The State Of A.P., vs Thalluri Sreenu,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4342 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1573 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

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

the offence under Section 376 of IPC vide judgment in SC

No.345 of 2005, dated 30.01.2008, the present appeal is filed.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 who is the

victim was acquainted with the respondent/accused. When

she went to mango garden of one Vasu Babu to cut grass for

the cattle, the respondent came from behind and caught hold

of her, pushed her down and lifted her langa and raped her. In

spite of the resistance, the respondent did not leave her and

after the incident, she went to the house carrying grass and

the respondent went ahead of her on cycle up to her house.

PW1 shouted for help when the respondent was committing

rape and she kicked the respondent with her leg, for which

reason, the mud stains of the chappal of the victim were

printed on the shirt of the respondent. On the same day when

the husband came home, he was informed about the incident.

The said matter was taken to the elders, where the respondent

stated that he can commit rape on any number of women, for

which reason, the complaint was lodged.

3. Learned Sessions Judge found the respondent not guilty

for the offence of rape for the following reasons; i) Though the

victim narrated that there was resistance and shouting, none

of the villagers who were in the fields have noticed the

situation; ii) P.W.1 stated that there were small stones on the

ground, but due to the acts, she has received injuries, but

neither the Doctor nor the police have seen any such injuries

on P.W.1.

4. Further, it was also stated that her bangles of right hand

were broken, for which reason, she received scratch injuries

on right arm. However, no such injures were found during her

examination. The alleged incident happened in the mango

garden and even according to the victim-P.W.1, there were

other villagers nearby and in the event of any such shouting

by P.W.1, the villagers would have come to her rescue.

Further, on the facts and circumstances of the present case,

the learned Sessions Judge found that P.W.1 was a consenting

party to the sexual intercourse with the respondent. There are

no substantial reasons to interfere with the findings of the

learned Sessions Judge. The circumstances narrated by the

learned Sessions Judge are probable and reasonable.

5. 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

accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false

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

the Court.

6. In view of the above, the well reasoned findings of the

trial Court cannot be interfered with.

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.08.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1573 OF 2009

Date: 26.08.2022.

kvs