IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1585 OF 2009 Appeal under Section 378(4) (5) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati, in S.C.No. 405 of 2008, dated 17-07-2009. Between: C.Brinda Prasad, W/o. C.S.Prasad, Vidhyodaya Educational Institutions Tirupati. aged 64 years. Correspondent Sri D.No. 232, Salivahana Nagar, ...Petitioner/Complainant AND 1. V.Madan Mohan, S/o. Munuswamy Naidu Village & Post, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District. aged 48 years, R/o. Kotala ...Accused 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravathi ...Respondents/Accused Counsel for the Appellant: Smt D Sangeetha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri P Jagadish Chandra Prasad Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: 1 APHC010127952009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1585/2009 Between: C.brinda Prasad ...APELLANT AND V Madan Mohan and Others ...RESPODENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.DSANGEETHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1585 OF 2009 JUDGMENT : The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the defacto complainant/P.W.1 against the Judgment, dated 17.07.2009 passed in S.C.No.405 of 2008 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Assistant Sessions Judge’), whereby and whereunder Respondent No. 1/accused was found not guilty of the charges under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), accordingly, he was acquitted of the said charges in terms of Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C’). 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- A private complaint was lodged by the appellant alleging that she is Correspondent of Vidyodaya Educational Institutions, Situpati, and she employed him the accused as an Attender. The accused was addicted to vices like alcohol, gambling and he was running in debts on so many occasions. She discharged some of the debts to protect the reputation of the Institution. While so, on 20.12.2002 at 8.00 PM., whenshe was in her residence within the premises of the Institution, the accused consumed alcohol, trespassed into her house, disconnected the telephone wire, closed the door and bolted from inside. Thereafter, he drove the knife 3 from his pocket and put her in fear of death and thereby demanded to deliver all the gold ornaments and cash to him. The accused drove her to the corner of the wall with penknife at the throat and tried to pull away the gold chain and Mangalasuthram from her neck. She pushed aside the accused and tried to run away and also made huge cries. The accused caught hold of her saree, pulled her into his hands through her on the bed, fell upon her and tried to lift her garments and tried to rape her. On hearing the cries, some students came from the hostel and witnessed the incident. On the next date morning, though she went to the police station and gave complaint, but the police failed to take action. Hence, she was constrained to file the private complaint. The III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati forwarded the complaint to West Police Station under Section 156(3) case in 3. Cr.P.C for investigation and report. Pursuant to the same, a crime No.7 of 2003 was registered, whereina final report was filed Thereafter, the appellant filed a referring the case as civil in nature, protest petition. After recording the sworn statements of the appellant and other witnesses, the case was taken on file for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC as P.R.C.No.31 of 2008 and later the same was committed to the Court of Session as the offence is exclusively made over the learned triable by the Court of Session.The case was Assistant Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law. 4 d 4. On appearance of the accused 506 I PC were framed against the charges were read guilty and claimed to be tried. charges under Sections 354 and P accused, and when the contents of the over and explained to him in Teiugu, he pleaded not 5. On behalf of the prosecution Ex.P1 was got marked. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and 6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the under Section 313 Cr.P.C. against him in the evidence of denied the same. On behalf of the defence, Exs.DI to D3 were got marked. accused was examined explaining the incriminating material found prosecution witnesses, for which, he DW1 was examined and 7. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge oral and documentary evidence the charges leveled against him and said charges, vide impugned judgment dated that the prosecution failed to on appreciation of entire on record, found the accusednot guilty of accordingly, acquitted him of the 17.07.2009 on the ground prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the present Criminal passed by the Appeal has been filed. 8. Heard. Perused the material on record. ■ 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, which is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, is consistent and is sufficient to convict the respondent No. 1/accused guilty of the charges framed against him, and there is no grouse or enmity for the appellant to implicate respondent No. 1/accused falsely in a case of this nature, but the trial Court has not considered these aspects in right perspective and erred in acquitting the accused, and hence, he prayed to allow the Criminal Appeal and convict the accused. 9. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/ accused contended that there are contradictions, improvements and omissions in the evidence of P.W.1, and hence, in the light of the pending disputes between P.W.1 and the accused and strained relationship between them, solitary testimony of P.W.1 cannot be basis to convict the accused for the charges levelled against him, and the trial Court appreciated all the aspects in right perspective and found the accused not guilty, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 11. Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to establish its case against the accused for the charges levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court warrants any interference by this Court ? h\\ 6 12. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence i further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court dealing with the appeals against IS . In acquittal, though this Court has full same time, it would be slow in acquittal because there is a presumption power to reappreciate the evidence, at the interfering with the order of under law that accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court trial Court. If the trial Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the 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. Sum and substance of the prosecution case is that P.W.1 was the Correspondent and President of Sri Vidyodaya Educational Institution andaccused was employed by her as an Attender in the said institution. It is further alleged that on 20.12.2002 at 8.00 PM., while P.W.1 her residence, the accused was in in a drunken state with knife and tried from her neck. When came to pull away the gold chain and mangalasuthram 7 she tried to run away, the accused caught hold of her saree and tried to rape her. 14. P.W.1, in her evidence, reiterated the averments in the complaint. She deposed that on 20.12.2002 at about 8.30 PM, the accused came to her house in a drunken state, bolted the door and demanded her amounts, and when she refused, the accused pushed her towards corner of the room, caught hold of her, pulled her saree and pushed her on to bed, and tried to remove her clothes. However, a perusal of her earlier statement given before the Magistrate goes to show she did not state before the Magistrate that the accused pulled her saree when she tried to unbolt the door, and that the accused fell on her and tried to remove her clothes, which amount to improvement. For the first time, in her evidence before the Court, the said acts have been deposed by P.W.1. Further, it is stated by her in the sworn statement before the Magistrate that the accused threatened her showing knife and demanded gold jewellery or cash, and when she refused, he threatened her with the knife on her throat, and on that, she pushed him aside and escaped from the The version in her evidence before the Court goes to show that scene. the accused pulled her saree and tried to remove her clothes, fell upon her. Therefore, there are improvements in the version deposed by P.W.1 on material aspects, which would go to the root of the case. 8 15. P.W.2 is not an eye-witness to the incident. According to prosecution, he was working as a Lecturer in the Educational Institution. Coming to evidence of P.W.3, it is his evidence that he saw the accused holding a knife in his hand by the time he went to the scene of offence. But, the said aspect is missing in his earlier sworn statement given before the Magistrate an the same is clearly an improvement. There is also accused unbolted Names of P.Ws.2 and 3 Institution, and 3 were working In view of the same and in the on material aspects in the evidence of scrutinized carefully, particularly, in as enumerated infra. omission in his evidence with regard to the fact that the the door and went away on seeing him. were not included in the P.F. Register of the Educational document is filed to substantiate that P.Ws.2 No as employees in the Educational Institution, light of the aforesaid improvements P.W.1, her solitary evidence has to be the light of the surrounding circumstances 16. The defence examined D.W.1-Deputy Educational behalf. In the evidence of D.W.1, Ex.DI Educational Institution from 1994 to 2001 Officer on its -staff particulars of Sri Vidyodaya was marked. Ex.D2 is the management particulars of the said Institution from 2001-2002 to 2005- 06, which covers the relevant Governing Body submitted by P.W.1 period of the alleged offence. In the to the Educational Department accused is shown as Secretary of the Institution, of P.W.1. with the same address Ex.D3-bye-laws of the Society shows that the accused is the 9 Secretary, and P.W.1 is the President, of the Society.One of the documents filed by the accused under Section 294 CrPC viz. joint bank account copy in Bank of Baroda in the name of the Educational Society, shows that P.W.1 and the accused are the joint holders to operate the account, and it is clearly mentioned in the document that the President and the Secretary, on behalf of the Institution, are authorized to operate the account jointly.Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid documents that the accused is the Secretary of the Educational Society, but not working as an Attender, as alleged by P.W.1. m' 17. Further, P.W.1, in her cross examination, admitted thatapart from civil suits filed against her by the accused, there are 5 other criminal cases pending against her in Crime Nos. 14 of 2006, 34 of 2008, 313 of 2005, 53 of 2003 and 97 of 2006.She also admitted that C.C.Nos.382 of 2007, 210 of 2007 and 413 of 2008 were pending against her, which were filed by the accused. She further admitted that Sessions Case No.421 of 1999 filed by her for the offence under Section 354 IPC against the accused, ended in acquittal as it was compounded by her. One of the documents filed by the accused under Section 294 CrPC viz. Certified copy of the judgment in Sessions Case No.421 of 1999, substantiates the same. From the aforesaid admissions by P.W.1, it is clear that there are long standing disputes between P.W.1 and the accused in respect of the 10 Educational Institution and there i the accused. IS strained relationship between herand 18. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that there are contradictions, improvements and omissions evidence of P.W.1. hands. on material aspects in the P.W.1 has not approached the There are longstanding disputes between Court with clean P.W.1 and the accused, both civil and criminal, prior to the alleged date of offence in the present case. In the light of the aforesaid aspects, this Court is of the opinion that it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the solitary convict the accused. Hence, this Court has testimony of P.W.1 to ' *' x- hesitation to hold that the no prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 354 and 506 IPC. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and ci Court is of the opinion that the judgment Sessions Judge is unambiguous and there substantial reasons to interfere with the order of learned Sessions Judge. The Criminal Appeal same is liable to be dismissed. circumstances of the case, this passed by the learned Assistant are no compelling acquittal recorded by the is devoid of merit and the or 11 20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment, dated 17.07.2009 passed in S.C.No.405 of 2008 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 3^? SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. D Sangeetha Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. P Jagadish Chandra Prasad Advocate | 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi [OUT] 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section Amaravathi 6. Two CD Copies Chittoor District [OPUC] Pradesh at High Court of Andhra Pradesh at stu RAM HIGH COURT DATED; 30/04/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No. 1585 of 2009 g 1 s SEP JW m ■Jo Current Section 091 Tfr ii i dismissing the criminal appeal