HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Crl.A.No.1773 of 2009 DATED: 21.12.2009 Between:- The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor .. Appellant And D.Dili Babu, .. Respondent/ Accused JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment, dated 30-01-2008 delivered in S.C. No. 290 of 2006 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Puttur, whereunder and whereby the sole accused, who is the respondent herein, was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 IPC. 2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.07.2006, at about 12.30 p.m., while PW1, namely, R.Nagomi was going to Government Degree College, Puttur, the accused, near Krishnasamudram Bus Stop, caught hold of her tuft of hair, closed her mouth, forcibly dragged her to a nearby Pacha Velakamma cement roofed house, which is in a dilapidated condition, pushed her down, pressed on her private parts and tried to commit rape on her. When PW1 raised hue and cry, one J.Rajanikanth, who was passing by that way, ran towards her, and on seeing him, the accused ran away from the place and Rajanikanth took her to the house. Thereafter, she lodged Ex.P1 – complaint to the Station House Officer, Puttur, who registered the same as Cr.No. 69/2006 at 06.00 P.M. on the same day, and after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet. 3) When a charge under Section 376 read with 511 IPC was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, it examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. 5) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, with reference to incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He denied the same. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6) The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 7) Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? 8) The learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that the evidence of PW1 is very clear that the accused dragged PW1 to a dilapidated house and committed rape on her and that there is no other reason for PW1 to foist a false case against the accused, and hence, she prays to convict the accused for the alleged offence. 9) The learned counsel for the respondent-accused contended that there is bitter enmity existing between PW1 and the accused, that either PW1 or her mother foisted this false case against the accused, that the scene of occurrence is doubtful, and the person, who rushed to scene of occurrence, did not support the case of the prosecution, and therefore, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of PW1, and prays that the Criminal Appeal may be dismissed. 10) There is a presumption under law to the effect that the accused can be presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence of the accused in the instant case is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Ordinarily, the appellate Court would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal not for the reason that it has no power to re-appreciate the evidence. Unless the finding of the trial Court is shown to be perverse or contrary to law and not based upon any evidence, this Court would not interfere with the same. 11) The entire case rests on the evidence on PW1 alone. When a case rests upon the solitary testimony of a witness, it must be cogent, reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable. In short, her evidence must be put in the category of wholly reliable, and in such case, conviction of the accused can be maintained even without any corroboration of evidence. 12) PW3, namely J.Rajanikanth, categorically stated in his evidence that there were disputes existing between the accused and PW1, who also lodged a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 509 IPC, whereas her mother lodged a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and the same is pending. Therefore, the evidence on record would go to show that there was bitter enmity existing between the accused and PW1. PW1 herself admitted that she has not been on friendly terms with the accused since 2005. In view of animosity, the evidence of PW1 has to be scrutinized carefully. 13) The evidence of PW1 discloses that while she was forcibly dragged, she bit the hand of the accused, who slapped on her. After the arrest of the accused, he was not sent to medical examination. The incident is alleged to have taken place near the bus stop. Admittedly, PW1 raised hue and cry, therefore, it would have drawn the attention of the persons standing near the bus stop and the passersby on the road because the dilapidated house is located by the side of the road, but no witnesses rushed to the scene of occurrence after hearing the cries. Even though PW1 stated that she was dragged to the dilapidated house and the accused touched her private parts, she admitted that except being dragged to the scene of occurrence by the accused, she did not inform the incident to anybody. PW3, who is said to have rushed to the scene of offence after hearing the cries of PW1, did not speak anything about the presence of the accused at the scene of offence. Moreover, according to PW1, she sustained bleeding injury during the course of the commission of offence, but the fact remains that she was not sent to hospital to show that during the course of the transaction, she sustained any injury, and no incriminating material is found at the scene of offence like broken bangles, etc. 14) From a careful analysis of the evidence of PW1, I am of the opinion that it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on her evidence so as to infer that the accused committed rape on her, and the trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, rightly justified in acquitting the accused. Therefore, there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment under challenge. 15) Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 30.01.2008 in S.C. No.290 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Puttur. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J. 21st December, 2009 bcj