IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.688 of 2008 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.485 OF 2007 Between in Crl.A.No.688 of 2008: The State of A.P. by rep.by Public Prosecutor. ... APPELLANT AND Mohd. Azam and another ...RESPONDENTS Between in Crl.RC.No.485 of 2007: Smt Rizwana Sultana ... PETITIONER AND Mohd. Azam and others ... RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.688 of 2008 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.485 OF 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision Case at the instance of the State through the learned Public Prosecutor and the de facto complainant/victim respectively are directed against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.314 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, for the oﬀences punishable under Section 354, 323, 506 and 290 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) by the judgment, dated 05.01.2007. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Shah Ali Banda Police Station, ﬁled a charge sheet in Crime No.6 of 2006 against both the accused, alleging that Smt Rizwana Sultana was married to Mohd. Akbar Yaseen on 12.12.1993 and she was blessed with four children. When she was harassed by the husband and in-laws, she complained to the police which was later compromised. After her husband left for Jedda in June, 2005, on 20.08.2005, the ﬁrst accused entered the room of Rizwana Sultana when she was feeding milk to her baby, pulled her legs and demanded her to have sexual intercourse. Though Rizwana Sultana informed her mother-in-law and sister’s-in-law, they threatened her and when she, along with her parents and uncles, went again to her in-laws house from which she was forcibly sent out without her children, the ﬁrst accused prevented her from entering the house and abused her in ﬁlthy language and pushed her by pressing her breast. The second accused provoked the ﬁrst accused to remove the clothes of Rizwana Sultana and she was rescued by her parents and uncles. Her contacting her husband on phone was in vain and on the complaint of Rizwana Sultana, the Sub Inspector of Police, Shah Ali Banda Police Station, registered a crime and conducted investigation. Hence, the charge. 3. After the accused entered appearance on the Court taking cognizance of the oﬀences, the accused were furnished copies of the documents and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, committed the case to the Court of Session in P.R.C.No.16 of 2006. The case was made over to the trial Court and on appearance of the accused before it, charges under Sections 354, 323, 506 and 290 IPC against the ﬁrst accused and for the said oﬀences read with 109 IPC against the second accused were framed, for which they pleaded not guilty. 4. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1, P.2 and Ex.D.1 were marked during the trial and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No defence evidence was produced on their behalf. 5. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment ﬁrstly noting that Ex.P.1-report was given to the police on 18.01.2006 after ﬁve days after the incident and no reasons were assigned for the delay. It was also noted that there was litigation between the parties relating to the custody of the children due to which the delay becomes all the more material, more so, as none of the elders who allegedly advised P.W.1 against the same were named or examined. The trial Court also noted that the improbability of P.W.1 breast-feeding a child of four years also has to be noted and P.W.1 allegedly going to the children to have their company for Bakrid festival was false, as Bakrid was already over by that date. P.W.1 already ﬁled a maintenance case by the time and an injunction was also there in favour of the mother-in-law of P.W.1. The trial Court also found that P.W.2 did not corroborate P.W.1 about any threats by the ﬁrst accused and the trial Court also did not ﬁnd any public nuisance by either accused. The alleged hurt caused by the ﬁrst accused was also considered to be without any Mens r e a and consequently, the trial Court found both the accused to be not guilty of the oﬀences and acquitted them. 6. The State ﬁled the Crl.A.No.688 of 2008 through the learned Public Prosecutor challenging the acquittal and contending that the ingredients of the oﬀences were made out by the evidence and P.W.1’s son was born only on 29.11.2002 and was not aged 4 years by the time of the incident. 50 to 60 persons gathered at the time of the incident as per the trial Court, which was incorrect. 7. T h e de facto complainant/victim ﬁled the Crl.R.C.No.485 of 2007 contending that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 corroborating each other should have been accepted and the delay in not reporting to the police was also explained. Any delay by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal, nor can the litigation between the parties be a ground. By the time of the incident, P.W.1’s son was aged less than three years. Hence, she desired the acquittal to be reversed. 8. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/ the appellant and Sri K.Sai Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri A.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the accused. 9. The point for consideration is whether the acquittal of either accused by the impugned judgment is susceptible for interference in appeal. 10. P.W.1, the de facto complainant/victim, was married to the brother of the ﬁrst accused on 12.12.1993 and had four children through him and till 20.08.2005, the ﬁrst accused was never claimed to have indulged in any misbehaviour towards her and why suddenly after about twelve years after the marriage, the ﬁrst accused should do so is inexplicable and unnatural. Mother-in-law and sister-in-law participating in such outraging of modesty of P.W.1, is equally unnatural. The subsequent incident on 13.01.2006 allegedly involved only both the accused and not the other members of the family and it was not as though they were not at home at that time. The child to whom P.W.1 was allegedly breast feeding was aged more than two and half years, if not four years as presumed by the trial Court and such breast feeding also might not be in tune with the ordinary and natural course of human events. The elders who advised not to take any hasty action were not speciﬁed by P.W.1 and the visit of P.W.1 on the eve of Bakrid, with a desire to see the children is falsiﬁed by her admission about the festival being earlier. Why P.W.1 and her people had chosen the odd hour of 10:30 PM to visit the parents-in-laws' house was also unintelligible and alleged permission of the husband to P.W.1 to go along with them only at 08:30 PM is uncorroborated. The self serving and interested claims of P.W.1 do not inspire evidence in such scenario. Even when the husband refused to lend any support even on 14.01.2006 that P.W.1 waited till 18.01.2006 itself makes her version incredible. 11. P.W.2, the father of P.W.1, did not state about either the ﬁrst accused abusing P.W.1 or pressing the breast of P.W.1 or the second accused instigating the ﬁrst accused. P.W.3, the maternal aunt of P.W.1, only stated about the ﬁrst accused closing the door on which P.W.1 fell down and did not state about anything else. P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot therefore, be considered to have corroborated P.W.1 on any material aspects and no other witnesses were examined to corroborate the claims. The Investigating Oﬃcer stated about the pre-existing disputes between the parties and both the accused attributed foisting of the cases to be due to such earlier disputes. Under such circumstances, the conclusions of the trial Court based on its own detailed reasoning, cannot be faulted and there appear no grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal in appeal or revision. 12. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision are dismissed. ________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 25, 2011 YVL