Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 749 (AP)

State of A. P. v. Pasala Mani

2011-09-08

R.KANTHA RAO

body2011
JUDGMENT This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 07.09.2004 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur, Nellore District in S.C. No.168 of 2002 acquitting the respondent/sole accused for the offence under Sections 376 and 511 of IPC. 2. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and Dr. K.Satyanarayana Rao, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. It was the case of the prosecution that on 14.02.2002 at about 10.30 a.m. PW.3 victim girl aged six years, who came from the school during interval and while she was waiting at the petty shop of PW.6, the respondent carried her away forcibly to the house of PW.3, when her parents were away for coolie work, he removed her underwear and his lungi and then PW.3 raised cries. Thereafter, it is said that PW4-student studying in the same school, P.W.5 neighbour and PW.6-petty shop owner saw the respondent fleeing away from the house of PWs.1 and 2. 4. Subsequently, on a report lodged by PW.1, the father of the victim girl, a case in Crime No.31 of 2002 came to be registered against the respondent/accused, was investigated into and charge sheet came to be filed against him. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case before the learned Sessions Judge, examined PWs.1 to 7, marked Ex.P.1 to P.4. DW.1 was examined on behalf of the respondent. The learned trial Court upon considering the entire evidence on record acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 376 read with 511 IPC, against which the present appeal is preferred by the State. 6. Now the point for determination in this appeal is: Whether there are any reasonable grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court? 7. Basing on the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge recorded a finding that it was usual practice when PWs.1 and 2 go for coolie work, they used to lock the front door of their house by keeping drinking water outside the house to enable PW.3 to drink the water during interval time. 7. Basing on the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge recorded a finding that it was usual practice when PWs.1 and 2 go for coolie work, they used to lock the front door of their house by keeping drinking water outside the house to enable PW.3 to drink the water during interval time. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge also recorded a finding basing on the evidence that the shop of PW.6 is far away from the house of PWs.l and 2, if really PW.3 was forcibly carried away by the respondent, normally it would have attracted the attention of several people, who were present in the vicinity, but, no witness witnessing the said incident was examined by the prosecution. PW.6, who is the crucial witness in this case in front of whose petty shop, PW.3 was standing and was subsequently carried away by the respondent/accused, did not support the case of the prosecution. 8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge further took into consideration that there were two rival groups in the village, the prosecution party belongs to one group, whereas the respondent party belongs to another group and there was every possibility for falsely implicating the respondent due to political rivalry. 9. PW.3 was aged six years on the date of incident, whereas PW.4 was aged 11 years on the date of incident. Both the witnesses are child witnesses they being susceptible for tutoring, it is quite unsafe to rely on their testimony to convict the respondent. This is one of the factors which prompted the learned trial Court to give benefit of doubt to the respondent. 10. One of the crucial aspects in this case is that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report and registering the case by the police after they received the report from PW.1. According to the prosecution, the incident took place at 10.30 a.m. on 14.02.2002, PW.I lodged the report on the next day i.e. 15.02.2002, but the police registered the case on 06.03.2002. In view of the enmity between the parties, there is every scope for introducing a distorted version by the prosecution and therefore, in a case of this nature where there is inordinate delay in registering the case by the police, in relation to a report lodged by PW.1 on the same day of the incident the evidence of prosecution witnesses requires strict scrutiny. The prosecution in this case failed to explain both the delays, which is fatal to the prosecution case. 11. Unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are not based on evidence and are perverse, this Court will not reverse the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, even if a different view is possible. 12. For what all stated hereinabove, the judgment passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondent for the offence under Section 376 read with 511 IPC is in accordance with evidence brought on record before it and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. There are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 13. In the result, the criminal appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent is dismissed.