The State Of A.P. vs Sheelam Raji Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 4869 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.999 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by

the acquittal recorded by the Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge,

Warangal, in S.C.No.24 of 2007, dated 03.09.2007, acquitting

the accused for the offences punishable under Section 354 of

the Indian Penal code.

2. The case against the accused is that on 15.09.2006, at

about 10.00 A.M. at the outskirts of Abbapur village, while

PW1 was spraying the urea in the fields of

accused/respondent, the accused caught hold of her hand

and embraced her, thereby attempted to outrage the modesty

of PW1-victim, for which reason, she was frightened and went

home. On the next day, she informed the incident to her

husband PW2, who lodged a complaint Ex.P1, upon which

the police registered a case and issued FIR-Ex.P3. On

completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the

accused/respondent.

3. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, having recorded the

evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and marking Exs.P1 to P4 found that

the respondent/accused was not guilty for the offence under

Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, for the following

reasons.

a) Though witnesses PW.2 to PW4 were examined, all the

said witnesses were not eye-witnesses to the alleged

incident of respondent trying to outrage the modesty of

the victim in the fields.

b) Though the complaint was filed on 16.09.2006 and FIR

was issued on the same day, the said FIR reached the

Court after three days and the said delay was not

explained.

c) Ex.D1 portion of statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

was marked, in which PW4 stated that on the date of

incident, she and her husband were in their house, as

such witnessing the incident cannot be believed.

4. In the said circumstances the Court felt that the

allegations against the respondent/accused could not be

substantiated.

5. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge is based

upon the evidence which was adduced during the course of

trial. In fact, the delay of three days that occurred for

reaching the FIR to the Court was also not explained. The

witnesses PWs.2 to 5 were not eye-witnesses to the alleged

incident. There is no requirement of any corroboration from

any other witnesses in cases, such as these. However, PW1

stated that she along with PW3 and PW4 were at the fields

spraying urea, but, PW3 and PW4 did not state that they

have witnessed the incident. In the said circumstances,

benefit of doubt can be given to the respondent/accused. I

see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned Judgment of

the learned Sessions Judge.

6. The Honourable Supreme Court in N.Vijayakumar v.

Sate of Tamil Nadu 1 held that in cases of appeals unless

compelling reasons and sufficient grounds or strong

circumstances are shown, the appellate Court in an appeal

against acquittal shall not interfere with the findings of the

AIR 2021 SC 766

trial Court, though a different view can be taken. It is further

held that the Honourable Supreme Court has cautioned

interference in appeal against acquittal when the conclusions

of the trial Court are reasonable.

7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by the

State fails and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J

Date: 23.09.2022 tk

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.999 OF 2009

Dated: 23.09.2022

tk