THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2114 of 2004 BETWEEEN: The Public Prosecutor … Appellant AND Korukoppula Bixapathi … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2114 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The lower Court acquitted the accused of the offences under Sections 354 and 448 I.P.C. The State filed this appeal questioning acquittal of the accused. PW2 is the victim woman. PW1 is husband and PW3 is mother-in-law of PW2. Both of them were not present in the house at the time of the alleged incident. By the time PW3 reached the house, she did not find the accused in the house. She came to know about the offence when PW2 narrated the same to her. In the evening when PW1 returned to house, PW2 narrated the incident to PW1. Report was given to the Police on the next day. Delay in giving report to the Police may not assume importance in a case of this nature because, in matters relating to women folk in house, persons will not rush to the Police Station or to the Court immediately after coming to know of the same. Before going to the Police Station, all the family members will think over pros and cons of giving report to the Police. Secondly, observation of the lower Court about PW1 not stating intention of the accused of outraging her modesty, is incorrect. According to PW1, the intention of the accused was to commit rape on her. The said intention spelt out by PW1 indicates intention to outrage modesty also. 2. The lower Court did not want to place reliance on solitary testimony of PW2 in this case because, there is possibility of occupants of neighbouring houses in the locality noticing the same. Even as per PW2’s evidence, there are two shops in front of her house, in which shops chicken centre is run by her husband and there is also cool drink shop. It is PW2’s evidence that in the absence of her husband, she sits in chicken centre and would transact the business. In those circumstances, the lower Court felt that there is every possibility of presence of customers in those shops which are part and parcel of PW2’s house and which are lying in the front portion of the same house. It is alleged that noticing lonely presence of PW2 in the house, the accused went inside the house and found PW2 watching television by lying on a cot and that the accused sat by her side and caught hold of her hand, when she raised hue and cry, the accused ran away from that place. No person saw the accused either coming into house of PW2 or running away from that house. When there are two shops in front of PW2’s house, the accused would not have ventured to enter into the house of PW2 and misbehave with her. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that assessment of evidence by the lower Court is perverse or unjust or highly reasonable. Therefore, I find that there are no grounds to interfere with finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 3. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:20.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2114 of 2004 Dt:20.12.2011 ysk