HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1573 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The State aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Section 376 of IPC vide judgment in SC No.345 of 2005, dated 30.01.2008, the present appeal is filed.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 who is the victim was acquainted with the respondent/accused. When she went to mango garden of one Vasu Babu to cut grass for the cattle, the respondent came from behind and caught hold of her, pushed her down and lifted her langa and raped her. In spite of the resistance, the respondent did not leave her and after the incident, she went to the house carrying grass and the respondent went ahead of her on cycle up to her house. PW1 shouted for help when the respondent was committing rape and she kicked the respondent with her leg, for which reason, the mud stains of the chappal of the victim were printed on the shirt of the respondent. On the same day when the husband came home, he was informed about the incident. The said matter was taken to the elders, where the respondent 2 stated that he can commit rape on any number of women, for which reason, the complaint was lodged.
3. Learned Sessions Judge found the respondent not guilty for the offence of rape for the following reasons; i) Though the victim narrated that there was resistance and shouting, none of the villagers who were in the fields have noticed the situation; ii) P.W.1 stated that there were small stones on the ground, but due to the acts, she has received injuries, but neither the Doctor nor the police have seen any such injuries on P.W.1.
4. Further, it was also stated that her bangles of right hand were broken, for which reason, she received scratch injuries on right arm. However, no such injures were found during her examination. The alleged incident happened in the mango garden and even according to the victim-P.W.1, there were other villagers nearby and in the event of any such shouting by P.W.1, the villagers would have come to her rescue. Further, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Sessions Judge found that P.W.1 was a consenting 3 party to the sexual intercourse with the respondent. There are no substantial reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. The circumstances narrated by the learned Sessions Judge are probable and reasonable.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.
6. In view of the above, the well reasoned findings of the trial Court cannot be interfered with.
1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 4
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.08.2022 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1573 OF 2009 Date: 26.08.2022.
kvs 6