HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1190 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment dated 10.7.2007 rendered by the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet, in Sessions Case No.362 of 2006, the appellant approached this Court by way of appeal.
2. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet, rendered judgment which is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the learned judge of the trial Court ought to have seen that the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. were made out by the prosecution; that the learned judge ought to have seen that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is fully corroborated with each other and that it is supported by the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and Ex.P-2; that the learned judge erred in appreciating the evidence of P.W-1; and that the learned judge ought to have believed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and convicted the respondent-accused and therefore, the acquittal of the respondent-accused is unsustainable.
3. Reported to take it as heard by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused.
4. Now the points that arise for determination are:
(1) Whether the appellant, as contended in the grounds of appeal, had successfully established the Dr.CSL , J 2 Crl.A.No.1190 of 2012 guilt of the respondent-accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. (2) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts, as contended by the appellant, which in turn requires the interference of this Court exercising the appellate jurisdiction.
5. Point No.1:
The case details, as could be culled out from the charge sheet, are that on 12.4.2006 at about 9.30 am., while P.W-1 was in the bathroom, which is located at the backyard of her house, the respondent-accused, whose house is located quite opposite to the house of P.W-1, entered into the said bathroom by scaling down the wall, caught hold of P.W-1 and tried to outrage her modesty and when she raised cries, her mother and neighbours approached there and on seeing them, the respondent-accused left her and escaped by scaling over the wall.
6. Record discloses that as the respondent-accused pleaded not guilty of the charge framed, the learned judge of the trial Court proceeded with the trial of the case, examined the witnesses and recorded their evidence and putting their evidence, i.e., the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.P-1 to P-4, to scrutiny came to a conclusion that the appellant failed to establish the guilt of the respondent-accused Dr.CSL , J 3 Crl.A.No.1190 of 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge framed against him and therefore, acquitted the respondent-accused. The conclusion arrived at by the learned judge of the trial Court is under challenge in this appeal.
7. As rightly projected in the grounds of appeal, the material witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W-1 is that the respondent-accused is her classmate and she is studying II year B.Sc., and on 12.4.2006, while she was taking bath, the respondent-accused came from behind, caught hold of her having scaled down the wall of her bathroom, which has no roof, and he approached her only with an underwear and when she raised cries, her mother came and on that, the respondent-accused left her. P.W-1 during the course of cross-examination stated that she did not receive any injuries when the respondent-accused caught hold of her and she did not resist him except raising cries.
8. The evidence of P.W-2, who is the mother of P.W-1, is that there is no roof to the bathroom of her house and on the date of the incident, she heard the cries of her daughter, rushed there with a stick under an impression that her daughter would have raised cries on the menace of monkey and that she saw the respondent-accused catching hold of P.W-1 and on seeing her, he left P.W-1 and he was wearing only cut drawer at that time.
9. The evidence of P.W-3 is that about one year back, she was informed by P.Ws.1 and 2 that the respondent-accused approached P.W-1, caught hold of her while she was taking bath and later, he ran Dr.CSL , J 4 Crl.A.No.1190 of 2012 away. P.W-3 during the course of cross-examination stated that she has not seen the respondent-accused running away.
10. The evidence of P.W-4 is that about one year back, at about 9 am. or so, he got boarded his sister in an auto and while he was going back, he saw the respondent-accused coming in the opposite direction and thereafter, himself and the respondent-accused went together and that himself and the respondent-accused went to their respective houses. He deposed that he saw some gathering at the house of P.W-1 and he heard the gathering telling that the respondent-accused scaled down the wall from the bathroom of the Sarpanch of Venugopalapuram and he caught hold of P.W-1 in the bathroom.
11. The prosecution based its case mainly on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, of course, coupled with the evidence of P.W-5 who spoke about Ex.P-2-panchanama and the evidence of P.W-6 who investigated the case.
12. It is not enough for the prosecution to place before the Court the details of the case through the witnesses. The prosecution is burdened to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As rightly observed by the learned judge of the trial Court, P.W-4 never stated that he saw the respondent-accused only with a cut drawer, as contended by P.Ws.1 and 2. Further, in case, the respondent-accused was running away after committing the crime, the evidence of P.W-4 who observed the same while coming in the opposite direction would have been otherwise. It is highly improbable for a person to normally Dr.CSL , J 5 Crl.A.No.1190 of 2012 receive another person who is unusually dressed in a normal way and accompany him on a public road.
13. The version of the prosecution is that P.W-3 saw the respondent-accused running away. But, P.W-3 during the course of cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor deposed that she has not seen the respondent-accused running away but P.Ws.1 and 2 informed her about the incident.
14. Thus, considering this unsatisfactory evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned judge of the trial Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed in its attempt to establish the guilt of the respondent-accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
15. This Court does not find any grounds whatsoever to come to a different finding. Therefore, this point is answered holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt before the trial Court.
16. Point No.2:
When the evidence of the witnesses is scrutinized, this Court finds that the said evidence, as rightly observed by the learned judge of the trial Court, could not form basis for giving a judgment of conviction. The learned judge of the trial Court analysing all the facts of the case in their right perspective came to a conclusion that the respondent-accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The said finding cannot be interfered with. None of the grounds urged can be held applicable for coming to a different verdict.
Dr.CSL , J 6 Crl.A.No.1190 of 2012
17. Thus, in the light of the findings given on point Nos.1 and 2, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed confirming the judgment dated 10.7.2007 rendered by the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet, in Sessions Case No.362 of 2006.
_________________________ Dr. JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA 25.10.2021 dr