IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.624 of 2009 Between: State of A.P. .. Appellant AND Pusuluru Rambabu .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.624 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C.No.392 of 2004, on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, dated 19.11.2004, by which the accused was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”). 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhattiprolu, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.43 of 2004 alleging that on 05.05.2004 at 4.00 p.m. when Pulivarthi Annamma was going towards the outskirts of Pallekona Village to the west to answer calls of nature, the accused chased her, caught hold of her, forcibly embraced her and fell on her. On hearing her cries, Pulivarthi Manikyamma and Pulivarthi Mariyamma warned the accused, but the accused threatened them and escaped. On the information of Annamma, her husband Bhushanam informed the caste elders and the accused did not attend before the elders when they called him. Then Bhushanam gave a report to the police on 10.05.2004, which was registered and investigated into. The scene of offence was examined before Mediators and the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the charge. 3. On appearance of the accused before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Repalle, in P.R.C.No.12 of 2004, which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate, copies of the documents were furnished to him and the case was committed to the Court of Session. On the case being made over to the trial Court, charges under Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C. were framed against the accused who denied the same. During trial, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P-1 and P-2 and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Ex.D-1 was marked on behalf of defence and no other defence evidence was produced. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment referring to the factual background and the rival contentions and noted that Ex.P-1-Report specifically referred to the names of the caste elders in which the name of P.W.4 was not found. The named mediators cited by the prosecution were given up, but the person not named was examined as P.W.4. The trial Court also noted that only close relatives were cited as caste elders and P.W.2 was noted to have admitted some others to be the caste elders of Pallekona Village. The version of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the meeting convened by the caste elders was also found not to refer the alleged insistence by the caste elders to produce the accused when his senior paternal uncle attended the meeting. The trial Court also noted the unexplained delay in reporting to the police of about five days and the improbability of the accused indulging in such an offence when he was aged about 16 years and P.W.2 was aged about 30 years and a mother of two children. P.W.2 was noted to have admitted that the accused is her son by courtesy and used to call her as “Chinnamma” and her husband as “Babayee”. The trial Court also noted the suggestions about the earlier disputes between the families and the failure of the Investigating Officer to fix the scene of offence was also taken adverse notice of. The Court, therefore, refused to believe the version of the prosecution as presented to it and found the accused not guilty. 5. The State, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor, came up with this appeal contending that the evidence of the witnesses was reliable and trustworthy and the crime against the woman should have been dealt with seriously in proper perspective and, hence, desired the acquittal to be reversed. 6. Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the appellant and Smt. A. Jana Kumari, learned counsel representing the respondent are heard. 7. The point for consideration is whether there are any strong grounds for interference with the judgment of acquittal. 8. P.W.2 is the alleged victim and she admitted the report to the police being given on 10.05.2004 regarding the incident on 05.05.2004. The scene of offence was stated by her to be at a distance of 5 yards from the road and at about 4.00 p.m., the possibility of independent passers-by moving on the road being very much there, no such independent person being attracted by the incident deserves to be noted. The road was stated to be the main access road to the village and the fields. P.W.3 and Manikyamma were stated to be going to the field to bring firewood at that time and they are patently witnesses by chance requiring independent corroboration before acceptance. P.W.2 did not go to the meetings convened by the caste elders and she admitted that there were disputes between Krupa Rao, S/o. Manikyamma and the father of the accused and she also admitted that there were several cases against P.W.1 previously. P.W.1, her husband, was also admitted to be having illicit intimacy with one Chinnamma and a case was filed against him by her brother-in-law in Bhattiprolu Police Station. She further admitted that the accused is aged only 16 years and the caste elders named by her were not the persons relied on by the prosecution as the caste elders involved. 9. P.W.1, the husband of the alleged victim, deposed as though the information from P.W.2 was about the incident happening while she was going to the easing ground contrary to the claims of P.W.2 about the incident happening after she answered the calls of nature. The senior paternal uncle of the accused who was allegedly attending the meetings before the caste elders was not named and P.W.1’s evidence admits P.W.3 and Manikyamma to be closely related to P.Ws.1 and 2. While there were no other independent eyewitnesses or circumstantial witnesses, P.W.1 also admitted that the accused is his son by courtesy and he calls him as “Babayee”. The evidence of P.W.1 also shows that all other witnesses cited as caste elders, etc., are also closely related to them. The place of offence was stated by P.W.1 to be road between Bhattiprolu and Repalle at a distance of 100 feet from the road and his claim that P.W.2 also attended the meetings by the caste elders was contradicted by P.W.2. P.W.1 conveniently claimed ignorance about the disputes between Krupa Rao and the father of the accused and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is necessarily tainted with interestedness. 10. P.W.3 claimed that she and Manikyamma found the accused attempting to close the mouth of P.W.2 lying on the ground and being attracted by the cries of the lady and the road was admitted by her to be a busy road with movement of buses and traffic, making nobody else being attracted by the incident unnatural. P.W.3 did not observe whether anybody from the house of Aluru Veeraiah, intervening between the scene and the road, witnessed the incident and P.W.3 admittedly did not inform about the incident to anybody including the parents of the accused and the caste elders or village elders. She denied stating to the police as in Ex.D-1 and the non-examination of Manikyamma who was given up, removed the opportunity to compare the claims of P.W.3 with such evidence. 11. P.W.4, the alleged caste elder, speaking about the meetings convened by the caste elders stated that the senior paternal uncle of the accused was assuring to bring the accused before the Panchayath, but as observed by the trial Court, P.W.4 was never referred to in the earlier version as one of the caste elders, while the named caste elders were given up and not examined. The Sub-Inspector of police who conducted the investigation stated as P.W.5 that the investigation disclosed the witnesses cited to be closely related to P.W.1. He did not even enquire about the relationship between the accused and P.W.2 and he does not know about the elders convening meetings for four days. The version of P.W.5 about what P.Ws.1 to 4 stated to him during investigation had gross variations from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and the claim that the family of the accused left the village after the incident only due to the incident also does not appear natural. The earliest version in Ex.P-1 made no reference to the paternal uncle of the accused responding to the call by the caste elders and the version that P.W.3 and Manikyamma dropped P.W.2 at the house after the incident was not specifically the version in the evidence. All the above circumstances are such as would make proof of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt not possible and the trial Court also had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses on whom it did not rely on. The reasoned conclusions of the trial Court for giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused do not appear to be susceptible for interference for any strong reasons. The criminal appeal has to, hence, fail. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29th December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.624 of 2009 Date: 29th December, 2011 KL