APHC010452352009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.620 OF 2009 Between: The State of AP., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND Jangam Subba Raju, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Village Servant of Lankalavagunta Village R/o Lankalagunta, Pedana Mandalam, Krishna Dist. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.A., against the order of the acquittal of the accused/respondent in S.C.No.143 of 2005 on the file of the Hon'ble Asst. Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, dated 17.05.07, and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set-aside the Order of acquittal and convict the accused/respondent for the offence with which he was charged. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VENKATESWERLLU KESAMSETTY 2 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.620 of 2009 Judgment: This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 17.05.2007 passed in SC No.143 of 2005 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, whereby and whereunder the respondent/Accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, accordingly, he was acquitted of the said charge. 2. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows. i) The de facto complainant/victim (PW.1) was working as a Teacher in Anganwadi School, at Lankalakalavagunta village. The accused is resident of same village and was working as Village Servant. On 10.06.2004, at about 02.00 pm, the de facto complainant sent all the school children for meals. In the meantime, the accused, with intent to outrage her modesty, entered the Panchayat Office room and made her fall on the floor to have sexual intercourse and embraced her. However, she escaped from the clutches of the accused and raised cries. Thereupon, the accused closed her mouth with hands and on hearing the cries, when PWs.2, 4 and LWs.3 and 5 rushed there, 3 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 the accused escaped from the scene. On 12.06.2004, as soon as her husband returned home, the de facto complainant explained the incident that occurred on 10.06.2004 and on his advice she gave report Ex.P1 to the police. ii) Based on the said report, PW.5 – the Head Constable, Pedana Police Station registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2004, for the offence under Section 354 IPC, against the accused and issued FIR Ex.P2. He took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P3, recorded the statements of witnesses and later he handed over the file to the Sub-Inspector of Police, who verified the investigation done by PW.5 and filed charge sheet. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Machilipatnam, took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and registered the case in PRC No.24 of 2004. As the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with the due procedure prescribed under law, committed the said PRC No.24 of 2004 to the Court of Session. The said case was numbered as SC No.143 of 2005 and thereafter the same was 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 made over to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, for disposal according to law. 4. On appearance of the accused, charge under Section 354 IPC was framed, contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were got marked. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. 7. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, accordingly, acquitted him of the said charge, vide impugned judgment dated 17.05.2007 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned 5 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 Assistant Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 8. Earlier, on two occasions, as there was no representation on behalf of the respondent/accused, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption „for orders‟. Despite listing the matter under the caption „for orders‟, even today also when the matter came up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent/accused. Hence, this Court is proceeding to dispose of the case based on the evidence available on record and on hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant/State. 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submitted that the testimony of PW.1 is crucial, who categorically stated that on the date of incident, the accused tried to have sexual intercourse and embraced her and when she raised cries the accused escaped from the scene. He submits that the said evidence is sufficient enough to come to a conclusion that the incident had taken place on 10.06.2004. He further submitted that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the accused, though the evidence of PW.1 is 6 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 consistent throughout and her evidence has not been shattered in her cross-examination. 10. Heard. Perused the record. 11. 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 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. 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 12. 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 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.” 13. Coming to the case on hand, PW.1, who is the de facto complainant/victim, stated that she was working as Anganwadi Teacher and the accused is working as Village Servant. Their 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 8 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 School is situated in the premises of Panchayat Office. On 10.06.2004, in the afternoon time, she sent the school children for meals. At that time, at about 02.00 PM, when she was alone in the room, the accused entered into the room with an intention to have sexual intercourse with her, made her to fall on the ground and fell on her and embraced her. When she resisted by pushing the accused, he closed her mouth. On hearing her cries, PWs.2 to 4 and another came to the spot, and on that, the accused escaped from the spot. She further stated that when her husband returned from Gudivada on 12.06.2004, she informed about the incident to him, and on his advice, she gave report Ex.P1 to the police. 14. A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that, though the incident was said to have taken place on 10.06.2004, the report was lodged before the police on 12.06.2004. The reason that has been given for delay in filing the report is that as soon as husband of PW.1 returned from Gudivada on 12.06.2004, PW.1 explained the incident that had taken place on 10.06.2004 to her husband, and on his advice she gave report in the police station. But, in the evidence of PW.1, she categorically stated that the office of Panchayat Secretary and Sarpanch are in 9 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 the same premises and the alleged offence took place in the office room of Gram Panchayat in a broad day light, that too at about 02.00 pm. It is not in dispute that Anganwadi School was being run in Gram Panchayat Office room where the Sarpanch as well as Panchayat Secretary do attend their work in the same premises. Therefore, the prosecution did not rule out the presence of Sarpanch and Secretary along with their respective staff in the said premises. At one stage, PW.1 specifically admits that the Panchayat Secretary and Sarpanch were also discharging their official duties in the same premises, but still, she did not try to give any report to them. Even she has not tried to take the said matter to the notice of Panchayat Secretary and the Sarpanch. As a matter of fact, she did not specifically offer any reasons for not giving any report with those responsible persons who were readily available in and around the premises, but PW.1 tried to convince the Court as if the Sarpanch and Secretary were not available at the relevant point of time and she also tried to convince the Court as if the Sarpanch and Secretary did not go to their respective houses till the presentation of her report in Police Station on 12.06.2004. 10 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 15. 10 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 15. It is the case of defence that PW.1 being Anganwadi Teacher, misappropriated the feed provided by the Government to Anganwadi School children, for which the accused, being Village Servant, convened a meeting of the parents of school children advising them to carry the incident before higher ups, for which PW.1 developed grudge on the accused and foisted the present false case with due deliberations with her kith and kin and laid report before the Head Constable after two days. The said defence, which was taken by the respondent/accused, has not been denied by any of the prosecution witnesses. 16. It is pertinent to mention here that PW.1 categorically admitted the suggestion that there are two windows to the Panchayat room, where the alleged incident is said to have taken place, and one is towards the main road and as such any person going along the road can witness the incident which happens inside the room. Therefore, it is quite clear that if any incident happens inside the room, everybody who proceeds on the road can have direct visual on the happenings of the things in the said room. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 to the effect that PWs.2 to 4 and another alone came to the spot appears to be quite unnatural. 11 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 17. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on the ground that there is delay in lodging the report in the Police Station and there is no proper explanation as to why so much delay was caused for giving report in the Police Station, coupled with the defence of the accused that when a meeting was convened on the ground that PW.1 misappropriated the feed provided by the Government to Anganwadi School, she bore grudge against the accused and foisted the present false case, came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge also relied upon the fact that except the prosecutrix and interested witnesses, no other independent witness has been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. The reasoning given by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is convincing and calls for no interference by this Court. 18. 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 12 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 by the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 17.05.2007 passed in SC No.143 of 2005 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date:25.06.2025. Nsr 13 SRK, J Crl.A.No.620 of 2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.620 of 2009 Date:25.06.2025 Nsr