THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.A.M.P.No.1741 of 2010 and CRIMINAL APPEAL No.502 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 24.10.2008, rendered by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala, in Sessions Case No.252 of 2006, whereby the respondents herein-accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 427 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: - There are legal disputes between one Chennuri Satyanarayana, who is father of A-1, and the brother and the husband of the de facto complainant. While so, Chennuri Satyanarayana gave A report to the Police against the husband and the brother of the de facto complainant and others. On coming to know the said fact, the husband and the brother of the de facto complainant left the house in order to avoid arrest by the Police. While so, on 02.02.2006, when the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W-1, alone was present in the house, at about 7 pm., all the accused along with Chennui Audilakshmi, Sriram Lakshmi and Sriram Mani entered into the house forcibly and that A-1, A-2 and Audilakshmi searched the house for her husband and scolded her for secreting him; that A-3 to A-7 damaged the house hold articles and abused her in filthy language; that A-8 and A- 9 and Sriram Lakshmi beat her with hands and legs and abused her; that A-1 caught hold of her tuft and dragged her from the 1st floor into the ground floor and to the bazaar; that A-2 and A-3 also pulled her saree and dragged her into the ground floor and to the bazaar and thereby, removed half of the saree; that A-10 also removed the other half of the saree; and that P.Ws.2, 5 and 6 came there and rescued her. It is further stated that A-1 and A-2 proclaimed that they will see her end at a later time. It is also the case of the de facto complainant that as the Police did not take any action on her complaint, she filed the private complaint-Ex.P-1 before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gurazala, who referred the same to the Police, and the said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No.44 of 2006 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 427 read with 149 IPC., and was investigated into. After completing all the formalities of investigation, i.e., visiting the scene of offence, examining and recording the statement of the witnesses etc., the charge sheet was filed. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked. On behalf of defence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D-1 to D-13 were marked. Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State and learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused. The victim woman who was examined as P.W-1 though stated that she went to Police Station and gave a report immediately after the incident on 02.02.2006, the said report did not see the light of the day. If really, it is a fact that she has given a report and no action has been initiated thereon, she would have made a complaint to the superiors. As per the case of the prosecution, she filed the present private complaint before the Court on 03.03.2006 i.e., after a lapse of more than a month from the date of the alleged incident. It is only after reference by the learned Magistrate, a case in Crime No.44 of 2006 was registered against the accused. In fact, the Investigating Officer who was examined as P.W-7, in his evidence denied the receipt of any report from P.W-1. Further, even as per the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2, who were examined on behalf of the defence, there is enmity between the prosecution party and the accused party and the present case is filed as a counter blast, at the instance of one Hanumantha Rao, since the accused gave a report against the prosecution party, which was registered as a case in Crime No.23 of 2006 and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.112 of 2006. From the above, it appears that the present case is foisted against the accused by the de facto complainant only as a counter blast and nothing else. All these aspects were taken into consideration by the trial Judge in coming to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the offences for which they are tried. Accordingly, I see no merits in the Criminal Appeal and the same is liable to be rejected. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is rejected, at the stage of admission and Crl.A.M.P.No.1741 of 2010 seeking leave of this Court to present this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 19th October 2010 dr