The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Katka Nageswar Rao
2021 Latest Caselaw 2918 Tel

               HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1883 OF 2009

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment

dated 14.11.2008 rendered by the Court of the Assistant Sessions

Judge, Khammam, in S.C.No.88 of 2008 the appellant approached

this Court by way of appeal.

2. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the judgment of the

trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of

the case; that the learned judge ought to have seen that the

ingredients to constitute the offences punishable under Section

354 and 376 I.P.C. were made out by the prosecution; that the

learned judge erred in disbelieving the evidence of prosecution

witnesses which is cogent and reliable and the learned judge ought

not to have acquitted the respondent/accused on the ground that

no test identification parade was conducted, he did not consider

the evidence of prosecution witnesses in correct perspective; and

therefore, the appeal has to be allowed setting aside the judgment

of the trial Court.

3. Reported to take it as heard by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and also by the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-accused.

4. Now the points that arise for determination are:

(1) Whether the appellant established before the trial Court

the guilt of the respondent-accused for the offences

punishable either under Section 354 I.P.C. or under

Section 376 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

Dr.CSL , J

(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 herein which in turn

needs interference of this Court exercising the appellate

jurisdiction.

POINT No.1:

5. The case of the prosecution as borne out by the charge sheet

is that on 03.05.2007 PW.1 went to Wyra to bring household

articles and after purchase, she boarded an auto and got down at

Gubbagurthy Village and while she was proceeding on NSP canal

by walk to reach her village and when she reached the drainage

canal leading towards Anjanapuram village, the respondent-

accused pounced upon her from bushes, hugged her, dragged her

and when she raised cries Pw.3 and Pw.5 approached her and on

seeing them the respondent/accused fled away.

6. Record discloses that initially a charge was framed for the

offence punishable under Section 354 IPC against the accused and

subsequently another charge was framed for the office punishable

under Section 376 IPC. The respondent/accused pleaded not

guilty of those charges. The evidence of alleged victim i.e. PW.1 is

that on 03.05.2007 at about 4 PM she got down from an auto at

Gubbagurthy village and while she was proceeding on the Sagar

canal bund and when she reached near branch canal, the

respondent-accused approached her and by informing that only

five minutes, he dragged her to the bushes and raped her and

at that time, PWs 3 and 5 who were proceeding in that direction

approached them and on seeing them, the respondent-accused ran Dr.CSL , J

away. PW.1 further that deposed that due to fear she was going by

weeping and on the way Pws 3 and 5 came in the opposite

direction and questioned her, on that she informed them about the

incident. Pw.1 during the course of cross-examination reported

that accused dragged her from the canal bund towards bushes and

raped her. She admitted that accused raped her and when she

came out by weeping and at that time, Pws3 and 5 came by that

side. Pw.1 also deposed that she informed police that accused

committed rape. She further deposed that Pw.3 informed the

name of the accused. Pw.1 further deposed that her clothes were

removed by the accused. The veracity of this version is highly

doubted by the trial Court during the judgment. As rightly

observed by the trial Court, PW.1 appears to have developed her

version, when the same is compared with Ex.P.1 statement. In

Ex.P.1 statement, which is the initial document disclosing the

narration of facts, it is laid down that the accused dragged her

forcibly towards the bushes and at that time, she raised cries and

in the meantime Pw.3 and Pw.5 who were proceeding on a bicycle

witnessed the incident and on seeking those persons, the accused

left her and fled away and Pws 3 and 5 identified the accused. No

satisfactory reason is put forth by the prosecution i.e. the

appellant herein as to why Pw.1 failed to state about the alleged

rape in Ex.P.1. The evidence of Pw.2 is only hear-say. Therefore, it

cannot be considered to be a substantive piece of evidence. Pw.3 in

his evidence stated that while himself and Pw.5 were proceeding on

a bicycle and at that time they heard the cries of a woman and

they went towards the place from which they heard the cries and

on seeing them the accused ran away and they found a woman Dr.CSL , J

and they also found that her clothes were with dust. Pw.3 during

the course of cross-examination stated that when they saw, they

found Pw.1 and accused in compromising manner. Pw.5 gave

evidence to the effect that by the time himself and Pw.3 reached

the place of incident they found Pw.1 along with the accused and

her sari being removed and Pw.1 weeping. Neither Pw.3 nor Pw.5

gave evidence to the effect that Pw.1 informed them that the

accused raped her. The contradictory statements and versions

putforth by Pw.1 made her evidence highly doubtful and unreliable

and therefore, the trial Court found respondent-accused not guilty

of offence charged. Pw.1 in her chief examination itself at one

stage stated that the accused raped her and on seeing Pw.3 and

Pw.5 he ran away from the scene of offence and again took another

stand in the chief examination. She deposed that while she was

going weeping on the way Pws.3 and 5 approached her by coming

in the opposite direction and on questioning she informed about

the incident to them. Even the evidence of Pw.3 and 5 is not

consistent. Pw.3 during the course of cross-examination stated

that himself and Pw.5 chased the accused, Pw.5 did not state

anything of that stand. In the same manner, when Pw.3 stated

that they found Pw.1 with cloths dust, Pw.5 during the course of

cross-examination stated that the sari of Pw.1 was found removed.

Thus considering these discrepancies and unreliable material that

was brought on record, the trial Court passed judgment of

acquittal. Pw.1 proceeding from the scene of offence crying and

meeting Pw.3 and Pw.5 on the way, Pws.3 and 5 chasing the

accused are not found in Ex.P.1, complaint. Thus such unreliable

material cannot form basis for convicting the respondent-accused.

Dr.CSL , J

Therefore, this Court holds that the appellant-prosecution failed in

establishing the guilt of respondent-accused beyond all reasonable

doubt either for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC or

for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC before the trial

Court.

POINT No.2:

7. When the judgment of the trial Court is meticulously

perused, this Court finds that the trial Court by considering all the

aspects of the case, including the facts and the points that were

discussed supra has come to just conclusion. None of the grounds

urged stands for consideration in the light of the well reasoned

judgment. Therefore, this Court holds that said judgment needs

no interference.

8. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming

the judgment dated 14.11.2008 rendered by the Court of the

Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, in S.C.No.88 of 2008.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ Dr. JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA 21.10.2021 Nvl