THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.920 of 2008 Judgment: This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 18.12.2006 passed in SC No.225 of 2003 by the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), East Godavari at Rajahmundry, whereby and whereunder respondents 1 and 2 herein/A1 and A2 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and respondents 1 to 5 herein/A1 to A5 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 427 read with 34 IPC, accordingly, they were acquitted of the said charges. 2. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows. i) PW.2, the informant, is the son of the victim PW.1. PW.1 constructed a thatched hut in Government Poramboke land in Muramanda village about 30 years back, which is to the eastern side of the building of A1. There is a dispute regarding the said site between PW.1 and the family members of the accused since long time and civil suits were also pending between them. On 05.06.2002, PW.1, with the help of PW.2, removed the palmyrah 2 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 leaves of her hut with an intention to have a new roof. It is alleged that on knowing the same, A1 to A5 came to the house of PW.1, manhandled her, caused loss to the household articles, dragged her from out of the house to Jammichettu, tied her to the tree with rope with the help of A3 to A5 in a public place and outraged her modesty and wrongfully restrained her with the common intention to evict PW.1 from the said site. ii) Based on the report given by PW.2 under Ex.P20, PW.7 – the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadiyam Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.66 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 427 read with 34 IPC and issued FIR Ex.P23. He took up investigation and recorded the statements of PWs.3 to 6 and others. During the course of investigation, Section 354 of IPC was added by filing a memo into the Court. PW.6 – the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, who examined PW.1, issued Ex.P22 wound certificate. He opined that the injuries of PW.1 are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, PW.7 filed charge sheet. 3. Learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry took cognizance of the case against A1 to A5 for 3 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 the offences punishable under Sections 354, 324, 341, 427 read with 34 IPC and registered the case in PRC No.5 of 2003. As the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with the due procedure prescribed under law, committed the said PRC No.5 of 2003 to the Court of Sessions Division, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, by an order dated 14.08.2003. The said case was numbered as SC No.225 of 2003 and thereafter the same was made over to the Court of the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, Rajahmundry for disposal according to law. 4. On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 354 IPC against A1 and A2 and under Sections 324, 341, 427 read with 34 IPC against A1 to A5 were framed, contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P24 and besides case property MO.1. 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied. 7. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined, except marking Exs.D1 to D10. 8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found A1 and A2 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and A1 to A5 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 427 read with 34 IPC, accordingly, they were acquitted of the said charges, vide impugned judgment dated 18.12.2006 on the ground that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 9. In spite of service of notice on the respondents 1 to 5/A1 to A5 long back, none appears for the respondents nor is there any representation made on their behalf. Since the appeal preferred 5 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 by the State pertains to the year 2008, this Court is proceeding to dispose of the same based on the evidence available on record. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submitted that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and erred in discarding the consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses and acquitting the accused without any valid reasons. 11. Heard. Perused the record. 12. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because presumption available under law is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily 6 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 13. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab1, wherein it was held as follows: (para 8) “The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on „compelling and substantial reasons‟ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, „compelling reasons‟ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words „compelling reasons‟. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on „compelling reasons‟ but 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.” 14. Admittedly, there are long standing disputes between PW.1 and the accused with regard to a thatched hut and civil suits are also pending between them. Case of the prosecution is that, on 05.06.2002, while PW.1, with the help of PW.2, was removing the palmyrah leaves of the thatched hut with an intention to have a new roof, A1 to A5 came there, picked up a scuffle with PW.1, manhandled her, caused injuries to her, damaged the household articles and also dragged PW.1 from her house to the Jammichettu and tied her with a rope to a tree with the help of A3 to A5 in a public place, thereby outraged her modesty. 15. Ex.P20 report was presented by PW.2, who is no other than the son of PW.1, based on which Ex.P23 FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 427 read with 34 IPC. Ex.P23 is silent with regard to the offence under Section 354 IPC. Neither Ex.P20 nor Ex.P23 discloses or make out an offence under Section 354 IPC. Admittedly, Section 354 of 8 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 IPC was added subsequent to examination of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P23 was not altered by the concerned police nor is there any altered FIR was filed into the Court to substantiate that the offence under Section 354 IPC was made out by the investigating agency after examination of the witnesses. Ex.P23 only reveals the names of A1 to A3 and the case of the prosecution is that the names of A4 and A5 were figured later. Ex.P20 report was presented on 05.06.2002 at about 11.15 pm and Ex.P23 FIR reached the concerned Magistrate at 11.00 am on 07.06.2002. Obviously, there is delay of more than 24 hours in transmitting Ex.P23 to the concerned Magistrate and there is no proper explanation for the said delay. 16. PW.1 deposed that on the date of the incident i.e. on 05.06.2002, at about 10.00 am, while she was removing the palmyrah leaves by engaging PWs.3 and 4 as coolies, A1 and A2, along with two sons of A1 namely Donthamsetti Babji and Donthamsetti Murali, came there and beat PWs.3 and 4 with legs and also caught hold of tuft of hair of PW.4. When she intervened, A1 and A2 and two sons of A1 beat her. PWs.3 and 4 gave report against A1 and A2 and two sons of A1 to the police 9 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 Kadiyam. She further deposed that on the same day at about 07.45 pm, while she was coming back after attending the calls of nature, A1 to A4 and two sons of A1 and one Kondapalli Narasimhamurthy dragged her by beating her with sticks, hands and legs and tied her to the gate of Weavers society. Then A2 removed her saree and two sons of A1 caught hold of her two hands and Donthamsetti Ramaraju torn her blouse on her back and dragged her to the place of Ganuga tree, situated by the side of her house and tied her to the tree with rope - MO.1 with an intention to outrage her modesty and also to kill her. She further deposed that all of them beat her on her private parts and damaged the household articles. She further deposed that on receiving the telephonic message, police came to the scene of offence at about 10.30 or 11.00 pm, by that time she was nude and someone placed saree on her body and took photos. When she regained consciousness, she was in Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. 17. What all stated by PW.1 in her chief examination does not find place in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement or in the report Ex.P20 submitted by PW.2. On one hand, she deposed that 10 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 none of the accused beat her with sticks and on the other hand she deposed that the accused beat her with stones and one of the accused beat her on her right hand palm and caused bleeding injury. It is her evidence that she sustained contusions due to beating by the accused with hands and legs. PW.1 categorically stated that she had no acquaintance with A5 and she saw her for the first time in the Court. She further deposed that she stated before the police about the presence of A3 and A4. The entire evidence of PW.1 is full of not only omissions which amount to contradictions, but also contradictions by resiling from her earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The same is coupled with the admitted fact about the strained relationship existing between her and the accused. 18. PW.2 is the son of PW.1, who set the law into motion by submitting the report Ex.P20. Even according to the version of PW.2, none of the accused beat PW.1 with sticks. He completely resiled from his statement and the contradictions under Exs.D1 and D2 were elicited through his cross-examination. PW.2 categorically stated that he subscribed his signature in Ex.P20, but a perusal of Ex.P20 reveals that it contained the thumb mark 11 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 of PW.2. Even according to PW.2, he does not know A5 and he was not present at the scene of offence and he saw A5 for the first time in the Court. 19. PWs.3 and 4 are the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence and according to PW.1 they were engaged by her to change the palmyrah leaves of the roof of her house. PW.3 stated that while they were stitching palmyrah leaves to the roof, A1, along with 15 others, trespassed into the house of PW.1 and threw away the articles. When it is the evidence of PW.2 that one of the accused beat him, PW.3 stated that when he intervened, A1 beat him with his hands, while his son beat him with legs and boots and pushed PWs.1 and 2. PW.3 stated that he went to the place of occurrence at about 09.30 pm contradicting the version of PW.1 that police came to the scene of offence at about 11.00 or 11.30 pm and by that time police were already at the scene of offence and PW.1 was untied by the police and MO.1 was seized on the same day. PW.3 resiled from his earlier statement under Ex.D6. Even according to the version of PW.4, PW.1 was untied by the police and he resiled from his earlier statements under Exs.D7 and D8. 12 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 20. PW.5, Panchayat Secretary of Muramanda village, deposed that on 06.06.2002, at about 07.00 am, he visited the house of PW.1 and observed the scene of offence and drafted Ex.P21. According to him, MO.1 was seized in his presence. If that be so, it is highly doubtful to appreciate the testimony of PW.4 who categorically deposed that MO.1 was seized on the night of 05.06.2002 by the police. In his cross-examination, PW.5 deposed that on the preceding date to Ex.P21 he received a complaint from A1 about the encroachment being made by PW.1 and construction of hut by blocking the passage. Then, he, along with his men, witnessed the same at about 09.00 am and stopped the construction. When it is the evidence of PW.5 that Ex.P21 was prepared in his presence, in the cross-examination he stated that he does not remember who drafted the contents in Ex.P21. He further deposed that he did not see any belongings of PW.1 in damaged condition, but he saw them in a pell-mell condition. 21. PW.6, who examined PW.1, opined that the injuries found on the body of PW.1 are simple in nature and they do not make her unconscious. He deposed that PW.1 stated before him that 13 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 she was beaten with sticks. He further deposed that if a person was dragged for about 15 yards on a metal road, there is possibility of causing linier abrasions on the portion subjected to the surface and he further deposed that he did not observe any ligature marks on the hands of PW.1 which are possible when the hands are tied with a rope. He deposed that there is possibility of injuries found in Ex.P22 be caused with palmyrah leaves. 22. PW.7, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 05.06.2002 at about 07.00 pm, on receiving a phone call from Muramanda village, he visited the scene of offence along with his staff and found PW.1 tied with a rope to the tree. He got the scene photographed and untied PW.1 from the rope with the help of villagers. PW.2 brought PW.1 to the police station and submitted Ex.P20 report. According to PW.7, the caller or informer did not narrate the incident to him over phone. It is clear from the evidence of PW.7 that one Dharmarao visited the police station in connection with this case several times. He admitted about the presentation of complaint under Ex.D9 by A1 against PW.1. When it is the version of PW.1 that she was tied to the tree and she was nude by that time, PW.7 deposed that by the time he 14 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 reached the scene of offence PW.1 had clothes on her body, which clearly contradicts the version of PW.1. He categorically deposed that PW.1 did not specifically state the names of A3 and A4 except stating that the women of A1 were present. There is no corroboration between the testimony of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.7. 23. So far as the evidence of PW.8, who was not cited as a witness in the charge sheet, is concerned, he stated that he found PW.1 tied with a rope to the gate of the society and when he questioned, A3 and A5 and two others stated that they tied her to the gate. When it is the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that they did not see A5 at the scene of offence and for the first time they saw her in the Court, the evidence of PW.8 about the presence of A5 is highly doubtful. PW.8 stated that he was examined by the police and he signed in his statement, but the same is not found in the record available in the Court. Name of PW.8 appears in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding second stage of incident that is said to have occurred at the gate of Weavers society. Though much reliance is placed by the prosecution on the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 8, they did not support the case of prosecution. 15 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 Moreover, there is no corroborative piece of evidence to strengthen the case of the prosecution. 24. A combined reading of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses cogently indicates that there are number of contradictions and omissions therein in respect of the overt acts attributed to the accused and further more raises a doubt as to why A5 was impleaded when his name was not whispered anywhere in Exs.P20 or P.23 or in the statement of the witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer. The evidence of PW.1 clearly indicates that an improvised version is stated by her with an afterthought. There is no consistency between the ocular evidence placed by the prosecution and the medical evidence under Ex.P22. PW.1 stated that Exs.P3 to P8 were handed over to her by Dharma Rao who according to the defence, is responsible for the entire case against the accused. Further, when strained relationship amongst the parties is admitted, the prosecution is bound to explain the delay of two days that occurred in registering Ex.P23 and forwarding the same to the Court of the concerned Magistrate without giving room for any deliberations. 16 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 25. The prosecution has given up LWs.5 to 11 without assigning any reason, but chose to examine PW.8 who is not a cited witness in the charge sheet, whose evidence tilted the scale in favour of accused instead of best helping the prosecution. 26. The entire evidence placed on record clearly establishes the contra versions in respect of throwing of articles and the improvised version given by PW.1 besides material omissions and contradictions. It is not known as to what necessitated the prosecution to get the photographs under Exs.P3 to P8 marked through PW.1 and not through PW.7. Except PW.1, the other prosecution witnesses categorically deposed that the photographs were taken by the police. The entire charge sheet is silent with regard to taking of photographs by the police at the scene of offence and the name of the photographer is not mentioned in the list of cited witnesses. When it is the evidence of PW.1 that she became unconscious due to weeping and by the time she regained consciousness, she was in the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, PW.2 deposed that he took PW.1 along with him to Kadiyam Police Station and presented Ex.P20. The victim PW.1 did not choose to give any complaint to the police. 17 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 27. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is on correct lines and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 28. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 18.12.2006 passed in SC No.225 of 2003 by the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), East Godavari, Rajahmundry. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Dated:03.04.2025. Nsr 18 SRK, J Crl.A.No.920 of 2008 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.920 of 2008 Dated:03.04.2025 Nsr