THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2463 of 2004 DATE: 15-03-2011 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Appellant And A.Dharani Srinivasa Rao .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2463 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal at the instance of the State filed against the order of acquittal of the accused passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Sessions Case No.310 of 2002 on 27.11.2002. The brief facts of the prosecution are that the accused and P.W.1, the complainant, are residents of A.P. Quarters of II Battalion at Kurnool and the accused father was working as Head Constable in Special Armed Police at Hyderabad. The husband of the complainant Lakshmi Reddy was working on deputation in Excise Department at Rajampet, Kadapa District. According to the prosecution, the accused used to telephone to the complainant calling her for sexual intercourse and expressing his desire towards her. She informed the same to her husband and when he came from Rajampet and both of them went to the house of accused and chastised him and later the accused telephoned to her and threatened her. On 01.04.2002 at 7.00 p.m. when the complainant was going towards new Bus stand on a narrow track from their quarters, the accused caught hold of her hand asking her to fulfill his desire to satisfy his lust and tried to pull her into the thorny bushes and when she raised cries, Sattar and Umapathilal rushed to her and on seeing them, the accused ran away. Later on the complainant informed her husband and on the next day morning she gave a complaint to police. The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool has framed the charge under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) against the accused and he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in order to establish the said charge against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3 and no defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused. The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool by taking into consideration of the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, come to the conclusion that the name of P.W.2 was not found place in the complaint and P.W.3 is not an eye witnesses to the incident, admittedly there are disputes between the accused family and the complainant family prior to the incident, disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and thereby acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 354 of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? On behalf of the State, learned Public Prosecutor pleaded that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 supported by the evidence of P.W.3 established the commission of offence by the accused against the complainant and the minor discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be a ground for totally brushing aside the case of the prosecution. No representation on behalf of the respondent/accused. According to the complainant, at the time of incident on 01.04.2002 at 7.00 p.m. when the accused caught hold her hand and tried to push her into thorny bushes to satisfy his lust, Sattar and Umapathilal rushed to her on hearing the cries and on seeing them the accused ran away. But the said fact was not mentioned by her in her complaint Ex.P-1 and is only alleged in the complaint that the accused dragged her towards thorny bushes demanding her to satisfy his lust and she immediately got released from him and ran way and the accused threatened her with dire consequences. Even in the cross- examination of P.W.1, she admitted that the accused family and their family were residing in opposite quarters and at that time water is being supplied by tankers and they used to share the water and also dish antenna commonly and there are some disputes between them. She also admitted that on earlier occasion she lodged a complaint against the accused with the Assistant Commandant alleging a theft of Rs.4,000/- was committed from the house in the year 2001 and the Assistant Commandant has enquired into the matter and found that one Ramesh has stolen the amount from her house. Therefore, from the above, it is evident that she was lodged a false complaint against the accused on earlier occasion. The evidence of P.W.1 also reveals that she made a complaint to the D.I.G. of Police for eviction of the accused and his father from the portion No.S7/627, which was allotted to Sri Venkateshwara Rao, father of the accused, after he was promoted as Head Constable and the father of the accused has moved the State Administrative Tribunal and obtained stay orders from being evicted from the said quarter. Therefore, from the above, it is evident that there are disputes between the family of the accused and the complainant family. In view of the previous disputes between P.W.1 and the accused and his family, the lower Court has rightly disbelieved her evidence. Moreover, it is further observed that she has not stated the name of P.W.2 in Ex.P-1 that he was present at the time of the incident. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly concluded that the presence of P.W.2 is nothing but a planted one. P.W.3 is the husband of the complainant and he was examined before the Court for the first time without being examined by the investigating agency. Thus, the only evidence to speak about the incident is P.W.1, but in view of the finding given by the lower Court that there are disputes between P.W.1 and the accused prior to the incident, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.1 to convict the accused and the said finding of the lower Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 354 of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ___________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 15-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD Crl.A.No. 2463 of 2004 DATE: 15-03-2011 MR