IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1285 OF 2009 BETWEEN: The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …. Appellant AND Bijjam Tirupathi Reddy S/o. Raja Reddy …. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1285 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal under Sections 378 (1) & (3) Cr.P.C. is filed by the appellant - State against the judgment dated 21-04-2008 in S.C. No.263 of 2007 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kavali whereunder and whereby the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: On the night of 12-06-2007, while PW.1 was sleeping in the varandah of her house, the accused came to her and caught hold of her hand. She woke up and tried to leave the place, though, the accused dragged her by caught hold of her hand forcibly. Then she raised cries. On hearing her cries, her husband (PW.2), who was sleeping in front of the house, woke up and rushed to the spot along with neighbours. On seeing them, the accused ran away. Thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 informed the same to the elders and the elders promised them to do justice. As they did not do any justice, a complaint was lodged with the Police of Bitragunta. The police registered a case in Crime No.85 of 2007 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, examined the witnesses and arrested the accused on 22-06- 2007. After completion of the investigation, police filed the charge sheet. 3. A charge under Section 354 IPC against the accused was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-3. On behalf of the accused, none were examined, but Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. 5. The trial Court after elaborate consideration of the evidence and material on record, found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and accordingly acquitted him. Challenging the said acquittal order, this appeal is filed by the State. 6. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PW.1 is very clear with regard to the accused went to her house and caught hold of her hand with an intention to outrage her modesty, that there is no other reason to disbelieve her evidence and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge levelled against the respondent ? 8. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless it is shown that a perverse finding is given by the trial Court or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or admissible evidence has been overlooked, normally, this Court would not interfere with the same. There must be compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment under appeal. It is equally well settled that the appellate Court has got full power to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and to re-appreciate the evidence. 9. The entire case rests upon the solitary testimony of PW.1, who is the victim. When a case rests upon the solitary testimony of a single witness, it must be unimpeachable, true and trustworthy. 10. The evidence of PW.1 would go to show that on 12-06- 2007 in the mid night, the accused came to her house and caught hold of her hand. Then she raised cries and upon hearing her cries, PW.2, who is the husband of PW.1, rushed to the spot along with neighbours. Thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 informed the same to PW.4, who is the caste elder. Subsequently, he stated that the accused did not turn up to the Panchayat. Therefore, PWs.1 and 2 lodged a complaint with the police. There was delay of one week in filing the complaint. No doubt, the delay in lodging the complaint by itself may not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. But, at the same time, it has to be taken into consideration along with other evidence. Admittedly, PW.2 also sleeping in front of the house and after hearing the cries of his wife, he rushed to the spot. But, the conduct of PW.2 is very unnatural and abnormal. He did not try to catch hold of the accused and did not question the accused. He also did not raise any cries but simply kept quiet without taking any steps. There is no need for PWs.1 and 2 to approach the elders if the accused outraged the modesty of PW.1. 11. The evidence of PW.4 is contrary to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. According to PW.4, the accused did not give any proper reply even after four days. Whereas, PWs.1 and 2 stated that the accused did not even attend the panchayat. 12. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be said to be truthful and trustworthy. The conduct of PW.1 in delaying to report the matter to the police and her suspicious nature in reporting the matter to the elders would clearly go to show that no incident of this nature has taken place. 13. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and the said order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmities and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to set aside the same. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 21-04-2008 in S.C. No.263 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kavali. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J October 23, 2009. KTL