IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2 7 9 OF 2008 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad … Appellant V/s. Voosappagari @ Errolla Anjappa & 6-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Addl. Public Prosecutor Counsel for the respondents : Sri T.Pradyumnakumar Reddy The Court made the following judgment :(judgment follows2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2 7 9 OF 2008 JUDGMENT : Challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pugnaur in SC.No. 385 of 2004 dated 18-08-2005, this criminal appeal is filed by the State. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puganur Police Station laid charge sheet against the A-1 to A-7 in Crime No.86 of 2004 for the offences punishable under section 448, 323, 354 read with section 34 IPC for criminally trespassing into the house of the defacto complainant, Aaneppagari @ Errolla Bhagyamma on 31-05-2004 at 05:45 p.m. and outraging her modesty, beating and causing injuries on her hands and breaking her bangles. The defacto complainant is the wife of one AE. Venkatramana and A-1 to A-7 are residents of Hanumantharayanidinne @ Jangalapalli hamlet of Melamdoddi, Punganur Mandal within the limits of Punganur Police Station. A-1 and A-2 are own brothers, A-3 is cousin of A-1, A-4 is wife of A-3, A-5 is wife of A-1, A-6 is younger sister of A-1, while A-7 is the sister-in-law of A-1 and they are all interested in each other. A.E. Venkatramana, the husband of the defacto complainant and A-1 are cousin brothers. There is a land dispute between the accused and mother-in-law of the defacto complainant and the suit, OS.No.178 of 1997 was disposed of in favour of the defacto complainant on 28-09-2001 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, due to which enmity is ignited between the families of the defacto complainant and accused. While so, on 30-05-2004 at about 05:00 p.m. Venkatramana, the husband of the defacto complainant brought the tractor to plough the disputed land which came in their favour but the accused came and objected Venkatramana and others not to plough the land, claiming that they got right over the said land. Then the defacto complainant and her husband complaining against the accused party to Punganur Police and on the same day the accused party was called for an enquiry. Thus, the accused bore grudge against the defacto complainant and her husband about their complaining against them. On the same day at 05:45 p.m. at Hanumantharayaniddine @ Jangalapalli, hamlet of Melamdoddi, the defacto complainant was alone in her house and all the accused have criminally trespassed into her house, A-1 and A-2 dragged out the defacto complainant by caught holding of her tuft, A-3 caught hold of her and torn her jacket with an intention to outrage her modesty and instructed other accused to remove her clothes in the public streeet and thus outraged her modesty then the remaining A-4 to A-7 caught hold of her, beat her with hands and kicked her with legs and caused injuries on her hands, bangles were also broken, when one Digavinti Mangamma, D.Radhamma, A. Anjappa and K.Sankara who witnessed the occurrence, rescued the defacto complainant from the clutches of accused. Upon a complaint of the defacto complainant, the above crime was registered and investigated into on 31-5-2004 at 07:30 p.m. by the police. During the course of investigation, the torn jacket of the defacto complainant on production was seized by the police at 09:30 p. m. at Government Hospital, Punganur under the cover of panchanama and during the course of further investigation on 01-6- 2004 at 09:30 a.m. on examination of the scene of offence, the police prepared observation panchanama of the scene of offence and seized the broken bangles under the cover of panchanama duly attested by one Diguvinti Anjappa and K. Narayana. During the course of further investigation on 02-6-2004 at 10:30 a.m. at Hanumantharayanidinne bus stop, A-1 to A-3 were arrested and after observing all formalities the accused were sent to court and they were remanded to judicial custody. On 19-6-2004 A-4 to A-7 were surrendered before the Court of II-Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor and they were enlarged on bail. A-2 absconded ever since the date of offence and was arrested on 22-7-2004 and sent for remand to the Court and the Medical Officer, who treated the injured defacto complainant opined that she received simple injuries and thus A-1 to A-7 are liable for punishment under section 448, 323, 354 read with section 34 IPC. Hence the charge. 3. On appearance of all the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puganur, Chittoor district has complied the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. As the offences alleged against the accused are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, Sessions Division, Chittoor, accordingly, the learned Magistrate committed PRC.No. 16 of 2004 by order dated 23- 11-2004 to the Court of Session under section 209 (a) Cr.P.C. Send the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence under section 209 (c) Cr.P.C. and notified the fact of committal to the learned Public Prosecutor under section 209 (d) Cr.P.C. 4. On receipt of records, the Court of Session, Sessions Division, Chittoor assigned SC.No. 385 of 2004 and made over to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Punganur, Chittoor district for disposal according to law. 5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge had taken cognizance of the above offences. On appearance of all the accused, charge under section 448 IPC against A-1 to A-7, under section 354 IPC against A-1 to A-3, under section 354 read with section 149 IPC against A-4 to A-7, under section 323 IPC against A-4 to A-7 and under section 323 read with section 149 IPC against A-1 to A-3 were framed. A-1 to A-7 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 and MOs 1 and 2. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced but during the cross- examination of medical officer PW-9, Ex. X-1 was marked. 7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, A-1 to A-7 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appearing against them. A-1 to A-7 reported that they have no witnesses and A-1 stated that he has no witnesses to be examined but subsequently no witnesses are examined on behalf of the accused. 8. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned Assistant Sessions, Punganur found A-1 to A-7 not guilty for the offence under section 448 IPC, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 354 IPC, A-4 to A-7 are found not guilty for the offence under section 323 IPC, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 323 read with section 149 IPC, A-1 to A-7 were acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-7 were cancelled. MO-1 was returned to PW-1 and MO-2 and unmarked non-valuable properties, if any, were ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 9. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Punganur, Chittoor district, the State preferred the present appeal. 10. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. The version of PW-1 is supported by PWs 2 and 3. PWs 4 to 6 turned hostile. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and acquitted all the accused. This Court also perused the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses concerned. PW-2 claims to be a witness but he is not an eye-witness to the scene of occurrence. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-1 was alone in her house when the accused entered and dragged her out of the house. PW-3 is also not an eye-witness to the scene of occurrence since the said witness also stated to some extent about the presence of A-4 to A-7. PW-3 has not deposed about the occurrence as projected by the prosecution. The learned trial Judge after perusal of the entire evidence disbelieved the evidence of the said witnesses and acquitted all the accused. This Court is of the view that when there are two views possible on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the one view which creates a reasonable doubt about the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Judge is convinced of the same and has taken the view, which is in favour of the accused and acquitted them. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Punganur, Chittoor district. Hence, this criminal appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 19-01-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2 7 9 OF 2008 Circulation No. 67 Date: 19-01-2011 Court Master: I s L