HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.471 of 2004 ORDER: This Revision Case has been filed by the complainant against the Judgment, dated 22-08-2003 in S.C.No.334 of 2001 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, Nellore District, whereby and whereunder the Accused, respondents 1 to 4 herein, were acquitted. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Revision Case are as follows: The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the lower Court. 3. PW-1, Nellore Lakshmi, is a minor girl aged about 14 years by the date of incident. PW-2 is the mother, PW-6 is the father and PW-3 is the brother of PW-1. The Accused and the prosecution witnesses are the residents of Jyosyulavari Kandriga village. A-1 is running Kirana shop and a road is intervening between the house of PW-1 and the shop of A-1. PW-1 used to go to the shop of A-1 for purchasing provisions. A-1 used to sleep in the varandah of his shop during night time. PW-1 and A-1 belongs to same caste. 4. On the date of offence, PWs.1 to 3 were sleeping in the varandah of their house. It is alleged that in the intervening night of 6/7-06- 2000, while PWs.1 to 3 and other inmates of their house were sleeping in the varandah of their house, at about 1-00 AM, all the Accused trespassed into the front yard of PW-1 and A-1 gagged the mouth of PW-1 and all the Accused carried her by force to the shop of A-1. It is further alleged that A-1 to A-4 pushed PW-1 into the shop of A-1 and A-1 also entered the said shop and then A-2 to A-4 bolted the doors of the shop from outside. It is further alleged that A-1 threatened to kill PW-1 and forcibly tied thali around her neck. Then PW-1 raised cries, the other witnesses gathered there and noticed A-2 to A-4 in front of the shop of A-1 and then A-1 removed the Thali from the neck of PW-1. A-2 to A-4 opened the doors of the shop of A-1 at the instance of the persons gathered there. An altercation took place between the Accused and PW-6. Basing on the report given by PW-6, the police registered a case in Crime No. 41 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 342 and 496 of IPC and issued FIR on 10-06-2000. During the course of investigation, PW-1 was referred to the hospital for medical examination and after completing the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the Accused. 5. The Accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the Accused, but Ex.D-1, portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3, was marked. 7. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, held that there is inordinate delay in giving the report to the police and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not inspiring confidence and the version of PW-1 is improbable and accordingly, acquitted all the Accused through the impugned Judgment. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant preferred the present Revision Case. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower Court ought to have accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly PW-1, and ought to have convicted the Accused. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the lower Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and came to the right conclusion and there are no grounds to interfere with the Judgment of the lower Court. 10. In the light of the facts of the circumstances of the case, the only point arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to interfere with the Judgment of the lower Court? 11. The principles as to why and under what circumstances the High Court can interfere with the order of the acquittal have been well settled. Unless it appears that the Judgment of the lower Court is perverse and not based on the evidence and resulted in manifest injustice, normally the High Court is not expected to interfere with the Judgment of the lower Court. 12. In this case, admittedly except PW-1 none of the witnesses have deposed as to who entered into the varandah of their house and who took away PW-1 from their house. The case of PW-1 is that at about 1-00 AM in the intervening night of 6/7-06-2008 while herself, her mother (PW-2), her brother (PW-3) and one Sarada were sleeping outside of their house, the Accused came there and caught hold of her hand. When she tried to raise cries, A-1 closed her mouth and A-4 did not allow her to move and all the Accused forcibly took her to the shop of A-1 situated in front of their house. According to her she could not raise any cries because she was afraid of the Accused. 13. According to PW-1 she was sleeping in the varandah on a separate cot and PW-3 was sleeping on the upstairs. But, according to PW- 2, her son (PW-3) was sleeping in the varandah. PW-2 categorically deposed that PW-3 was sleeping on a mat on her side and on the other side PW-1 was sleeping. According to PW-3, he was sleeping on the terrace of their house and he heard the cries from the shop of PW-1 and came out and woke up his mother and others and went to the shop of A-1. According to PW-2, she heard the cries from the shop of A-1. Thus the version of prosecution witnesses with regard to the place where PW-3 was sleeping and who heard cries of PW-1 is not consistent. According to PW-1 she has identified the Accused in the light of the electric bulb in her house and also in the illumination of the streetlight. According to the Investigating Officer, PW-1 did not whisper anything about the light. PW-1 also stated that she did not state before the police that she could identify the Accused in the illumination of the electric bulb and the street light. According to PW-6 he was in the field at the time of incident and PW-3 informed him about the incident and he came to the shop of A-1 and questioned the Accused. According to PW-3, the accused were not present when he brought PW-6 from the field. Thus there are contradictory versions with regard to the actual incident and the presence of the Accused at the scene after the incident. According to PW-6, the elders intervened and stated that they would solve the dispute. He has also admitted that most of the elders of his village are his relatives. 14. Admittedly no report was given to the police till 10-06-2000. There is inordinate delay in giving the report. The explanation given by PW-6 that he was waiting for the advise of the elders cannot be accepted. He says that on the next day itself he met the elders. When most of the elders are his relatives and when he met elders on the very next day there appears to be no reason to wait till 10-06-2000 when the incident occurred in the intervening night of 6/7-06-2000. There is another circumstance in this case i.e., the FIR reached the Magistrate on 14-06-2000 and there is no proper explanation for the delay. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore observed that the distance between the Court and the police station is only 15 KMs. It is the settled law that the complaint must be registered promptly and it should be dispatched to the concerned Magistrate as early as possible. The delay in giving FIR always gives scope for the embellishment and distorted versions. The earliest version in a criminal case assumes much importance and therefore, the entire version of the prosecution witnesses has to be carefully and critically examined. 15. PW-2 admitted that A-1 asked her to give PW-1 in marriage to him and she refused for the same. Thus it appears that there was some dispute between the Accused and the prosecution witnesses with regard to the marriage of PW-1. PW-2 also admitted that A-3 got fits in the quarrel and fell down and he was admitted in the hospital. 16. PW-4, the doctor, who examined PW-1 on 12-06-2000, deposed that PW-1 was not subjected to sexual intercourse and there were no external injuries on her body. 17. The evidence of PW-5, the Head Master of the School where PW-1 studied, shows that the date of birth of PW-1 is 15-05-1985 as per Ex.P-4, the elementary school record sheet. 18. Thus the prosecution witnesses gave different versions as to where PW-3 was sleeping at the time of incident and who heard the cries of PW-1. The version of PW-1 appears to be unnatural and improbable. Her version is that all the Accused came to the varandah of their house and forcibly took her to the shop of A-1, but none among those, who were sleeping with her, woke up appears to be unnatural and cannot be believed. In view of the delay in giving the report to the police and in view of the inconsistent versions of the witnesses, I am of the view that there is any amount of doubt as to whether the incident occurred in the manner narrated by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The lower Court rightly appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and rightly acquitted the Accused and therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the Judgment of the lower Court. 19. Accordingly, the Revision Case is dismissed confirming the Judgment of the lower Court in all respects. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 13-08-2009 YCR