APHC010044472008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1892/2008 Between: 1. SHIEK SHAJATHI, W/O.CHANDU SAHEB, D.NO.58-19-57/2/1, NAD KOTHA ROAD, BUTCHIRAJUPALEM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. S V S SRINIVAS 2 OTHERS, S/O.(L) SURYAM RADER MECHANIC NAVAL DOCKYARD, R/O.D.NO.58-19-35/2,SUSARLA COLONY, BUTCHIRAJUPALEM,GOPALAPATNAM, 2. S NANAJEE, S/O.(L) SURYAM EMPLOYEE IN COROMANDEL FERTILIZERS LTD. R/O.PRIYA GARDENS,NEAR BANGARAMMA TEMPLE SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE STATE OF A P REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENTS Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the Judgment dated 23.09.03 in S.C.No.110/2002, on the file of VII Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, for re-trial. IA NO: 1 OF 2003(CRLMP 8395 OF 2003 -2- CRL.R.C. No.1892 OF 2008 Date of order:05.01.2026 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 grant special leave to prefer an appeal against acquittal order dt.23-9-2003 in S.C.No.110/03 on the file of VII Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) Visakhapatnam. IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLAMP 2236 OF 2008 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 convert the Crl.A.No.1246 of 2004 into Criminal Revision Case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T M K CHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondents: 1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: -3- CRL.R.C. No.1892 OF 2008 Date of order:05.01.2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1892 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. The instant criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the de facto complainant aggrieved by the judgment dt.23.09.2003 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, in S.C. No.110 of 2002, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the respondents 1 and 2 not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and acquitted them. 2. The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant and respondents 1 and 2 herein are A.1 and A.2 in S.C. No.110 of 2002 on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on the basis of the written complaint of PW1, the police filed charge sheet against respondents 1 and 2/ A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 354 of IPC. During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Several documents were exhibited on behalf of both the prosecution and the accused. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned -4- CRL.R.C. No.1892 OF 2008 Date of order:05.01.2026 Trial Court found respondents 1 and 2 not guilty and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the de facto complainant has filed the present criminal revision case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and illegally acquitted the accused. He further submits that the entire judgment of acquittal is based on surmises and conjectures and that the learned Trial Court proceeded only on the basis of his own presumptions rather than on the evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the prosecution case has been fully supported by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but the learned Trial Court has not believed the prosecution case, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Hence, the petitioner sought for setting aside the order of acquittal. 5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Betal Singh v. State of M.P.,1 wherein it was observed that F.I.R. need not contain minute details of the occurrence. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another2. 1 1996 SCALE (3)16 2 1995(6) SCC 194 -5- CRL.R.C. No.1892 OF 2008 Date of order:05.01.2026 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the learned Trial Court carefully gone through the evidence on record and rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court assigned cogent reasons for disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The impugned judgment is a reasoned and speaking order, and hence it does not require interference of this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the entire prosecution case. 8. According to the prosecution case, A1 and A2 were residing in the vicinity of the house of the de facto complainant. After the de facto complainant started residing in the same colony, A1 and A2 allegedly began harassing her by peeping into her bathroom and bedroom. She had earlier made a complaint to the police in this regard. Again, on 21.06.2002 at about 7.00 AM, when the de facto complainant was in front of her house, A1 and A2 allegedly entered the premises and caught hold PW1, thereby outraging her modesty by touching her chest and pulling her saree. The incident was reported to the police on 23.06.2002, i.e., after a delay of two days. 9. During trial, the victim was examined as PW1. PWs2 and 3 are her daughters. PW4 is her husband, and PW5 is the Investigating -6- CRL.R.C. No.1892 OF 2008 Date of order:05.01.2026 Officer. The learned Sessions Judge, after scanning the evidence, disbelieved the prosecution case mainly on two grounds: (i) delay of two days in lodging the FIR and (ii) there are no independent witnesses and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not tallying with the FIR. 10. While dealing with the delay in lodging the FIR., the learned Trial Court is of the view that the explanation made in the FIR regarding the absence of the husband of PW1 at the time of the incident cannot be believed as PW1 has specifically deposed that at the time of lodging the FIR, her husband did not accompany her to the police station. The learned Trial Court also noted that on an earlier occasion, PW1, being an educated lady, had lodged a complaint against the accused without the assistance of her husband. 11. The judgment of acquittal was passed in the year 2003, and the de facto complainant has filed the present criminal revision case seeking to set aside the acquittal. To interfere with an order of acquittal, the petitioner must have to prove such a glaring illegality or perversity in the findings of the Trial Court, so that the entire observation of the Trial Court can be overturned. 12. In the present case, the FIR discloses prior disputes between the parties after the de facto complainant started residing near the house of A1 and A2. The learned Trial Court also took note of the compromise letter marked on behalf of the accused. It has been -7- CRL.R.C. No.1892 OF 2008 Date of order:05.01.2026 stated by PW 1 that she could not make a complaint to the police immediately due to fear of the accused persons. The alleged incident happened on 21.06.2002 on that day and on the next day i.e., on 22.06.2002 she attended her school. It was further observed that she noticed A1 going to his office during this period. The learned Trial Court opined that if such a heinous offence involving outrage of modesty had occurred, it would have been reported promptly by the lady concerned. In my view, the observation of the learned Trial Court regarding the delay of two days in lodging the FIR is well considered and supported by the evidence on record. I find no justification to interfere with the said finding. 13. With respect to the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, the Trial Court is of the opinion that they are the tutored witnesses. In paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment, it was noted that the FIR did not contain specific details regarding the alleged acts attributed by A1 and A2, which were later elaborated by PWs2 and 3. The learned Trial Court also noticed discrepancies between their oral testimony and their statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Their statements were similar in nature and also not disclosed the specific details of the alleged acts of A1 and A2. 14. Instant crime case started with delayed FIR, more so, there are exaggeration in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In this type of cases, it is very dangerous to believe the prosecution case -8- CRL.R.C. No.1892 OF 2008 Date of order:05.01.2026 to record an order of conviction. In my view, the discrepancies in the prosecution case have been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. I find no perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. The order of acquittal does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is devoid of merits. 15. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision case is dismissed as meritless. 16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.05.01.2026 BV