Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 795 (AP)

Anka Pedda Seshaiah v. State of A. P.

2008-09-18

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

body2008
JUDGMENT: The accused, who is the appellant herein, was tried by V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad in S.C.No.265 of 2002 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354 and 379 read with 511 IPC. The learned Judge, having considered the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to P3 marked on behalf of the prosecution, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. Questioning the judgment dated 5.11.2003, the appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal. The case of the prosecution in brief is that PWs.1 and 2 are the wife and husband. On the night of 15.3.2001, at about 03:00 A.M., while PW1 was sleeping in her hut under the cover of mosquito net along with her son, who is aged two years, the appellant entered the hut with an intention to commit rape on her, caught hold of her hand, took her out by force and asked her to come by the side of the hut stating that he came for her only. Then, PW1 beat him with an iron basket over his head and raised an alarm. When the appellant was trying to escape, about 20 hut-dwellers including PWs.3 and 4 came there and caught the accused. PW4 informed over telephone about the incident to the police, who visited the spot and took the accused into custody. On the basis of the complainant lodged by PW4, who is the brother-in-law of the victim, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.72 of 2001 under Sections 59 and 70(a & c) of City Police Act and thereafter released the appellant on bail. On 27.3.2001, at about 9.15 P.M., PWs.1 and 2 went to the police station and gave a report about the incident that took place on 15.3.2001. On the basis of which, another case in Cr.No.41 of 2001 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. On 27.3.2001, at about 9.15 P.M., PWs.1 and 2 went to the police station and gave a report about the incident that took place on 15.3.2001. On the basis of which, another case in Cr.No.41 of 2001 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellant for the alleged offence punishable under Section 354 IPC Sri K.S.Rahul, learned counsel for the appellant, has mainly contended that the registration of F.I.R. in Cr.No.41 of 2001 itself is illegal for the reason that Cr.No.72 of 2001 was already registered. According to him, either the police or the investigating agency can register only one FIR with regard to the offence, and the police, having registered a petty case in Cr.No.72 of 2001 under Sections 59 and 70(a & b) of the City Police Act, ought not to have registered Cr.No.41 of 2001 and filed the charge sheet. In this context, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the material placed on record. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, in my considered view, is definitely binding and the question of registration of the second FIR in any case would not arise. Once a crime is registered and if some subsequent events come to the notice of the investigating agency, the police can alter the FIR but the question of registering another crime would not arise. Once a crime is registered and if some subsequent events come to the notice of the investigating agency, the police can alter the FIR but the question of registering another crime would not arise. Office in charge of the police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Even after conclusion of the investigation in pursuance of filing of the FIR and submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, if the officer-in-charge of the police station comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, normally with the leave of the Court and forward further evidence, if any collected, with further report or reports to the Court as contemplated under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The defence taken by the accused is that they belong to different political groups and on the date of the incident, only on the basis of the information furnished by the victim and others, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who was examined as PW6, registered a petty case in Cr.No.72 of 2001 under the provisions of the City Police Act and according to them, it is only because of the intervention and pressure of the political leaders, another F.I.R. in Cr.No.41 of 2001 was registered with all developments. I find force in the said submission. In fact, the evidence of PW6 is also to the effect that on the intervening night of 15/16.3.2001, he received a telephone call from PW4 stating that one Anke Pedda Seshaiah (the appellant) trespassed into the house of his brother and was making nuisance in a drunken condition and on that he along with other members went to the huts situated at Maruthi Nagar and found a group of persons in front of the house of the victim woman. The appellant was present in the custody of the group of persons and PW6 enquired the complainant i.e. PW1 and the local persons and came to know that the appellant trespassed into the hut of PW1 in a drunken condition, caught hold of her hand and dragged her out. His evidence clearly establishes as to what happened on the intervening night of 15/16.3.2001. His evidence clearly establishes as to what happened on the intervening night of 15/16.3.2001. The FIR in Cr.No.41 of 2001 was registered on 17.3.2001 i.e. about two days after Cr.No.72 of 2001 was registered and as it is stated that they belong to two political parties the possibility of intervention by politicians cannot be ruled out. The statement made by the accused at the earliest point of time i.e. on the intervening night, appears to be correct. If really the accused had the intention to outrage PW1's modesty and he assaulted her which attracts the provisions of Section 354 IPC, the victim i.e. PW1 would not have missed to state those factual aspects in her evidence. The record i.e. Ex.P2, produced by the Doctor, who was examined as PW8, clearly reveals that the appellant consumed alcohol and fell down at Santosh Nagar and he was under the influence of alcohol. When such was the situation, the question of the accused approaching PW1 with an intention to outrage her modesty may not arise. So, the earlier version that on the basis of a report, a petty case was registered under the provisions of the City Police Act appears to be correct and it is only after deliberations, Cr.No.41 of 2001 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, investigated into and the charge sheet was filed. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the accused-appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence impose on the accused-appellant by V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, vide judgment dated 5.11.2003 are set aside. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.