates. It is admitted fact that there is a dispute between accused and prosecution witnesses with regard to the sharing of water from the hand bore well, situated in the outskirts of Wanapatla Village. There is also evidence on record that on two occasions, Accused No.1 allegedly tried to outrage the modesty of P.W.1. It is also not in dispute that a Panchayat was held between the family of P.W.1 and the accused with regard to the sharing of drinking water. P.W.1 has categorically stated that when Accused No.1 tore her blouse and in the process of outraging her modesty, her bangles were broken and that she sustained scratches on her back on account of falling on the ground on being pushed by Accused No.1, but admittedly, P.W.1 was examined two days after the incident. According to P.W.6, the doctor who examined P.W.2, he found three injuries on P.W.2 which have been caused two to three hours prior to his examination. The injuries said to have been caused to P.W.1 are shown to be fresh injuries. Therefore, the medical opinion as testified by P.W.6 is not tallying with the version of the prosecution witnesses to show that she was subjected to outraging the modesty. 11. On the other hand, P.W.7, who is the Investigating Officer, has categorically stated that he did not find any external injuries on P.Ws.1 and 2 during the investigation. The medical evidence is totally contradictory to the ocular testimony. Therefore, P.Ws.1 and 2 appear to have been sustained simple injuries just prior to their medical examination in a different manner or even the possibility of self-inflicting injuries cannot be ruled out. The tore blouse and the broken bangle pieces of P.W.1 have not been produced before the trial Court, even though they were allegedly seized by the police during the course of investigation. So, in these circumstances, it is very doubtful whether the incident, in the manner as stated by P.Ws.1 and 2, has really occurred or not. As a matter of fact, when the police observed the scene of occurrence, they did not find any incriminating material. Admittedly, with regard to the same incident, Accused Nos.1 and 2 gave a report to the police and the police registered a case against P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, after coming to know about the registration of the case, P.W.1 went to the Police Station on the next day and lodged Ex.P1-complaint with false allegations, cannot be ruled out. When the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be put in the category of wholly reliable, then their evidence requires corroboration. There is no such corroboration available on record. Except the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4, there is no other evidence to show that the incident has taken place as spoken to by them. There is a prior enmity between the parties and on the date of incident also, there was a quarrel between P.W.1 and the accused. Therefore, in these circumstances, the trial Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the same. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 19.11.2001, in Sessions Case No.197 of 2000, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 22nd December, 2009 KL