APHC010639062009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1125/2009 Between: 1. THE STATE OF A.P.,, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PUCHALLAPALLI KOTA REDDY, S/o. Gopal Reddy Krishna Sai Nagar, Chendodu village, Kota Mandal ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to To present this Memorandum of Criminal Appeal against the order of the acquittal of the accused/respondent in SC. No. 289 of 2005 on the file of the Hon'ble Assistant Sessions judge, Gudur dated 18th day of October of 2007 and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused/(Respondents) for the offence with which he was charged. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLAMP 519 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To condone the delay of "303 days" in presenting the appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused/respondent in SC. No. 289/2005 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur dated 18.10.2007. Counsel for the Apellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respodent: 1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1125 OF 2009 JUDGMENT : The present Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (3) and (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the State against the judgment dated 18.10.2007 passed in S.C.No.289 of 2005 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, whereby the respondent herein/accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, „IPC‟). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused is resident of Krishna Sai Nagar, Chendodu Village. The de-facto complainant and her husband are residents of Krishna Sai Nagar, Chendodu Village of Kota Mandal. There were land disputes between the defacto complainant and the accused. About 10 years prior to the incident, the accused took his property share from the father of the defacto complainant. About two years prior to the incident, the same was registered. After the registration, the accused now and then used to go the house of the defacto complainant and was demanding her Rs.15,000/- from her without being satisfied with his share of property. 3 It is alleged that on 10.06.2005 at about 16.00 hours, when defacto complainant along with her daughter Keerthi, aged about 06 years, was present in her house, the accused criminally trespassed into her house with a knife, went to kitchen room, caught hold of her neck, stabbed her with a knife on her left side of stomach and caused bleeding injury. On that, she raised cries loudly and her daughter fell on the foot of the accused and tried to rescue her. Later, the accused caught hold of her saree, removed from her body and outraged her modesty. On hearing her cries, her father-in-law and mother-in-law and one Polamma rushed to the spot and saw the incident. PW2 and 3 caught hold of the accused and threw him out of the house. Due to absence of her husband, she stayed in her house without giving any report. On 11.06.2005 her husband returned to her house and came to know about the incident through her and both of them went to the Kota Police Station on 11.06.2005 at about 16.00 hours and gave a report to the S.I. of Police. Pursuant to the same, a case in Crime No.40/2005 under Sections 452, 354 and 324 of I.P.C. was registgered on 11.06.2005 at about 04.00 P.M. and investigated into the case. Police visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. The injured was sent to the 4 Government Hospital at Kota for treatment. The Medical Officer treated her and issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kota, took cognizance for the offences under Sections 452, 354 and 324 of I.P.C. On appearance, the accused was supplied with the copies of the case documents. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Nellore under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The case was assigned with S.C.No.289 of 2005 and made over to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law. 4. On appearance of the accused before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, charges for the offences under Sections 451, 354 and 324 of I.P.C. were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were got marked. 6. After closing the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating 5 evidence against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused pleaded innocence and denied the incriminating evidence of prosecution witnesses. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked on his behalf. 7. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, found the respondent/accused not guilty of the charges levelled against him and accordingly acquitted him of the said charges. Challenging the same, State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 8. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that there were disputes between the accused and PW1, and in connection with that, the accused attacked PW1 resulting in simple injuries to her. According to him, accused has trespassed into the house of PW1 in the absence of her husband and attacked her. He submits that it is also the evidence of PWs.2 & 3 that they found the accused pulling saree of PW1 and thereby outraging her modesty. According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent and cogent, and medical evidence does corroborate with the acular 6 evidence and thus, learned Assistant Sessions Judge, erred in acquitting the accused. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the resondent/sole accused submits that there is delay in lodging the report in the Police Station i.e. the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 10.06.2005 whereas, the report was lodged on 11.06.2005. He submits that admittedly, there were previous disputes between P.W.1 and the accused, and in view of the same, the said delay in lodging would go to the root of the case and the same was taken to implicate the accused falsely after due deliberations. He submits that if really, PW1/de-facto complainant sustained injuries, there is no reason why PW1 did not take any treatment on 10.06.2005 itself. 11. The learned cousnel for the resondent/accused further stated that the alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife, which was allegedly used by the accused in the alleged incident, has not been seized by the investigating officer which goes to the root of the case. He further submitted that there were disputes between PW.1 and the accused family as the accused is none other than PW.1‟s sister‟s husband, and PW1‟s sister also filed a suit against PW1 in respect of partition of properties, and in that background, there is every chance that the present case has been foisted at the 7 instance of PW1. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the medical evidence does not corroborate with the ocular evidence, and considering the evidence on record in right perspectively, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly found the accused not guilty of the charges levelled against him, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 12. Now, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt, and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment ? 13. 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 8 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. 14. 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 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 9 „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.” 15. It is the case of prosecution that on 10.06.2005 at about 16.00 hours, when defacto complainant along with her daughter Keerthi, aged about 06 years, was present in her house, the accused criminally trespassed into her house with a knife, went to kitchen room, caught hold of her neck, stabbed her with a knife on her left side of stomach and caused bleeding injury. Later, the accused caught hold of her saree, removed from her body and outraged her modesty. 16. PW1 is the victim. She deposed in her evidence that the incident took place about 2 years back and the accused is the husband of her younger sister. About 10 years back, their father partitioned the properties and in respect of the partition of properties, the accused used to quarrel alleging that she had 10 taken more property. According to PW1, he was demanding an amount of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. It is stated by her that on the date of the incident, the accused trespassed into the house of PW1 at about 04.00 p.m in the absence of her husband and stabbed her on the left side of stomach and caught hold her saree and removed it. Daughter of PW1 aged about 07 years caught hold him and requested not to harm her. During that time, PWs.2 and 3, who are the in-laws of PW1, went there on hearing the cries. They caught hold the accused and took him out of the house. When the husband of PW.1 came on the next day, on his instructions, Ex.P1-report was lodged by PW.1. During her cross examination, she categorically admitted that there were property disputes between her and her sister‟s family. In connection with that, her sister filed a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2004 against her for partition. PW1 further stated that her father divided the properties and in respect of that a suit vide O.S.No.177 of 1993 was filed and five partners deposited an amount of Rs.3,12,900/- towards the plot and obtained cheque for Rs.3,12,900/- on behalf of others and received the said amount. Though a suggestion has been made to the extent that she misappropriated the amount of Rs.3,12,900/- without distributing the same to her sister, PW1 denied the same. 11 17. PW2, who is father-in-law of PW1, states that on the fatefulday, on hearing the cries of his grand daughter and PW1, he immediately went to the house of his son and saw the accused catching hold of the saree of PW1 and he was carrying a knife in his hand. He states that thereafter, he called his son and he came on the next day and after consulting him, a report was lodged against the accused in the Police Station. According to him, the accused tried to outrage modesty of his daughter-in-law, when the accused went to the house of PW.1 complaining that he got lesser share in the property. PW3 too concurred with the version deposed by PW2. PW4 is the husband of PW1. He too speaks with regard to the property disputes between PW1 and her sister and receiving cheque by PW1 on behalf of her sister. P.W.5 is neighbour of P.W.1. She is not an eye-witness to the incident in question. 18. PW6 worked as the Medical Officer, P.H.C., Kota during relevant point of time of the incident. He deposed that he examined P.W.1 on 11.6.2005 at about 9.30 PM and found (i) 1 cm horizontal skin deep injury 1 ½ ” below the left sob coastal area; (ii) 1 cm skin deep horizontal knife marked injury 1” below left subcoastal area. He opined that the injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate issued by him. According 12 to P.W.6, the injury received by her is located at sub coastal area i.e. below the ribs. In cross-examination, he deposed that he mentioned that the injuries are self-inflicted injuries, and upon a question being asked by the Court, he gave justification therefor stating that he arrived at such a conclusion by seeing the way of cut of the injury, and that the injury was not deep enough in the starting and it was broad at the ending and horizontal. 19. PW7 is the investigating officer. He deposed about registration of crime, conducting investigation and filing of charge- sheet after completion of investigation and receipt of relevant documents. 20. In the case on hand, admittedly, there were property disputes between PW1 and the accused family. Accused is none other than PW.1‟s sister‟s husband. PW1‟s sister also filed a suit against PW1 filed a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2004. On the date of alleged incident i.e. 10.06.2005, the accused is alleged to have gone to the house of PW1 to enquire with regard to the property which has been shared to him. In connection with that, a quarrel ensued between them and it is alleged that the accused stabbed PW1 with knife and PW1 sustained injury on her left side of stomach. The evidence of PW1 is quite contrary to the medical evidence for the reason that the injury sustained by PW1 is on sub 13 coastal area i.e., below the ribs. In such a situation, when the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular testimony and there are previous property disputes between P.W.1 and family of the accused, the solitary evidence of PW1 has to be scrutinized meticulously before placing reliance on it, for basing a conviction. 21. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused caught hold of her saree and pulled it, and stabbed on upper portion of her abdomen towards left side. Whereas P.W.2 deposed that when he went to scene, the accused was catching hold of saree of P.W.1, and P.W.3 deposed that the accused was holding saree of P.W.1 and carrying knife. According to P.Ws.2 and 3, the accused was holding knife with one hand and the saree with another hand. Admittedly, in view of the relationship between P.W.1 and the accused and in view of the differences regarding partition of properties, it is natural that the accused pays a visit to house of P.W.1, but in view of the aforesaid aspects, the prosecution has to prove the incident proper with clinching evidence. There is contradiction in the evidence of material prosecution witnesses on material aspects. 22. It is the contention of the learned counsel for defence that there is delay in setting the criminal law into motion and the said unexplained delay goes to the root of the case. According to the 14 prosecution the incident occurred on 10.6.2005 at about 16.00 hours. Whereas police report was lodged on 11.6.2005 at about 16.00 hours. There is a time gap of 24 hours in reporting the matter. The explanation offered by the prosecution for the delay is that P.W.4, who is husband of P.W.1, was not present in house on the date of the incident and he returned on 11.6.2005, and after his arrival, they went to police station and lodged Ex.P1 report. Further, the FIR reached the Magistrate concerned on 13.6.2005 at 10.30 AM. 23. Further, in case P.W.1 suffered injuries in the incident, there is no explanation as to why she did not even go to Hospital for treatment and waited till arrival of her husband even for going to Hospital for taking treatment. Even according to PW1, PWs 2 and 3, father-in-law and mother-in-law of PW1, were present nearby house of PW1 and they went to the rescue of PW1 on the alleged date of incident. If she sustained injury on the body, there is no reason that PW1 has not gone to treatment with Doctor and resort in filing a complaint as against the accused. The evidence of P.W.6-Doctor in cross-examination goes to show that he mentioned that the injuries are self-inflicted injuries. Upon being questioned by the Court, the Doctor justified his opinion by giving reasons therefor. Therefore, these circumstances throw any 15 amount of doubt as to the occurrence of the incident in the manner narrated by the witnesses. 24. Further more, it is pertinent to mention here that weapon i.e. knife, that has been allegedly used by the accused for commission of the offence, has not been seized by the Investigating Officer for the reason best known. There is absolutely no explanation with regard to the nonseizure of the weapon by the prosecution, which is fatal to the prosecution case, in the facts and circumstances of the case stated supra. 25. Therefore, in view of the contradiction in the evidence of material prosecution witnesses on material aspects, non-seizure of the weapon of offence, delay in setting the criminal law into motion and delay in taking medical treatment, and in view of the opinion of P.W.6-Doctor who treated P.W.1, and in view of the fact that medical evidence does not corroborate ocular testimony, this Court is of the opinion that it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence adduced by the prosecution to base a conviction. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective and acquitted the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16 26. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 18.10.2007 passed in S.C.No.289 of 2005 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 26.06.2025 PKR/DRK 17 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY 255 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1125 OF 2009 Date: 26.06.2025 PKR/DRK