Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P, vs Morigadi Shyam, S/O. Narsimha on 6 March, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.1531 OF 2009
Between:
The State of A.P. rep. by
Public Prosecutor ... Appellant
And
Morigadi Shyam. ..Respondent/accused
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 06.03.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
Wish to see their fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No.1531 of 2009
% Dated 06.03.2024
# The State of A.P.
rep. by Public Prosecutor ... Appellant
And
$ Morigadi Shyam ..Respondent/accused
! Counsel for the Appellant: Public Prosecutor
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1531 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by
the acquittal recorded under Section 354 IPC and Section
3(1)(xi) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 vide judgment in SC No.36
of 2007 dated 15.02.2008 passed by the Special Sessions
Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act at Nalgonda.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 02.12.2004
at 10.00 a.m when P.W.2 went out towards water tank for
grazing goats, the accused caught hold of her and pulled her.
In the incident, the blouse and petticoat were pulled and
threatened not to raise any alarm. On hearing her, P.Ws.3 and
5, who were also grazing goats in the nearby fields rushed
towards the victim girl (P.W.2). On seeing them, the accused
let her off and escaped from there. On the very same day at
5.00 p.m, victim girl informed to her parents and complaint
was lodged.
3. Learned Sessions Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and
marked Exs.P1 to P7 on behalf of the prosecution. MOs.1 and
2 which are torn wearing apparel of victim/P.W.2 were also
marked. Learned Sessions Judge, having considered the
evidence on record found that the case against accused was
filed as a counter blast case to the case filed by the accused
against Sarpanch Anjaiah and two others namely, N.Kumar
and N.Gopal. Further, there was an altercation with P.W.2
since she was grazing goats without permission of the accused
in his fields.
4. Learned Sessions Judge further found that P.Ws.1 to 5
who stated about the incident belong to one family. According
to the witnesses, the place where P.W.2 was grazing goats was
visible to P.w.5 and P.W.3. However, she stated that they came
to the place of incident 10 minutes after the incident. The
allegation that MOs.1 and 2 which are wearing apparel of the
victim girl were torn by the accused, however, the said tearing
of the clothes by the accused when the incident happened was
not stated in the complaint. If really, MOs.1 and 2 were torn at
the incident when the accused used force, there would have
been a mention in the complaint itself.
5. Learned Sessions Judge further found that Ex.P1 is
silent about the presence of P.W.5 at the time of the incident.
However, it is the case that after the incident P.W.5 was the
person who brought her back to the house. If the place where
P.W.2 was grazing goats was visible to P.Ws.3, 4 and 5, the
accused would not have made any attempt to molest PW.2.
6. On the basis of the said finding, learned Sessions Judge
recorded acquittal.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the
evidence of P.W.2 would suffice to infer that the incident has
taken place and on account of the force used by the accused,
wearing apparel was torn. The circumstance in itself would
indicate that the accused had committed the offence.
8. The trial Courts have the benefit of recording evidence
and also examining demeanor of the witnesses. Further, the
assessment about the witnesses and sequence of events
narrated by the witnesses, the trial Court would be in an
advantageous position to adjudicate upon the cases. In cases
of acquittal recorded by the trial Courts, after conducting trial,
in reinforces the factum of innocence of accused. Unless there
are compelling circumstances to interfere with the findings of
the Trial Judge, the appellate Court cannot interfere with such
orders of acquittal.
9. Learned Sessions Judge had clearly indicated in the
judgment that there was a motive for false implication and
P.W.1 was responsible for false implication. P.Ws.1 to 5 are
family members and the very narration in the Court that
P.W.5 went to the place of incident and brought her back is
not mentioned in Ex.P1. The tearing of clothes in the incident
on account of use of force by the accused is also not
mentioned in the complaint. Further, when P.Ws.3, 4 and 5
were at a visible distance, the possibility of the accused
indulging in such acts would not arise. Further, there was an
altercation regarding P.W.2 grazing goats in the fields of the
accused.
10. The said findings of the learned Sessions Judge do not
require any intervention since they are reasonable and based
on the evidence on record.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.03.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o.kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1531 OF 2010
Dt. 06.03.2024
kvs
