Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
C. Raman vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 December, 2023
Author: K. Suresh Reddy
Bench: K. Suresh Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3098 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.19 of 2017 on the file of the Court of
the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for
Trial of Offences against Women (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special
Court'), Chittoor, preferred the present criminal appeal, questioning the
conviction and sentence imposed upon him by judgment dated 29.11.2018
passed in the said Sessions Case. By the impugned judgment, the Special
Court, having found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 354 I.P.C., convicted him for the said offence and sentenced
him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and also to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period
of six months.
2. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of
prosecution witnesses, is as follows: The accused as well as the defacto
complainant/P.W.1, by name M.S. Jaya Bhanu, were working as Constables in
Prohibition & Excise Station, Tirupati Urban. P.W.2 is the father of P.W.1. On
27.05.2016, P.W.1 was on sentry duty from 8.00 a.m., and her duty would
end at 8.00 a.m. on 28.05.2016. While so, when P.W.1 was attending to her
sentry duty on 27.05.2016, the accused called her over cell phone at about
KSR,J
10.45 p.m. and told that he was coming to station on the work of Inspector
and asked her to unlock the main gate. Accordingly, P.W.1 opened the lock of
the main gate. The accused entered into the Station and went into the room
of Inspector and sat in her chair. He called P.W.1 inside the room and when
P.W.1 entered into the room, he told her that she has to satisfy his sexual
desire and that he intended to ask her for the same since long time. He
further told her that he would not keep quiet if she did not satisfy his desire
and that he would go to any extent to make her satisfy his desire and further
threatened that he would destroy her and her family members as he has
acquaintance with higher officials, politicians and also rowdies. He further told
P.W.1 that he was a Union leader and he can implicate her in false cases.
When P.W.1 tried to come out of the room, the accused caught hold of her
hand forcibly and tried to overpower her. Thereupon, P.W.1 cried loudly and
the accused then caught hold of tuft of her hair, slapped her and also kicked
her. P.W.1 pushed the accused aside and went to the main gate. Thereupon,
the accused abused her in filthy language and asked her to come inside the
room. However, P.W.1 remained at the main gate and thereupon, the
accused threatened to kill her if she reveals the incident to anyone and left
the station. Thereafter, the accused made a phone call to P.W.1 at about
11.25 p.m. and again threatened to kill her if she reveals the incident to
anyone. As P.W.1 was depressed and disturbed due to that incident, she
could not inform the incident immediately to anyone and on 30.05.2016, she
informed the incident to her father-P.W.2 and then, on the advice of her
KSR,J
father, she lodged Ex.P1-report with the police. P.W.6- Sub-Inspector of
Police, M.R. Palle Police Station, received Ex.P1 and registered a case in
Crime No.91 of 2016 under Sections 376 r/w 511, 323, 506 and 509 I.P.C.
Ex.P9 is the original F.I.R. He submitted copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned.
He examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and others and recorded their statements under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. He forwarded P.W.1 to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati,
through a women constable, for examination and treatment. He visited the
scene of offence and prepared Ex.P10-rough sketch. On 31.05.2016, he once
again visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of P.Ws.3 and
4. He seized Exs.P2 and P4-Sentry Book and General Diary from the custody
of P.W.3, under cover of police proceedings-Ex.P11. He sent requisition to
the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, to record the
statement of P.W.1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the same was recorded on
18.06.2016. He also collected call data record, which was marked as Ex.P12,
subject to objection. Thereafter, P.W.7 - Inspector of Police took up further
investigation in the matter. He verified the investigation done by P.W.6,
visited the Prohibition & Excise Station, Tirupati Urban, and examined P.Ws.1
to 4 and one Vaman Babu. However, their statements were not recorded. He
examined the scene of offence. On 14.07.2016, he arrested the accused at
R.C. Puram Cross Roads, who was remanded to judicial custody. On
16.07.2016, he examined P.W.5 and recorded his statement. He received
Ex.P13- wound certificate from the doctor, according to which, no external
injuries were found over the body of P.W.1. After completion of investigation,
KSR,J
he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 376 read with 511, 323, 509 and 506 I.P.C. and the Court took
cognizance of the same.
3. Four charges were framed against the appellant/accused for the
offences under Sections 376 read with 511, 323, 509 and 506 I.P.C.
respectively, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and
marked Exs.P1 to P13. On behalf of defence, D.W.1 was examined and
Ex.B1- call record of the accused was marked. When examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C., the plea of the accused was one of total denial.
5. After completion of trial, the Special Court found the accused not guilty
of the offences with which he was charged, but found him guilty of
committing the offence of assaulting or using criminal force to any woman,
intending to outrage her modesty, punishable under Section 354 I.P.C.
Accordingly, the Special Court, while acquitting the accused for the offences
charged, convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence
punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. and imposed sentence of imprisonment
and fine as already noted above.
6. Sri O. Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh
Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, strenuously
contended that though the incident has taken place on the night of
27.05.2016, P.W.1 lodged report on 30.05.2016 and P.W.1, being a
Constable, her approach in lodging the report with a delay of three days
KSR,J
cannot be said to be reasonable. He further contends that one Vimal Kumar,
who is a businessman, was frequently visiting the Prohibition & Excise Station
to meet P.W.1 and as the accused and one Dharmaiah, General Secretary of
their association, questioned P.W.1 about the visits of Vimal Kumar, P.W.1
lodged the report with false allegations. He further contends that the
husband of P.W.1, by name T.R. Kumar, has been residing at Dubai, but the
evidence of P.W.3, who was working as Inspector of Prohibition & Excise,
Tirupati, reveals that P.W.1 introduced the said Vimal Kumar to P.W.3 as her
husband. Learned counsel finally contends that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution did not bring home the guilt of the accused even for the offence
under Section 354 I.P.C. and the Special Court erred in convicting and
sentencing the accused for the said offence. He, therefore, prays to set aside
the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused by the
impugned judgment and allow the present appeal.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays for
dismissal of the appeal, contending that the delay occurred in lodging the
report is not huge and abnormal and in a case of this nature, the state of
mind and reputation of the victim has to be kept in mind and, thus, the delay
cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. He further contends
that the Court below, having considered the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, has rightly imposed the impugned conviction and
sentence, and no interference therewith is warranted in this appeal.
KSR,J
8. This Court has perused the entire material on record. As seen from
the evidence of P.W.1, the alleged incident took place at about 10.45 p.m. on
27.05.2016 and she raised hue and cry when the accused tried to overpower
her. Even according to P.W.1, the Prohibition and Excise Station, where the
alleged incident took place, is surrounded by residential houses. If that be
so, there was a probability for the residents of the locality to hear the hue
and cry of P.W.1 at the time of the alleged incident. But, none of the
residents were examined by the prosecution to speak about the alleged
incident. Further, P.W.1, in her cross-examination, admitted that she knows
one Vimal Kumar, who is doing business. She also deposed that her husband
has been residing at Dubai. Though, in her cross-examination, P.W.1 denied
the suggestion that the said Vimal Kumar used to come to the Station
frequently to talk to her and as the accused and one Dharmaiah questioned
about the same, she lodged false report, the fact remains that P.W.3, who
was working as an Inspector in the Prohibition & Excise Station where P.W.1
and the accused were working, has categorically stated in her cross-
examination by the defence that P.W.1 introduced the said Vimal Kumar as
her husband, but subsequently, she came to know that the name of the
husband of P.W.1 is T.R. Kumar. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 does not
inspire confidence of this Court. In view of the evidence of P.W.3 that P.W.1
introduced the said Vimal Kumar as her husband and the defence taken by
the accused that P.W.1 lodged a false report as he objected to the said Vimal
Kumar visiting the Station to meet P.W.1, the possibility of false implication of
KSR,J
the accused cannot be ruled out, more so, when the report was lodged three
days after the incident.
9. Further, it can be seen from the evidence of P.W.3 that no entry was
made by P.W.1 in the General Diary about the alleged incident. P.Ws.3 to 5,
who were working as Inspector, Constable and Sub-Inspector respectively in
the same Prohibition & Excise Station, did not support the case of the
prosecution and deposed that P.W.1 did not tell them anything about the
alleged incident either on the date of incident or subsequent thereto.
Further, the evidence of P.W.8 - Civil Assistant Surgeon, who examined P.W.1
and issued Ex.P13- wound certificate, shows that no external injuries were
found on the person of P.W.1 and X-Ray Pelvis and C.T. Brain reports
indicated no bony injury. Though the prosecution sought to produce the call
data record of the accused in support of its case that the accused made
phone call to P.W.1 on the date of incident, since the requirement as
stipulated under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act for admissibility of such
record, was not complied with, the same could not be dealt with or given
credence, as rightly held by the Special Court. Even if it is assumed that the
accused called P.W.1 over phone, when it is not known as to what transpired
during their telephonic talk, mere exchange of phone calls cannot be viewed
with suspicion, when the accused and P.W.1 are colleagues working in same
Prohibition & Excise Station.
10. For discussion above, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution
failed to establish the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt
KSR,J
for the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. and, hence, the
conviction and sentence passed against him is liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction
and sentence passed against the appellant/accused by the Court of VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences
against Women, Chittoor, vide judgment dated 29.11.2018 in Sessions Case
No.19 of 2017, and the appellant/accused is acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. Bail bonds of the appellant/accused shall
stand cancelled and fine amount paid by him, if any, shall be returned to him.
12. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
K. SURESH REDDY, J
Dt: 01.12.2023
IBL
KSR,J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3098 of 2018
Dt: 01.12.2023
IBL
