The State Of A.P. Rep. By. The Pp vs Rasuri Sayappa 8 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4263 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.483 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The State aggrieved by the acquittal of the appellants for

the offence under Section 354, 504 and 506 of IPC vide

judgment in SC No.129 of 2006 dated 19.11.2007 passed by

the Assistant Sessions Judge at Vikarabad, R.R.District.

2. In all, there are 9 appellants, who according to the

prosecution have picked up quarrel with P.W.2 on 12.04.2006

at 8.00 a.m. In the process, the husband, P.W.1 interfered

and it is alleged that all the appellants have beaten both the

husband and wife. The said acts of the appellants amounted

to outraging the modesty of woman.

3. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge by impugned

judgment dated 19.11.2007 acquitted all the appellants for the

offence under Sections 354, 504 and 506 of IPC and convicted

A1, A3 and A4 for a period of one year under Section 324 of

IPC.

4. It is informed that on an appeal, A1, A3 and A4 were also

acquitted for the charge under Section 324 of IPC against

which no revision is filed by the State.

5. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the

complaint Ex.P1 does not disclose any incident with regard to

the outraging the modesty of woman nor any specific overt

acts attributed about the appellants. Learned Assistant

Sessions Judge found that the writings about the outraging

the modesty and section of law were subsequently added with

a different pen. For the reason of discrepancy with regard to

evidence amongst the prosecution witnesses regarding the

saree of P.W.2 being removed, the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge found that two appellants pulled the saree of P.W.2.

However, P.W.2 stated that in the altercation, the saree came

off. However, P.Ws.5, 6 and 7 stated that PW.5 wrapped the

saree around P.W.2. When the complaint itself does not

contain a mention of allegation of removal of saree and when it

is subsequent improvement during the trial, the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge found that there allegation of outraging the modesty was false and due to the disputes

amongst the parties, they cannot be convicted under Section

354 of IPC.

6. The finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge are

reasonable and on the basis of the contradictory evidence of

the prosecution witnesses. Further, the allegation about

removing the saree was not made in Ex.P1 complaint, for

which reason, the learned Assistant Sessiosn Judge acquitted

all the appellants under Section 354 of IPC.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna

Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian

criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental

protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation.

Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and

secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation.

Both these facets attain even greater significance where the

accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment

of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false

implication. But then, this has to be established on record of

the Court.

8. For the foregoing reasons, when the judgment of the trial

Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, the

question of interference by the appellate court through appeal

against the acquittal does not arise. The appeal lacks

bonafides.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 24.08.2022 kvs HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.483 OF 2009

Date: 24.08.2022.

kvs