IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.852 OF 2009 Between: State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu Police Station. ..... Complainant AND Puppala Mahankali Rao ..... Accused The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal under Section 378(3) & (1) Cr.P.C., 1973, is directed by the State against the judgment, dated 22.02.2002, in S.C.No.273 of 2001, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, whereunder and whereby, the sole accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 read with 511 IPC. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are stated as follows: The victim Mandapati Suseela (P.W.1) is no other than the daughter of one Prasada Rao, aged about 15 years. On 14.08.2001 at about 8.00 a.m., when P.W.1 was proceeding towards the fields to meet her father who was at the fields, on the way near the tank bund situated in between the tanks of Bade Bala Swamy and Peddireddi Kutumba Rao in Neelipudi Village, the accused who got fields near by that place, came to P.W.1 from her behind with an intention to commit rape on her, caught hold of her waist, made her fell down on the tank bund and turned P.W.1- victim upwards. Later, he pressed her breast and kissed her and embraced her. Then she raised cries. Then the accused closed her mouth with one hand and lifted her langa with another hand and attempted to commit rape on her without her freewill and consent. Some or the other, P.W.1 got relieved from the clutches of the accused and raised cries. On hearing her cries, her father, P.W.2, and others who were passing on that way, rushed towards the scene of occurrence. On seeing them, the accused fled away. Those persons identified the accused. P.W.1 narrated the incident in detail to all of them and also to others at her house. Thereafter, the matter has been placed before the elders by the father of the victim. As the elders, P.Ws.5 and 6, did not take any action, they lodged a complaint on 16.08.2001 at about 3.00 p.m. to the Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W.7, who registered a case and took up the investigation. He examined the scene of occurrence, prepared the rough sketch of scene of occurrence and examined the witnesses. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. The charge under Section 376 read with 511 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex. D1. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the charge under Section 376 read with 511 IPC and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. Though the prosecution examined seven witnesses to speak about the incident or with regard to the circumstances, none of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.2, 4, 5 and 6 turned hostile. P.W.3 is the mother of P.W.1. Therefore, the entire evidence rests upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1. When the evidence rests upon the solitary testimony of a witness, it must be true, trustworthy and unimpeachable. 9. The evidence of P.Ws.2, 4, 5 and 6 would go to show that P.W.1 committed theft of prawns in the tank of the accused and when the accused found P.W.1 committing the theft of the prawn, apprehending danger that the accused may report the matter against her and in order to protect herself from the above act, a false complaint is lodged by her. 10. The evidence of P.W.3 would come in the category of hear say. Admittedly, she was not an eye witness to the incident. She was informed by her daughter about the alleged acts committed by the accused, namely, closing the mouth of P.W.1, lifting the langa, pressing over the body of P.W.1 as well as her breast. Therefore, in the first instance, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 and her father reported the matter to the elders who are P.Ws.5 and 6 and the elders did not support the case of the prosecution and they did not impose any punishment in that connection. As seen from the evidence of P.W.3, she consulted an advocate on the next day of the incident and got the report drafted. But no such report was given immediately thereafter. 11. The only evidence remains on the record is the evidence of P.W.1 who stated that the accused dragged her into the nearby bushes and attempted to commit rape on her. In the mean time, her father came to the scene of offence and knew about the acts of the accused through P.W.1. She also stated that her wearing apparels were stained with mud. If really, P.W.1 was forcibly dragged to the nearby bushes, she would have sustained some injuries. The wearing apparels were not handed over to the Investigating Officer and she did not sustain any injuries. In these circumstances, P.W.1 cannot be put in the category of wholly reliable witness. Therefore, her evidence need to be corroborated on the material particulars. Except the oral testimony of P.W.1, there is no corroboration to her evidence as direct or circumstantial. 12. It is not in dispute that the accused was raising prawns in the tank bund. The elders have categorically stated that the accused lodged a complaint with regard to the theft of prawns in the tank. Therefore, under these circumstances, foisting a false case by P.W.1 against the accused cannot be ruled out. Hence, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 so as to base a conviction. That is the reason why the trial Court rightly found the accused not guilty for the charge levelled against him. The judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 22.02.2002, in S.C.No.273 of 2001, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 7th August, 2009 KL