HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.A.No.1070 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The lower Court acquitted A-1 of the offences under Sections 354, 506 and 509 IPC and acquitted A2 and A3 of the offence under Section 323 IPC. A.1 and PW.1’s husband are brothers. Admittedly there are property disputes between them. A.2 and A.3 are stated to be followers of A.1. It is alleged that due to disputes A.1 stopped PW.1 on the way to her shop on 06.03.2005 at about 12.45 P.M. and questioned her about the property disputes and abused her in filthy language and placed his hands on her chest and caught hold of tuft of hair and torn her blouse and that A.2 and A.3 also abused and beat her. The offence is stated to have taken place on a public road. The prosecution examined only the victim as PW.1 and no one else was examined to support PW.1’s evidence. Even though some witnesses were cited in the charge sheet, the prosecution did not examine them. Therefore it has to be concluded that there are no witnesses to support PW.1’s evidence in Court. PW.1 in cross-examination admitted that previously she gave a report against her mother-in-law in respect of a gold chain and that she withdrew that case after taking Rs.10,000/- from her mother-in-law. A.2 is a caste elder and a polio patient. A.3 is brother of A.2. Simply because PW.2 certified swelling and tenderness on PW.1’s chest and abdomen, it cannot be concluded that they were caused by A.1 as alleged by PW.1. The lower Court rightly sought for corroboration for PW.1’s evidence in view of admitted property disputes between PW.1’s husband and A.1 and also in view of PW.1’s attitude of filing criminal cases against her own family members. There are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the lower Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 27th July, 2011. PNV