The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Madavi Laxmikanth Pavan,
2021 Latest Caselaw 516 Tel

               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

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

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

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