HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2465 OF 2004 Date: 17-08-2011 Between: The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. --- Appellant/ Complainant. Ands Panneer Selvam @ Chowry and another. --- Respondents/ Accused. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2465 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The Public Prosecutor filed this Appeal against acquittal of A-1 and A-2 of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323/34 I.P.C. The offence took place on 03-10-2002 at the house of A-2 when PW.1 went there to question A-1 about threatening phone calls said to have been made by A-1 to PW.2 in pursuance of one alleged previous incident. It is the prosecution case that in the present incident A-1 caught hold of hand of PW.1 and caught hold of tuft of hair of PW.1 and dragged her and beat her with hands and legs and torn her blouse and that A-2 also joined A-1 and beat PW.1 with hands and legs. There is no medical evidence to show that PW.1 sustained injuries or hurt in this transaction. PW.1 did not go to doctor at all after the incident 2. With regard to the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. there is evidence of PW.1 alone. PW.3 though spoke about A-1 and A-2 beating and kicking PW.1 with hands and legs, did not speak anything about A-1 committing any acts outraging modesty of PW.1 much less the acts alleged by the prosecution. PW.4 who is an independent witness and who is stated to have separated both the parties during the course of this incident, also did not speak to A-1 either catching hold of PW.1’s hand or PW.1’s tuft of hair or dragging PW.1 or tearing her blouse. Torn blouse of PW.1 (M.O.1) was said to have been seized by the police under the cover of Ex.P-2 mediators report in the presence of mediators including PW.5. PW.5 totally turned hostile to the prosecution. In the absence of any independent evidence and in the absence of witnesses supporting PW.1’s version of the accused outraging her modesty, ipse dixit of the de-facto complainant PW.1 was not relied upon by the lower Court rightly. There are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. Date: 17-08-2011. B/o.DSH.