The State Of A.P., vs Gajakanti Seethaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 3774 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1876 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

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

the offence under Sections 448, 354 and 323 of IPC vide

judgment in SC No.402 of 2006 dated 06.12.2007 passed by

the Assistant Sessions Judge at Miryalaguda, filed the present

appeal.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.06.2006, the

respondent trespassed into the house of P.W.1 and caught

hold of her hand and further asked to have sexual intercourse

with him. P.W.1 shouted for help and her husband came to

her rescue. On seeing her husband/P.W.2, the respondent

ran away. On the next day, the said incident was complained

to the village elders. However, the respondent did not come

before the elders, for which reason, complaint was lodged.

3. The trial Court having examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.P1

to P4 found that the appellant was not guilty for the said

offences alleged.

4. Sri Sudarshan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submits that a reading of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is

apparent that the respondent had trespassed into their house

and caught hold the hand of P.W.1 and behaved

inappropriately. It attracts offences of criminal trespass and

outraging the modesty of a woman. The trial court lost sight of

the evidence and acquitted the respondent. For the said

reason of not appreciating the evidence on record, the

acquittal has to be reversed.

5. The trial court found the respondent not guilty of the

offences for the following reasons; i) The alleged incident took

place on 16.06.2006, whereas the complaint was lodged after

four days on 20.06.2006 and there is no explanation for delay;

ii) According to P.W.1, when the respondent entered into the

house, he bolted the door as mentioned in Ex.P1, however, it

is highly improbable that P.W.2, her husband had entered the

bolted house when it is bolted; iii) There is no mention of

P.W.3 in the complaint and if at all P.W.3 was present at the

scene, his name would have been mentioned in Ex.P1

complaint; iv) During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not

make a mention about the presence of P.W.3 when the alleged

incident took place, for which reason, the case is also

doubtful.

6. The finding of the trial Court cannot be found fault with

when there are glaring discrepancies in the evidence. It is not

explained as to how the husband of P.W.1 entered into the

house. According to the complaint, the respondent bolted

from inside. The reason for delay as stated in P.W.1's evidence

was that the next day morning when summoned by elders in

the village, the respondent did not turn up, for which reason,

the complaint was lodged. However, as seen from the

complaint, it was lodged with a delay of four days and the said

delay remains unexplained. Further, the evidence of P.W.3,

who is allegedly is a witness to the incident casts any amount

of doubt as P.W.3 states that he along with his wife went to

the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 and found the respondent catching

hold of P.W.2's collar. If at all P.W.3 had intervened during

the alleged incident, the same would have been mentioned in

the complaint.

7. The case of the respondent in the lower court is that

there were disputes between their families, for which reason,

he was falsely implicated in the case without any such

incident occurring. Admitting that there are differences

between both the families, it may either lead to false

implication or the incident had occurred due to the said

disputes. However, keeping in view the discrepancies, which

remained unexplained during the course of trial, this Court is

not inclined to interfere with the findings of the trial court.

8. 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

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

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.

9. When two views are possible, the view which is

favourable to the accused has to be considered and more so,

in a case of acquittal, when there are no glaring infirmities in

the finding of the trial court, the order of acquittal cannot be

interfered with.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a

sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall

stands closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 18.07.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1876 OF 2009

Date: 18.07.2022.

kvs