THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 61 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
State preferred the present Criminal Appeal by invoking the provision under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment dated 22.08.2008 rendered in S.C.No.88 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad.
The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 23.06.2006 at about 6.00 and 7.00 P.M., when the elder daughter of P.W.1 by name Baby went to the outskirts of Mediguda village to attend the nature calls, the respondent/accused came there and gagged her mouth, threatened her with dire consequences to kill her if she would make hue and cry, took her to Sathnala river, pressed her breast and tried to have intercourse with her and remained there throughout the night and on the next day morning he took her to Adilabad through forest way, kept her in his uncle's house.
On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 363, 354 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C. came to be framed against him, read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the respondent/accused was examined under Section 313 2 of Cr.P.C. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent/accused.
The trial Court, on appraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C. and accordingly, acquitted the accused for the said offences. The trial Court further held that the respondent/accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C., but in view of the report of the District Probation Officer, the respondent/accused was released under Section 4 (1) and (3) of the Probation of Offenders Act and kept the accused under supervision of the District Probation Officer for a period of two years for keeping peace and good behaviour.
Heard and perused the record.
P.W.1 is the father of the victim, who lodged Ex.P1 complaint. P.W.2 is the victim. P.W.3 is the Sarpanch of the village. P.W.4 is the village elder. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.6 is the doctor who examined the victim. On an analysis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, it is clear that there is no resistance from P.W.2 when she travelled along with the accused from her village to Adilabad. This clearly goes to show that P.W.2 consented for accompanying with the accused and as such it cannot be said that the accused kidnapped P.W.2 by threatening her with dire 3 consequences. Further, the evidence of P.W.1-complainant is silent with regard to the aspect of outraging the modesty of P.W.2, whereas P.Ws.3 and 4 stated in their evidence that the accused and P.W.2 went out of the village for two or three days. The victim- P.W.2 clearly stated in her evidence that when the accused caught hold of her breasts in order to commit rape on her, she pushed him away, which is not specifically denied by the defence in the cross- examination of the victim. Hence, the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. Considering the fact that the accused was aged about 18 years as on the date of offence and also the report of the District Probation Officer, the trial Court released the accused under Section 4 (1) and (3) of the Probation of Offenders Act and kept him under supervision of the District Probation Officer for a period of two years for keeping peace and good behaviour.
It is well settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that in an appeal against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if there is any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the lower Court. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is directly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account 4 and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the trial Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in arriving at a right conclusion. Therefore, I do not find any perversity or any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 23.02.2021 Gsn/gkv