HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2233 OF 2004 Dated 17-02-2011 Between: Munjala Ramesh ……..Appellant Vs. State, rep. by PP., High Court of A.P., ………Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2233 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal arises out of the conviction and sentence passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in S.C.No.632 of 2002 dated 28.09.2004. The appellant herein was prosecuted for an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act) and under Section 354 IPC alleging that on 24.12.2001 when P.W.2 alone was taking food to her husband P.W.1 who was working in the filed of P.W.3, the accused accosted her near a hillock and used criminal force, caught hold of her and dragged her to a nearby cotton field and tried to assault her sexually and when raised cries the accused ran away. P.W.2 informed the P.W.1 about the incident and both of them approached P.W.3 Ravinder Reddy and informed about the incident. Then P.W.3 called the accused for making enquiry but the accused threatened to kill them if the matter is reported to the police. Therefore, due to fear they could not lodge a complaint with the police and subsequently on 28.12.2001 at 12.00 hours, P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the police and the police registered the case under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and issued FIR and P.W.6 has taken up the investigation and during the course of investigation he collected the cast certificate of P.Ws.1 and 2 and filed the charge sheet against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and in the alternative under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. The prosecution in order to establish the said charges, examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. No defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration of both oral and documentary evidence found the accused guilty for the said offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 354 IPC and further sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 506 IPC and the accused was acquitted for the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to establish the charges under Sections 354 and 506 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? The case of the prosecution is that the P.W.1 and his wife were residing in a rented house of the father of the accused by paying a rent of Rs.100/- per month and in the absence of P.W.1, the accused used to mis-behave with P.W.2 and used to tease her and harass her and when she reported the matter to P.W.1, he pacified the issue stating that they are not in good position. As the teasing of the accused is increasing, P.Ws.1 and 2 vacated the said house and started residing in the house of P.W.3 who is master of P.W.1 and while they were staying in the P.W.3’s house on 24.12.2001, when P.W.2 was taking food to P.W.1, the accused accosted her near a hillock and used criminal force, caught hold of her and dragged her to a nearby cotton field and tried to assault her sexually, but when she raised cries the accused ran away. Thereafter, she went to P.W.1 and informed about the incident and both of them gone to P.W.3 and reported the matter and he called the accused and the accused threatened both the P.Ws.1 and 2 to kill them if they report the matter to the police. The learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that even though the incident has taken place on 24.12.2001, the complaint was lodged on 28.4.2001 which is a fatal to the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 has given reasons for not lodging the complaint immediately after the incident as the accused has threatened them to kill and as such they did not lodge the complaint. But P.W.1 who is the husband of the victim has stated in the Chief-examination itself that after the incident they came to the village and informed the same to the village elders and they enquired the accused and then the accused abused all of them and threatened to kill them if they give any report to the police. Ex.P.1 is the complaint. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the complaint was drafted by the police. He lodged the complaint on the advise of the Patel. P.W.2 who is the victim has also stated in her chief-examination after coming to the village they informed the incident to their Patel and the accused came to the house of Patel and threatened them with dire consequences if they lodge any complaint. Hence, after thought they lodged a complaint with a delay. In the cross-examination, she stated that immediately after vacating the house of the accused, they shifted to the house of Patel and were residing in the same house at the time of the incident. They went to the police station on the next date of incident and her statement was recorded on the next day and in further cross- examination, she has stated that she went to the police station after three days after the incident. Therefore, admittedly, the complaint was lodged after three days of the incident and according to her they informed the matter to Ravinder Reddy the Patel and his wife they called the accused and the accused threatened them to kill them if they lodge any report before the police. The said Ragidi Ravinder Reddy was examined as P.W.3 and he specifically stated in his chief- examination itself that he does not know the accused and P.Ws.1 and 2 never resided in his house as tenants. They never informed about any such quarrel. P.W.4 is the wife of the P.W.3 also supported the version of the P.W.3 with regard to P.Ws.1 and 2 not informing about the offence. Therefore, P.Ws.3 and 4 have not supported the case of the P.Ws.1 and 2 that they have gone to the house of Patel Revender Reddy and informed about the incident and the accused came and threatened them if they lodge any complaint before the police. Therefore, the reasons stated by the P.Ws.1 and 2 for the delay in lodging the complaint is falsified by the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. More over according to P.W.2, the police have drafted the complaint but P.W.5 who has registered the FIR has stated that he has received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered the case. In the cross- examination he denied that Ex.P.1 is prepared in the police station. Thus, with regard to the incident the only evidence available on record of the evidence of P.W.2 the victim. The lower court taking into consideration that the accused has taken the defence at the instigation of P.W.3, the complaint was lodged and the same was found to be not correct. In view of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and for the reasons of the delay, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the accused as an illiterate and innocent and as such they could not explain the delay in lodging the complaint and the manner in which Ex.P.1 was drafted itself shows that the incident has taken place as alleged by the P.W.2. But the said complaint was not given by P.W.2 but it was given by P.W.1 who is the husband of the victim. Therefore, in view of the delay of four days in lodging the complaint and the reasons for the delay could not be explained by P.Ws.1 and 2 and on the other hand, the said reasons for the delay found to be false in view of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.2 alone to convict the accused under Sections 354 and 506 IPC. Therefore, the finding of the lower court that the prosecution could able to establish the offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC is not correct and the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in S.C.No.632 of 2002 dated 28.09.2004 is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J. Date:17.02.2011 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2233 OF 2004 Dated 17-02-2011 Gk.