The State Of Ap Rep By Pp vs Velupula Govardhan,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2956 Tel

          HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1190 of 2012
JUDGMENT:

1. Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment dated

10.7.2007 rendered by the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge, Suryapet, in Sessions Case No.362 of 2006, the appellant

approached this Court by way of appeal.

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

Sessions Judge, Suryapet, rendered judgment which is contrary to law,

weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the learned judge

of the trial Court ought to have seen that the ingredients to constitute

the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C.

were made out by the prosecution; that the learned judge ought to have

seen that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is fully corroborated with each

other and that it is supported by the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and

Ex.P-2; that the learned judge erred in appreciating the evidence of

P.W-1; and that the learned judge ought to have believed the evidence

of P.Ws.1 and 2 and convicted the respondent-accused and therefore,

the acquittal of the respondent-accused is unsustainable.

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

Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-accused.

4. Now the points that arise for determination are:

(1) Whether the appellant, as contended in the

grounds of appeal, had successfully established the Dr.CSL , J

guilt of the respondent-accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under

Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C.

(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, which in turn requires the interference

of this Court exercising the appellate jurisdiction.

5. Point No.1:

The case details, as could be culled out from the charge sheet,

are that on 12.4.2006 at about 9.30 am., while P.W-1 was in the

bathroom, which is located at the backyard of her house, the

respondent-accused, whose house is located quite opposite to the

house of P.W-1, entered into the said bathroom by scaling down the

wall, caught hold of P.W-1 and tried to outrage her modesty and when

she raised cries, her mother and neighbours approached there and on

seeing them, the respondent-accused left her and escaped by scaling

over the wall.

6. Record discloses that as the respondent-accused pleaded not

guilty of the charge framed, the learned judge of the trial Court

proceeded with the trial of the case, examined the witnesses and

recorded their evidence and putting their evidence, i.e., the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.P-1 to P-4, to scrutiny came to a conclusion that

the appellant failed to establish the guilt of the respondent-accused Dr.CSL , J

beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge framed against him and

therefore, acquitted the respondent-accused. The conclusion arrived at

by the learned judge of the trial Court is under challenge in this

appeal.

7. As rightly projected in the grounds of appeal, the material

witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of

P.W-1 is that the respondent-accused is her classmate and she is

studying II year B.Sc., and on 12.4.2006, while she was taking bath,

the respondent-accused came from behind, caught hold of her having

scaled down the wall of her bathroom, which has no roof, and he

approached her only with an underwear and when she raised cries, her

mother came and on that, the respondent-accused left her. P.W-1

during the course of cross-examination stated that she did not receive

any injuries when the respondent-accused caught hold of her and she

did not resist him except raising cries.

8. The evidence of P.W-2, who is the mother of P.W-1, is that

there is no roof to the bathroom of her house and on the date of the

incident, she heard the cries of her daughter, rushed there with a stick

under an impression that her daughter would have raised cries on the

menace of monkey and that she saw the respondent-accused catching

hold of P.W-1 and on seeing her, he left P.W-1 and he was wearing

only cut drawer at that time.

9. The evidence of P.W-3 is that about one year back, she was

informed by P.Ws.1 and 2 that the respondent-accused approached

P.W-1, caught hold of her while she was taking bath and later, he ran Dr.CSL , J

away. P.W-3 during the course of cross-examination stated that she

has not seen the respondent-accused running away.

10. The evidence of P.W-4 is that about one year back, at about 9

am. or so, he got boarded his sister in an auto and while he was going

back, he saw the respondent-accused coming in the opposite direction

and thereafter, himself and the respondent-accused went together and

that himself and the respondent-accused went to their respective

houses. He deposed that he saw some gathering at the house of P.W-1

and he heard the gathering telling that the respondent-accused scaled

down the wall from the bathroom of the Sarpanch of

Venugopalapuram and he caught hold of P.W-1 in the bathroom.

11. The prosecution based its case mainly on the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 4, of course, coupled with the evidence of P.W-5 who spoke

about Ex.P-2-panchanama and the evidence of P.W-6 who

investigated the case.

12. It is not enough for the prosecution to place before the Court the

details of the case through the witnesses. The prosecution is burdened

to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As

rightly observed by the learned judge of the trial Court, P.W-4 never

stated that he saw the respondent-accused only with a cut drawer, as

contended by P.Ws.1 and 2. Further, in case, the respondent-accused

was running away after committing the crime, the evidence of P.W-4

who observed the same while coming in the opposite direction would

have been otherwise. It is highly improbable for a person to normally Dr.CSL , J

receive another person who is unusually dressed in a normal way and

accompany him on a public road.

13. The version of the prosecution is that P.W-3 saw the

respondent-accused running away. But, P.W-3 during the course of

cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

deposed that she has not seen the respondent-accused running away

but P.Ws.1 and 2 informed her about the incident.

14. Thus, considering this unsatisfactory evidence produced by the

prosecution, the learned judge of the trial Court came to a conclusion

that the prosecution failed in its attempt to establish the guilt of the

respondent-accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. This Court does not find any grounds whatsoever to come to a

different finding. Therefore, this point is answered holding that the

prosecution failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt

before the trial Court.

16. Point No.2:

When the evidence of the witnesses is scrutinized, this Court

finds that the said evidence, as rightly observed by the learned judge

of the trial Court, could not form basis for giving a judgment of

conviction. The learned judge of the trial Court analysing all the facts

of the case in their right perspective came to a conclusion that the

respondent-accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The said finding

cannot be interfered with. None of the grounds urged can be held

applicable for coming to a different verdict.

Dr.CSL , J

17. Thus, in the light of the findings given on point Nos.1 and 2, the

Criminal Appeal stands dismissed confirming the judgment dated

10.7.2007 rendered by the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Suryapet, in Sessions Case No.362 of 2006.

_________________________ Dr. JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA 25.10.2021 dr