IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.4 of 2008 Between: State of A.P. .. Appellant AND Potla Neelambaram .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.4 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C.No.205 of 2005, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, at Gudivada, dated 05.11.2005, by which the accused was acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”). 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudinepalli Police Station, filed the charge sheet in Crime No.10 of 2005 alleging that on 04.02.2005 at about 12.00 noon when Daram Lusy was going to her parents’ house by walk along the road from Gunnanapudi Village to Kaluvapudi Agraharam Village, the accused followed and chased her taking advantage of her loneliness. He caught hold of her hand, dragged her into the fields and left the place on noticing farmers approaching on hearing the cries of Lusy. He again chased Lusy, gave a lift to her on his cycle in the outskirts of Parnasa Village, embraced her and pressed her breast. On the intervention of Obula Desai, he left on his cycle and on the report of Lusy, the crime was registered and investigated into. The accused was arrested and remanded to custody and, hence, the charge. 3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru, took cognizance of the offence and furnished copies of the documents to the accused on his appearance. The case was committed to the Court of Session in P.R.C.No.8 of 2005 and it was made over to the trial Court by the Court of Session. On appearance of the accused, a charge under Section 354 I.P.C. was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty. P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-5 and Ex.D-1 were marked during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”) and he claimed that the husband of Lusy got the case foisted as he demanded repayment of Rs.1,000/-. He submitted that he was beaten with a broom and did not produce any other defence evidence. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment observing that the allegations against the accused involved two incidents with P.W.2 being an alleged eye witness for the second incident, but P.W.2 did not state anything about even seeing P.W.1 and the accused together and he denied stating to the police as in Ex.P-2. P.W.3, the husband of P.W.1 was allegedly informed by P.W.1 about the incident and he and P.W.1 contradicted each other about his presence at the house on that day. The trial Court also noted that the delay of two days in giving the report to the police becomes inexcusable under such circumstances and if the incident happened as alleged, P.W.1 would have informed the same to P.W.2 in the ordinary and natural course which was not alleged even in Ex.P-1. The trial Court also opined that the villagers would have gone to the rescue of P.W.1 if she had really raised cries during the first incident and P.W.1 did not even approach the villagers of Parnasa after the first incident. When P.W.1 was walking in the fields, number of other persons would have witnessed such happenings and she did not inform anybody about the incident. The trial Court also referred to the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 about P.W.1 beating the accused with a broom and P.W.5 stated about the quarrel between P.W.1 and the accused. If P.W.1 herself beat the accused on the accused allegedly misbehaving with her the third time by making gestures with his eyes, the evidence of P.W.1 and the alleged conduct of the accused were considered ex facie unnatural. The hearsay evidence of the other witnesses was, hence, not acceptable and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 was noted to be tainted with interestedness due to close relationship among the witnesses. The trial Court consequently acquitted the accused giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to him. 5. The State, through the learned Public Prosecutor, challenged the acquittal contending that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix should have been considered as sufficient for a conviction as the quality and not the quantity of witnesses matters. The acquittal is, therefore, requested to be reversed. 6. Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the appellant and Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the accused/respondent are heard. 7. The point for consideration is whether there are any strong grounds for interference with the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court. 8. The only alleged eye witness for the second incident between the accused and P.W.1 was P.W.2 who turned hostile and if P.W.2 had enquired P.W.1 about her welfare, she would not have failed in informing him about the misbehaviour of the accused on two occasions on the same day. For denying Ex.P-2-Statement to the police, P.W.2 was not shown to be in any way so interested in the accused as to resort to falsehood. P.W.3, the husband of P.W.1, was only a hearsay witness and P.W.4 also does not know what happened between P.W.1 and the accused and he had only witnessed P.W.1 beating the accused twice with a broom. Even P.W.1 allegedly informed P.W.4 was about the accused taking her on his cycle at her request and expressing his desire towards her on the way. P.W.4 did not state about any physical misbehaviour by the accused towards P.W.1 being informed by P.W.1. P.W.5 also had only seen the accused and P.W.1 quarrelling with each other and P.W.5 only heard about P.W.1 questioning the accused about his audacity to spoil her when she was calling him as ‘Annayya’ and asked for being dropped on the cycle. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 may suggest even those statements by P.W.1 to be only about one incident. 9. P.W.6 only saw P.W.1 beating the accused with a broom and he did not question the accused personally about his alleged misbehaviour thrice with P.W.1 as informed by P.W.1. P.W.7 is the wife of P.W.6 and her evidence disclosed P.W.1 informing about going on the cycle of the accused at her request and the accused attempting to molest her after crossing Parnasa Village. Another incident witnessed by P.W.2 was also alleged and P.W.7 also saw the accused being beaten by P.W.1 with a broom. The narration from P.Ws.1 to 7 about the manner of the incident is absolutely contrary to the first incident alleged by P.W.1 and P.W.7 denied stating to the police about the third incident informed by P.W.1. P.W.8 spoke about P.W.1 informing obviously about the second incident witnessed by P.W.2 and he did not state about any information from P.W.1 about the first incident. P.W.9 is the wife of P.W.8 who also spoke similarly as P.W.8 and she further stated about P.W.1 telling her that she requested the accused to drop her on his cycle. P.W.10 spoke about P.W.1 informing about a person of her village bringing her by his cycle, trying to misbehave with her by catching her hands after crossing Parnasa and again trying to stop her after some distance, but the said version also is not in tune with what was alleged to have happened by P.W.1. P.W.11, the Investigating Officer, admitted that there was no explanation for the delay in the registration of the First Information Report and the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. claimed that a false case was foisted against him and he was beaten with a broom for demanding repayment of a debt of Rs.1,000/-. Exs.P-4 and P-5-Sketches of the scenes of offence show the way on which the incident allegedly happened to be in between agricultural lands and two villages and at the time at which the incidents allegedly happened, the incidents would not have escaped the attention of the villagers or neighbouring farmers or agricultural labourers working in the fields. While no such independent evidence is forth coming with the only alleged eye witness P.W.2 turning hostile even in respect of the second incident, the incident on 04.02.2005 was reported to the police only after two days on 06.02.2005 and the information reached the Magistrate with a further delay of one more day. Either Ex.P-1 or the evidence did not explain any reasons for the delay and the earliest version is not quite consistent with the version given in evidence even by P.W.1. 10. The alleged victim P.W.1 stated that P.W.2 was not available that night and returned only on the next day contrary to P.W.2. The accused and P.W.1 are residing only within a distance of one furlong and the accused was not alleged to have indulged in any such misbehaviour earlier. The accused was said to be holding vessels with milk in his hands on return from the milk diary and if so, his being able to indulge in any physical misbehaviour while taking the alleged victim on his cycle may not be possible. The accused and P.W.1 travelled for about half kilometer on the cycle even according to P.W.1 and it is but unnatural that nobody would have witnessed the same. Though the solitary evidence of a prosecutrix in such cases could have been considered suffice to sustain a conviction, the facts and circumstances of the present case do not impress such credible character on the interested and self- serving claims of P.W.1. The trial Court had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and had refused to place reliance on the claims of P.W.1 and there are no strong reasons to deviate from the same in this appeal. The criminal appeal has to, therefore, fail. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th November, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.4 of 2008 Date: 28th November, 2011 KL