HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.999 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, in S.C.No.24 of 2007, dated 03.09.2007, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal code.
2. The case against the accused is that on 15.09.2006, at about 10.00 A.M. at the outskirts of Abbapur village, while PW1 was spraying the urea in the fields of accused/respondent, the accused caught hold of her hand and embraced her, thereby attempted to outrage the modesty of PW1-victim, for which reason, she was frightened and went home. On the next day, she informed the incident to her husband PW2, who lodged a complaint Ex.P1, upon which the police registered a case and issued FIR-Ex.P3. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused/respondent.
2
3. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, having recorded the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and marking Exs.P1 to P4 found that the respondent/accused was not guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, for the following reasons.
a) Though witnesses PW.2 to PW4 were examined, all the said witnesses were not eye-witnesses to the alleged incident of respondent trying to outrage the modesty of the victim in the fields.
b) Though the complaint was filed on 16.09.2006 and FIR was issued on the same day, the said FIR reached the Court after three days and the said delay was not explained.
c) Ex.D1 portion of statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was marked, in which PW4 stated that on the date of incident, she and her husband were in their house, as such witnessing the incident cannot be believed.
4. In the said circumstances the Court felt that the allegations against the respondent/accused could not be substantiated.
3
5. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge is based upon the evidence which was adduced during the course of trial. In fact, the delay of three days that occurred for reaching the FIR to the Court was also not explained. The witnesses PWs.2 to 5 were not eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. There is no requirement of any corroboration from any other witnesses in cases, such as these. However, PW1 stated that she along with PW3 and PW4 were at the fields spraying urea, but, PW3 and PW4 did not state that they have witnessed the incident. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt can be given to the respondent/accused. I see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
6. The Honourable Supreme Court in N.Vijayakumar v. Sate of Tamil Nadu 1 held that in cases of appeals unless compelling reasons and sufficient grounds or strong circumstances are shown, the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal shall not interfere with the findings of the 1 AIR 2021 SC 766 4 trial Court, though a different view can be taken. It is further held that the Honourable Supreme Court has cautioned interference in appeal against acquittal when the conclusions of the trial Court are reasonable.
7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by the State fails and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 23.09.2022 tk 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.999 OF 2009 Dated: 23.09.2022 tk