IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRL.A.NO.2428 OF 2004 Date:04-03-2011 Between:- The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..Appellant And Vaara Venkata Rao and another .. Accused/Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is at the instance of the State against the order of acquittal by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry in Sessions Case No.144 of 2003 on 25-08-2003. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the accused and they are prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 509 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’) alleging that on 18-07- 2002, at about 11.00 hours, while P.W.1-Madiki Lakshmi was sleeping on a cot on the pial of her house at Mallampudi village, A-1 woke her up and fell on her and asked her to fulfill his sexual desire when A-2 caught hold of her legs. When P.W.1 raised cries, P.W.2- Juthuka Chilakamma came out of their house and on seeing P.W.2, A- 1 and A-2 went away abusing P.W.1. On 19-07-2002, P.W.1 went to the kirana shop of P.W.6 and informed about the incident that occurred on the night of 18-07-2002 and while returning to her house after attending the calls of nature and when she reached the fig tree at Mallampudi center at 16.00 hours, A-1 called her in filthy language but P.W.1 did not respond to the abuses and went to their house and again while she was going to the kirana shop of P.W.6, when she reached near the fig tree at 16.15 hours, the accused were present there and A-1 abused her and he came to her and caught hold of her hair and beat her with a chappal on her cheeks and pushed her on the ground and kicked her on her abdomen with legs. When P.W.3-Lanka Naga Ratnam came to her rescue and warned A-1 and tried to separate P.W.1 and A-1. A-1 has stated that she has no concern with the dispute and meanwhile, A-2 came there and beat P.W.1 beat on her right cheek with his hand. Later, P.W.4-Juthuka Paparatnam, P.W.5-Juthuka Rambabu and P.W.6-Mariyamma came there and after coming to know about it, rescued P.W.1. On the night of 19-07-2002, the father of A-1 went to the house of P.W.1 and informed them that he would admonish A-1 and settle the dispute before the elders but he failed to settle the matter. Again, on 28-07- 2002, A-1 went to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 and abused them. On 29-07-2002, at 19.30 hours, P.W.1 came to Rajanagaram Police Station and P.W.9- the Sub Inspector of Police has recorded her statement and registered the case in Crime No.138 of 2002 under Sections 354 and 509 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against both the accused and one Burra Aseervadam of Mallampudi village and sent P.W.1 to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry for treatment and investigated into the case and filed charge sheet. 3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has framed charges under Sections 354 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. against both the accused and both the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. 4. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges, examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused in defence. 5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the story of the prosecution is doubtful and thereby, acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 354 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the offences under Sections 354 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 7. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A-1. None represented on behalf of A-2. 8. According to the prosecution, the incident of outraging the modesty of P.W.1 took place on 18-07-2002 at her residence and again on 19-07-2002 near the fig tree of Mallampudi center and in the said incident, she is also beaten by both A-1 and A-2. With regard to the occurrence of incident on 18-07-2002, the prosecution has examined the victim as P.W.1 and her mother as P.W.2. P.W.1 has stated that on 18-07-2002, at 11.00 hours, while she was sleeping on a cot on the pial of her house, A-1 and A-2 came there and A-1 fell upon her and asked her to fulfill his desire and A-2 caught hold of her legs. When she raised cries, her mother-P.W.2 came out of their house and on seeing her, the accused ran away from the spot. P.W.2, who is the none other than the mother of P.W.1, has deposed about her sleeping in the house on the night of 18-07-2002 and on hearing the cries of her daughter, she came out of the house and saw the accused escaping and her daughter informed her about the incident. According to the prosecution, after the incident on 18-07-2002, P.W.1, on the next day morning, went to the kirana shop owner-P.W.6 and informed about the incident. The said kirana shop owner P.W.6 has turned hostile to prosecution and he did not speak anything about P.W.1 informing her about the incident that occurred on the night in their house. The learned Sessions Judge, taking into consideration of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, observed that the incident has taken place infront of the house of P.W.1 on the pial and there are number of houses around the house of P.W.1 and when she raised cries, none of the witnesses have turned out except her mother who is inside the house. He further observed that there are contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the occurrence of the incident as P.W.1 did not state before the Investigating Officer that her mother witnessed the incident with the help of lamp and according to P.W.2, she has lighted the lamp and then raised the cry and thereby, the accused ran away from the spot. Therefore, the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to occurrence of the incident is contrary and more over, the identity of the accused by P.W.2 is also doubtful. Thus, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the occurrence of the incident on 18-07-2002 at the house of P.W.1 is doubtful. 9. The next incident that has taken place, according to the prosecution, is on 19-07-2002 at the fig tree in Mallampudi center. According to P.W.1, on that day morning, when she was going to the kirana shop of P.W.6, A-1 met her on the way and abused her and beat her with a chappal on her cheeks and fell on her and kicked her on her stomach with his legs. Then, she raised cries and P.W.3 came there and tried to rescue her and A-1 has stated that she is no way concerned with the dispute and in the meanwhile, A-2 came there and he also kicked P.W.1 on the abdomen and thereafter, her sister Mariya, her brother Rambabu, Paparatnam came to the spot and brought her to their house. Even with regard to this incident, P.W.6, who is the kirana shop owner, has not spoken anything about the said incident and to establish these things, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.3 and 5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3 in view of the disputes between the accused and P.W.3 prior to this incident. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence of P.W.5 as she is the only aunt of P.W.1 and even though number of people were present at the time of incident, none of the witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 10. Moreover, according to P.W.1, both the incidents have taken place on 18-07-2002 and 19-07-2002 but she lodged the complaint only on 29-07-2002 i.e., after ten days. Thus, there is a delay in lodging the complaint and P.W.1 tried to explain the delay stating that after the incident that occurred on 19-07-2002, when she was weeping in the house, A-1’s father came to her and promised that he would settle the dispute before the elders and requested not to make a complaint with the police and according to her, subsequently, the elders did not take any action against the accused. As such, she has lodged a complaint. But none of the mediators, who tried to settle the matter between the accused and P.W.1 with regard to the incident, were examined to establish the facts that a mediation took place to settle the dispute. Therefore, the prosecution could not explain the delay in lodging the complaint. 11. With regard to P.W.1 sustaining the injuries, P.W.1 has stated that when A-1 and A-2 beat her, she sustained bleeding injuries and the doctor-P.W.4 examined her on 29-07-2002 in the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry and specifically stated that there is no evidence of external injuries found on the person and the movements of the mouth are normal. Thus, the prosecution also failed to establish about the injuries said to have been sustained by P.W.1. Moreover, according to the prosecution, immediately after the incident, P.W.1 got treated at Anaparthy but the said doctor was not examined by the prosecution to establish the alleged incident on 19-07-2002. Therefore, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion and the prosecution has failed to establish the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. against both the accused. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and confirmed the judgment dated 25-08-2003 made in Sessions Case No.144 of 2003 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 4th March, 2011 AMD