The State Of Telangana vs Kodagandla Sanjeeva
2022 Latest Caselaw 2693 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.156 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed by the State against acquittal

recorded under Section 376 r/w 511 of IPC in S.C.No.618 of

2012 vide judgment dated 01.08.2019 by the Special Sessions

Judge for Fast Tracking of Cases relating to Atrocities against

Women-cum-IX Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal (for

short 'the Sessions Judge).

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that a complaint

Ex.P1 was filed on 27.01.2012 alleging that P.W.1/defacto

complainant-victim and her husband-P.W.2 were sleeping in

their house. Suddenly, the respondent/accused woke her up

and on seeing the respondent/accused, she raised hue and

cry, as such, the neighbours-P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 caught hold of

the respondent/accused and tied him to a tree and beat him

up.

3. The charge under Section 376 r/w Section 511 of IPC

was framed against the accused. The Sessions Court examined

P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 on behalf of the

prosecution. The respondent/accused, in defence, examined

D.W.1, the Doctor and also marked Ex.D1-in-patient case

sheet.

4. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of chief

examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 found that the

respondent/accused was standing in their house by their side

when she woke up in the night, as such she shouted for help.

Since there was no allegation of any act of the

respondent/accused nor P.W.1 stating about anything done

attempting to rape, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the

accused/appellant for the charge under Section 376 r/w

Section 511 of IPC. Further, the accused was also treated by

D.W.1, the Doctor from 27.01.2012 to 01.02.2012 for receiving

injuries.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the

respondent/accused was present in the house and when

P.W.1 shouted for help, the neighbours P.Ws.3 to 5 came to

their rescue and caught hold of the respondent/accused and

tried him to a tree. The respondent/accused was also beaten

up by the villagers.

6. It is settled proposition of law that to interfere in a case of

acquittal there needs to be strong evidence both legal and

factual, which were not considered by the trial Court before

recording the acquittal. When the view taken by the trial Court

is plausible and no infirmities are found, the question of

interfering in the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court

does not arise.

7. Accepting the prosecution case that the

respondent/accused was present in the house of P.Ws.1 and 2

on the night of 27.01.2012, at the most, the offence is one of

trespass. Even according to P.W.1, the respondent/accused,

did not, in any manner come into physical contact with P.W.1,

as such, the question of attempting to commit rape does not

arise. As already stated, admitting the entire case of the

prosecution, the same may amount to criminal trespass and

for the reason of the respondent/accused not coming into

physical contact with P.W.1 and when P.W.1 has not stated

anything about the respondent/accused, except his presence

in the house, no case is made out for the offence under

Section 376 r/w 511 of IPC.

8. For the said reasons, the appeal filed by the State fails

and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly

dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending, shall stand closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 14.06.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.156 OF 2020

Date: 14.06.2022

kvs