Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1205 (AP)

S. Inderjeet Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2012-12-03

RAJA ELANGO

body2012
JUDGMENT This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-accused No.2 against the conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.55 of 2002 on 26.7.2005. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: PW1 lodged a complaint on 13.10.1999 at about 16.00 hours at Kachiguda Police Station alleging that after the incident of the previous day, both the accused Harvinder Singh and Inderjeet Singh alias Sonu have visited her STD Booth and took her to the main road in front of the STD Booth. Her husband informed to police of Kachiguda Police Station and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, over a telephone about the incident. Meanwhile, the accused have torn her nighty, made her breast naked, causing scratch marks and tried to cut and damage the same and her husband intervened and stopped A1 from further cutting her nighty. It is alleged that both the accused tried to rape her on the main road in the presence of 100 to 150 people. A2 proclaimed that "Aaz Tere Ko Main Public Ke Samne Nanga Kar Ke Poora Kachiguda Me Ghoomavunga", and A1 proclaimed that "Aaz Tum Dono Ko Kill Kar Ke Rahoonga". It is further alleged that she sustained injuries over her body including hand and breast and. both the accused are their neighbours and they are jealous and are trying to damage her carrier, business, prestige and also life. 3. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. On committal, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad took the matter on file and made over the same to the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad for disposal. 4. The learned Sessions Judge after following due procedure, framed charges under Sections 354, 323 and 509 read with 34 IPC against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of the accused. 6. 5. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of the accused. 6. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant-A2 alone guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months, while acquitting him for the offences under Sections 354 and 509 read with 34 IPC and also acquitting accused No.1 for all the charges levelled against him. Challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, the appellant accused No.2 filed this appeal. 7. Heard and perused the material available on record. 8. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no specific overt acts were attributed against each of the accused and basing on such evidence, when the trial Court has given the benefit of doubt insofar as the other accused, the same analogy should have been adopted against the appellant also and apart from that, there was a delay in lodging the complaint and that the injuries suffered by the complainant are self-inflicting injuries. Hence, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 9. The complaint was lodged on 13.10.1999 at about 16 hours. The incident was alleged to have occurred on 13.10.1999 at about 10.15 a.m. There is no proper explanation forthcoming for the delay caused in lodging the complaint. 10. In Ex.P1 complaint, it is stated that Inderjeet Singh and his brother Harvinder Singh came before the STD Booth of the complainant and started to beat her before the booth and took her to the main road in front of STD Booth and when her husband informed to P.S. Kachiguda and told the situation to the Sub-Inspector, Veerappa, Kachiguda, he denied to help them and he did not send the force at right moment. Her husband informed to helpline of Police 1090 and contacted DCP, Hyderabad. But, she was on leave as confirmed by her office on telephone. Meanwhile, Inderjeet Singh and Harvinder Singh tore off her nighty, made her breast naked, made scratch marks on them, tried to cut and damage the same. Her husband informed to helpline of Police 1090 and contacted DCP, Hyderabad. But, she was on leave as confirmed by her office on telephone. Meanwhile, Inderjeet Singh and Harvinder Singh tore off her nighty, made her breast naked, made scratch marks on them, tried to cut and damage the same. Her husband interfered and stopped Harvinder Singh from further cutting her nighty and damaging her breasts. Both the accused tried to commit rape on her on the main road. At least 100 to 150 people saw the incident. Inderjeet Singh told her "Aaj Tero Ko Main Public Ke Samane Nanga Karke Pura Kachiguda Mein Ghoomauga" Harvinder Singh told "Aaj Tum Dono Ko Kill Kar Ke Rahoonga". 11. On a perusal of the material available on record, the fact that remains undisputed is that the accused and PW 1 are interrelated. However, due to pendency of civil and criminal cases between them, they are not in good terms. 12. A careful scrutiny of the contents of Ex.P1 report does not indicate the specific overt averts against each of the appellant and the Ist accused. But, it is obvious that the allegations were made in Ex.P1 against the appellant and the Ist accused. In such a situation, the Court below has disbelieved the contents of Ex.P1 insofar as the 1st accused is concerned. But, no reason is assigned by the Court below for not adopting the same analogy insofar as the appellant is concerned. Apart from that, Ex.P1 has also not been supported by any trustworthy evidence and especially, the medical evidence. 13. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant-A2 are not just and proper and also not based on a sound reasoning and therefore, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. 14. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant-accused No.2 are set aside and accordingly, he was acquitted for the offence under Section 323 IPC. The fine amount paid, if any by the appellant, shall be refunded to him. 15. However, it is made clear that the judgment under appeal insofar as the other findings are concerned, remains undisturbed.