THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1379 OF 2004 ORDER: This appeal at the instance of the State is directed against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.175 of 2003 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Piler on 29.08.2003. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.09.2002 at about 5.30 P.M. while P.W.1 was alone in the house and cooking food, the accused trespassed into the house and taking advantage of her loneliness caught hold of her right hand and forced her to fulfill his sexual lust. P.W.1 tried to escape from his clutches, but the accused caught hold of her and tried to enjoy her. When P.W.1 raised hue and cries, neighbours P.W.Nos.3 to 5 came to the spot, on seeing them the accused ran away. After return of her husband P.W.2 from the fields, they have gone to the police station and lodged the complaint. The investigating officer P.W.6 after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 448 and 354 IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 354 and 448 IPC against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 354 and 448 IPC and thereby acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the State has filed the present appeal. Smt.Ratna Prabha, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has taken me through the Judgment of the lower Court and also the evidence adduced before the lower Court. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the only evidence available on record to speak about the incident is P.W.1. P.W.1 has stated about the accused trespassing into her house on 04.09.2002 at 5.00 P.M. while she was cooking food and caught hold of her hand and tried to molest her and she escaped from him. Again, he caught hold of her hand and pulled her down, then she cried, on hearing the same neighbours came there and on seeing them, the accused went away. P.W.1’s husband return back at 6.00 P.M. and while she was weeping, her husband asked for the reason; she informed the same to her husband. Then both of them went to Kalakada police station and lodged complaint Ex.P.1. The neighbours P.W.Nos.3 to 5 have not supported the version of the prosecution. They specifically stated that they do not know anything about the case. Therefore, the version of P.W.1 that on her raising hue and cry, neighbours came there and on seeing them, the accused went away was not established. Moreover, in the complaint Ex.P.1, it was mentioned that when she tried to escape from the clutches of accused, he forcibly tried to have intercourse with her without her consent. But the said facts were not spoken by her in her examination before the Court. Moreover, as observed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that P.W.Nos.3 to 5 are admitted about the disputes between the accused and P.W.2 with regard to their cattle business. Therefore, the sole evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the alleged incident cannot be believed. Thus, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and the said finding recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the prosecution could not establish the offences under Sections 354 and 448 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and there are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the lower Court. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 09th September, 2011 Ksp