Telangana High Court
Lendugure Shankar vs The State Of A.P. on 11 August, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.796 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is convicted for the offences under Sections 452
and 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two years on each count and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-
each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two
months on each count and the appellant is further sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment
for a period of one month vide judgment in Spl.S.C.No.45 of 2008
dated 15.07.2009 passed by the Special Judge for trial of cases
under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, Adilabad. Aggrieved by the
same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant is from the
same village where P.W.1 victim resides along with her mother-in-
law-P.W.3 and husband P.W.2. On 05.01.2008, P.W.2 went to
attend party meeting. On the next day i.e., on 06.01.2008 when
P.Ws.1 and 3 were sleeping in two separate rooms, the appellant at
1.00 a.m in the night removed the tiles from the room and entered
the room and caught hold of the hand of P.W.1 and demanded to
fulfill his sexual desire. P.W.1 shouted for help and P.W.3, mother-
in-law entered into the room and also started shouting. On hearing
their shouts, neighbours P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 and others gathered and
by the time, the appellant fled.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged
incident occurred on 06.01.2008 whereas the complaint was filed
on 14.01.2008 with a delay of eight days. The said delay is not
explained by the prosecution. Further, there were disputes
regarding money and the P.W.2 was due an amount of Rs.2,000/-
from the appellant, for which reason, to avoid payment, false
complaint is filed.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the act of
the appellant is clear case of outraging the modesty of women
punishable under Section 354 of IPC and for the said reason, the
conviction recorded by the trial Court cannot be interfered with.
5. The alleged incident took place on 06.01.2008 and the
complaint was filed on 14.01.20008. The delay of eight days is not
explained by the prosecution. P.Ws.1 and 3 did not give any reason
as to why, even though several persons have come down on the day
of incident, was not complained to the police or to the village elders.
Even in the complaint Ex.P1, no reasons are assigned for the delay
in lodging the complaint. Further, the complaint Ex.P1 was given
by P.W.1 victim herself.
6. The alleged incident also becomes doubtful. As seen from the
sketch and scene of offence panchanama, there are three entrances
which are shown to the house and the tiles shown to have been
removed. However, as seen from the sketch Ex.P6, no separate
rooms are shown and place where P.W.3 was sleeping is not shown.
For the said reasons, the narration of the story is also doubtful.
Both for the reasons of improbability and the delay in lodging the
complaint not being explained, the conviction recorded by the
learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside and accordingly set
aside.
7. In the result, the impugned judgment in Spl.SC No.45 of 2008
dated 15.07.2009 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Since
the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. As a sequel
thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:11.08.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.796 OF 2009
Dated:11.08.2022
kvs
