The State Of Telangana vs Mohammad Yousuf Ali
2022 Latest Caselaw 2886 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.101 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:

1. State filed the present appeal questioning the judgment

of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act

Cases at Nalgonda in (for short 'the Sessions Court') in

S.C.No.46 of 2017, dated 16.10.2019 acquitting the

respondent/accused for the offences under Section 323, 504

and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1) (r ) (s) and Section 3(2)(va) of

the SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of

2015').

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the respondent

and P.W.1 entered into physical relation ten years prior to the

complaint. The respondent/accused, who was a government

employee, was providing money for her household

expenditure. The wife of the respondent came to know about

him and P.W.1/victim, such the respondent deserted P.W.1.

However, one year prior to the complaint, the

respondent/accused came into contact with P.W.1/victim and

they started living together. Again, the wife of

respondent/accused and children having noticed the affair,

picked up quarrel with the respondent and P.W.1. However,

they came to a consensus and settled the issues, whereby

P.W.1 was to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-.

3. On 20.09.2016, P.W.1/victim came from Nakrekal to

Nalgonda bus stop and while she was waiting for an auto, the

respondent/accused allegedly came to the place and abused

her in the name of her caste, attracting penal provisions under

the Act of 2015. Further, the respondent/accused caught

hold the hair of P.W.1, slapped her and kicked her. Aggrieved

by such incident, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint on

07.10.2016.

4. Learned Sessions Court examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and

marked Exs.P1 to P7 produced by prosecution. After

consideration of evidence, acquitted the respondent/accused.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the

learned Sessions Judge had grossly erred in recording

acquittal when the evidence of P.W.1 clearly attracts the

offence under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections

3(1) (r)(s) and Section 3(2) (va) of the Act of 2015. The finding

of the learned Sessions Judge recording acquittal is not

convincing and for the said reason, the order of acquittal

recorded by the learned Sessions Judge has to be reversed.

6. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the

respondent/accused on the following grounds; i)There is a

delay of nearly 17 days in lodging compliant, though it is

alleged that incident took place on 20.09.2016, the said

complaint was lodged on 07.10.2016 and the said delay itself

is not explained and apparently, the said compliant is an

afterthought; ii) Admittedly, both the respondent and P.W.1

lived together for a period of ten years and separated after a

settlement iii) due to dispute regarding payment of Rs

20,000/- there is every likelihood of making a false

compliant. iv) Though P.W.1/victim says that she had

received injuries, there is no medical record or any Doctor was

examined to substantiate that she had received any injuries at

the hands of the respondent/accused. In the said

circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge found that the

case against the respondent/accused was not proved beyond

reasonable doubt, for which reason, the acquittal was

recorded.

8. In a case of acquittal, when the State argues for

interfering with the order of acquittal and seeks conviction by

reversing the judgment, strong reasons have to be made out.

It is not enough to say that a different view is possible. In a

case of acquittal when the view of Trial Court is plausible and

convincing, though any other view is possible, the same

cannot be considered. The said principle has been

continuously laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

also several High Courts while dealing with appeals against

orders of acquittal.

9. It is for the prosecution to explain the delay of 17 days in

filing the compliant and there is no reasoning on record given

by P.W.1 regarding the delay of 17 days in lodging complaint.

When it is the specific case of P.W.1 that she received injuries

when allegedly assaulted by the respondent, it is necessary

that convincing evidence regarding receiving of such injuries

has to be produced before the court either by examining the

Doctor or any independent witness, since such alleged assault

had taken place on the main road at Nalgonda Bus Stand.

Though, independent witness P.W.4 was examined, he turned

hostile to the prosecution case. Further, the other

circumstantial and eye witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 did not

support the case of P.W.1 regarding the alleged incident of

assault and further they stated in the Court that they are not

witnesses to the alleged assault by the respondent/accused.

10. The burden of proving the case is always by adducing

cogent and reliable evidence to convince the court regarding

the prosecution case being correct. The infirmities and

inconsistencies which are found in the criminal cases form

basis for disbelieving the prosecution case, when such

infirmities and inconsistencies go to the root of the case and

disprove the version of prosecution witnesses.

11. It is not necessary that there should be corroboration to

the evidence of victim/PW1, however in the present case, the

evidence of P.W.1 is not supported by any independent

witnesses, which is required in the facts and circumstances of

this case. It is necessary in the back ground of their physical

relation for ten years and for the reason of non-explanation of

the delay in lodging the complaint for 17 days.

12. In the said circumstances, there are no grounds to

interfere with the order of acquittal by the Sessions Court and

accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. As a

sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stands

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 17.06.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.101 OF 2021

Date: 17.06.2022

kvs