IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2493 of 2004 DATE:14.09.2011 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad …… Appellant And Gaddala Polaiah ...Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2493 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The Public Prosecutor filed this appeal questioning acquittal of the accused/respondent of the offences under Sections 509 and 316 I.P.C by the lower Court. 2) P.W-2 is brother of P.W-1. P.W-3 is wife of P.W-2. P.W-1 is stated to be a widow. It is her evidence that on 22.08.1999 at about 9.00 P.M the accused, finding P.W-1 alone, solicited her for sexual intercourse offering money, for which she retorted suitably. At that time, P.Ws 2 and 3 came to the scene of offence. It is evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 that P.Ws 2 and 3 intervened between P.W-1 and the accused and that during the course of quarrel, the accused kicked P.W-3 on her abdomen. P.W-3 was carrying 9th month pregnancy at that time. On the next day, P.W-3 felt stoppage of movement of foetus in her womb and approached a medical practitioner at Gudur. P.W-6 is the said private medical practitioner. After examination and after getting P.W-3’s womb scanned, he found that foetus being carried by P.W-3 was dead. On 26.08.1999, dead foetus aged about 8 months was removed from P.W-3’s womb. It is only thereafter, P.W-1 gave Ex.P-1 report to the police. 3) The only independent witness P.W-4 turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W-6 who examined P.W-3 on 23.08.1999 gave Ex.P-4 wound certificate in which he stated that there were no external injuries on P.W-3. P.W-6 categorically deposed that he cannot give any cause for delivery of dead foetus by P.W-3. Apart from delay of four days of giving F.I.R in this case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has to necessarily fail in this case because the prosecution has failed to prove any nexus between the alleged kicking of P.W-3 by the accused on 22.08.1999 and removal of dead foetus from the womb of P.W-3 on 26.08.1999. In the absence of proof of cause for death of the foetus, it cannot be said that the accused was responsible for it. 4) In so far as the offence under Section 509 I.P.C is concerned, the lower Court did not place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 who are interrelated and because the report given by P.W-1 was belated. There are no circumstances in this appeal to come to a different conclusion from that of the lower Court. 5) Hence, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 14, 2011 ksh