IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. C. BHANU Crl.A.No : 1664 of 2005 Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Appellant... AND Harijana Veeresh. .....Respondent. JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.2003 in S.C.No.198 of 2001 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni, whereunder and whereby, the respondent/sole accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this case, may be stated as follows: On 17.01.2001 at about 6.00 AM, when P.W.2, who is daughter of P.W.1, went to the outskirts of the village to answer the calls of nature, the accused, who was coming from the field, caught hold of her neck and tried to drag her aside to outrage her modesty. When she raised cries, people came there and on seeing them, the accused ran away. She informed the same to her parents. Her father lodged a complaint before the police and a case in Crime No.44 of 1999 under Section 354 IPC was registered against the accused. P.W.5, Sub-Inspector of Police, investigated the case and filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation. 3. When the charge under Section 354 IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained him in telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by the accused. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused committed the offence under Section 354 IPC and found him not guilty of the offence and accordingly, acquitted him. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 354 IPC. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.2, victim, is sufficient that the accused tried to outrage her modesty and that there is no reason for P.W.2 to foist a false case against the accused, who is her uncle, and therefore, she prays to set aside the judgment of acquittal. 8. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under the law that the accused presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal unless the finding is perverse, contrary to law and not based upon any evidence on record. 9. The trial Court has not placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.2 on the ground that there were disputes between the accused and P.W.1, who is the father of the victim. The entire case rests upon the solitary evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the alleged outraging her modesty committed by the accused. When a case rests upon solitary witness, it must be unimpeachable, true, trustworthy and wholly reliable. The persons, who were examined by police during investigation, have stated that the accused was running away from the scene of offence, but they did not support the case of the prosecution during trial. Though they were cross- examined by the Public Prosecutor concerned, nothing has been elicited to connect the accused with the crime. 10. It is not in dispute that the father of P.W.1 and the father of accused are brothers. As such, the accused and P.W.1 are cousins. Therefore, it was highly unbelievable that the accused committed the offence of this nature against his brother’s daughter. There were no talking terms between the accused and P.W.1. According to P.W.2, she lodged a complaint to the police in writing. But that complaint is suppressed by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. The police brought into existence Ex.P1, which is the report given by the father of P.W.2. The trial Court has not placed any implicit reliance on the solitary testimony of P.W.2 as she cannot be put in the category of wholly reliable witnesses and therefore, her evidence requires corroboration. But there is no such corroboration. Hence, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court. 11. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment, dated 31.12.2003 in S.C.No.198 of 2001 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J Date: 25.11.2009 SJ