APHC010599442009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.494 OF 2009 Between: THE STATE OF A.P., REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...APELLANT AND EGURI PAVAN KUMAR, S/o. Yesu, R/o. Madigapalli, T.Naidupalem Village, Tangutur Mandalam. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C against the order of acquittal of accused/respondent in SC.No. 303 of 2006 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, dated 06th day of August 2007. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent: ------ SRK, J Crl.A.No.494 of 2009 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 06.08.2007 passed in SC No.303 of 2006 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, whereby the respondent herein/accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC and accordingly, he was acquitted of the said charge. 2. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows. i) The accused used to tease the de facto complainant/ victim minor girl (PW.1). While so, on 16.03.2006, at about 11.00 pm, when the victim girl alone was present in the house, the accused, with a malice, went to the house, knocked the door and when she opened the door, the accused forcibly entered into the house and embraced her very closely and tightly, thereby outraged her modesty. On hearing the cries of the victim girl, neighbours rushed to the house and witnessed the occurrence. On seeing them, the accused left the place. On 17.03.2006, the victim girl and her mother went to the Police Station and presented Ex.P1 report to PW.7 - the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur Police Station. SRK, J Crl.A.No.494 of 2009 3 ii) Based on the said report, PW.7 registered a case in Crime No.29 of 2006, under Sections 452 and 354 IPC and submitted copies of FIR - Ex.P6 to all the concerned. PW.7 took up investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also visited the scene of offence and prepared scene of observation report under Ex.P7. Ex.P8 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW.8 – the Sub- Inspector of Police took up further investigation and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 3. The charge sheet was taken on file as PRC No.7 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, and 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.7 of 2006 to the Court of Session, Prakasam district, vide order dated 28.04.2006. The said case was numbered as SC No.303 of 2006 and thereafter the same was made over to the Court of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, for disposal according to law. SRK, J Crl.A.No.494 of 2009 4 4. On appearance of the accused, charge under Section 354 IPC was framed, read over the contents of the charge and explained to him in Telugu, for which he 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 P8. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the 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. 7. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked. 8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the charge leveled against him and, accordingly, acquitted him, vide impugned judgment dated 06.08.2007 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present appeal. SRK, J Crl.A.No.494 of 2009 5 9. As there was no representation on behalf of the respondent/accused, despite service of notice through the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam district, this Court, by an order dated 18.06.2025, issued bailable warrant against the respondent/accused. 10. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the police are not in a position to execute the bailable warrant issued against the respondent/accused, as his whereabouts are not known. 11. In the circumstances, the bailable warrant issued against the respondent/accused on 18.06.2025 is hereby recalled and this Court is proceeding to dispose of the appeal based on the evidence available on record. 12. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 13. The point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the respondent/ accused beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below needs interference by this Court ? SRK, J Crl.A.No.494 of 2009 6 14. 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. SRK, J Crl.A.No.494 of 2009 7 15. 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 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 SRK, J Crl.A.No.494 of 2009 8 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.” 16. Coming to the case on hand, admittedly, PW.1 was minor as on the date of alleged incident. She deposed that on 16.03.2006, her mother (PW.5) left the house to her beedi bunk, and at about 11.00 pm, the accused knocked the door and she opened the door. Then the accused entered into the house, embraced her and behaved indecently by catching hold of her hand. When she raised cries, PWs.2 and 3 came there and on seeing them the accused ran away. PWs.2 and 3, who are said to be eye witnesses to the incident and who are no other than the co-daughters-in-law of PW.1‟s mother (PW.5), did not speak anything about the incident. They categorically deposed that they got disputes with PW.5. PWs.2 and 3, who are immediate neighbours to the house of PW.1, did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW.1 is not corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. PW.2 supported the case of prosecution only to the extent that she along with PWs.1, 5 and 3 went to the SRK, J Crl.A.No.494 of 2009 9 Police Station, where PW.1 presented Ex.P1 report in their presence. PW.3 completely turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 by any of the independent witnesses examined. 16. The only evidence left with is the evidence of PW.5, who is the mother of PW.1. She deposed that as usual, she returned to the house at 12.00 mid night and found PWs.2 and 3 at her house and came to know about the incident and later on the next day at about 05.00 pm, all of them including PWs.1 to 3 went to the Police Station and gave report. The evidence of PW.5 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. 17. Now, it has to be seen whether the evidence of PW.1, though not corroborated by any other evidence, can be made basis for conviction, in the circumstances of the case. It was suggested to PW.1 that the case is foisted against the accused at the instance of PW.5, who is her mother. PW.1 in the cross-examination admitted that earlier to the incident, her mother chastised her for talking with the accused. Therefore, it pre-supposes that there was a love affair between PW.1 and SRK, J Crl.A.No.494 of 2009 10 the accused. When the love letters were confronted to PW.5, she deposed that it is not in the handwriting of her daughter. In the circumstances, the sole uncorroborated testimony of PW.1 is not trustworthy and cannot be made a basis for convicting the accused. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after taking all the said aspects into consideration, rightly acquitted the accused of the aforesaid charge. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment passed by the Court below is unambiguous and warrants no interference by this Court. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 06.08.2007 passed in SC No.303 of 2006 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date:10.07.2025 Nsr SRK, J Crl.A.No.494 of 2009 11 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.494 of 2009 Date:10.07.2025