The State Of A.P. vs Nayakuni Bal Raj
2022 Latest Caselaw 4959 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1152 of 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The State filed the present appeal questioning the acquittal

of the respondent/accused for the offence under Sections 354

and 306 of IPC vide judgment in SC No.361 of 2006 dated

12.10.2007 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at

Sangareddy.

2. The case of prosecution is that the respondent on

03.05.2006 made an attempt to outrage the modesty of the

deceased namely Chakali Bichamma while she was in the

outskirts of the village washing clothes. When the deceased

shouted for help, P.W.1 rushed to the spot and respondent ran

away from there. The deceased felt insulted and poured kerosene

on herself and set fire. She was taken to the hospital and her

statement was recorded while she was taking treatment. On the

basis of the said statement, a case was registered and the

Magistrate was also called for recording of Dying Declaration of

the victim. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed

charge sheet for the said offences.

3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the

respondent on the ground that; i) there are no independent

witnesses to the alleged assault on the deceased trying to outrage

her modesty; ii) The Dying Declaration recorded by the Magistrate

and Sub-Inspector did not have the endorsement that the

deceased was in a fit state of mind and that she could make a

statement.

4. Admittedly, the deceased died while undergoing treatment

for burn injuries. When the statement was recorded, the Doctor

did not endorse that the deceased was conscious, coherent and

in fit state of mind to give statement. In the absence of any such

certification by the Doctor, the statement of the deceased cannot

be relied upon. However, the prosecution can seek corroboration

to the statement made by the deceased. In the present case,

P.W.1 was the only person who had rushed on hearing the cries

of the deceased and found the respondent fleeing from the place.

P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution about seeing

the respondent molesting the deceased but stated that he was

found running away from scene. Further PW1 did not state about

any narration by the deceased regarding the incident.

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 the said circumstances, there are no grounds to

interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court

to reverse the finding of acquittal of the accused.

7. For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Appeal is

liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 28.09.2022 kvs

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1152 OF 2009

Dated: 28.09.2022

kvs