D.Shyamala vs. M.Srinivasulu

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

Criminal Appeal No.938 of 2008

Judgment:

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment dated 29.02.2008 passed in SC No.101 of 2007 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati, whereby respondents 1 to 4 herein/A-1 to A-4 were found not guilty of the charges framed against them and, accordingly, they were acquitted.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 16.01.2005, as the complainant was not doing well, her friends went to her house in the morning and gave some tablets. At that time i.e. at about 9.00 or 09.30 a.m., all the accused, along with some other people, went to the complainant's house, started shouting defamatory words using filthy language and trespassed into her house. A1 and A2 pushed the complainant out of the house by catching hold of her hair to knock away the property of the complainant. They showed knife and threatened to kill her, if she does not sign in blank papers and forcibly obtained her signatures. They also shouted that if she sells the house to

anyone else, then she would not be there in this world. A1 and A3 caught hold of the complainant and pulled her saree and tore her blouse, due to which she fell down and thus they outraged her modesty. The other accused shouted using filthy language, scolded the complainant and went away by challenging that on one day or the other they would throw her away from the house and threatened her with dire consequences. The complainant approached the police and gave a report against the accused.

3. As the police did not take any action, she filed a complaint before the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, which was forwarded to the police, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation and to file report. The police registered the same as a case in Crime No.43 of 2005 and later referred the case as false. On receiving the notice from police, the complainant filed a protest petition before the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati and, after examining the witnesses, the complaint was taken on file as PRC No.33 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 384, 448 and 506 IPC against the accused and subsequently the case was committed to the Court of Session, Chittoor, since the offence under Section 354 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court

of Session. The said case was numbered as SC No.101 of 2007 and thereafter the same was made over to the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati, for disposal.

4. On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 448 and 506 IPC against A1 to A4, under Section 354 IPC against A1 and A3 and under Section 384 IPC against A1 were framed, read over the contents and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P1 was marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied.

7. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked.

8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the charges levelled against them and, accordingly, acquitted them, vide impugned judgment dated

29.02.2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the complainant preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard. Perused the material on record.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ complainant submitted that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the accused on the ground that there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which would not go to the root of the case to disbelieve the entire case of the complainant.

11 There is no representation on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4/A1 to A4.

12. The point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in acquitting the accused is sustainable in law or not.

13. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That

presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to reappreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because there is a presumption under law that accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same.

14. Going by the contents of the complaint, coupled with the evidence of the complainant PW.1 and her friends PWs.2 and 3, on the date of the incident, as PW.1 was not doing well, PWs.2 and 3 went to her house at about 08.30 a.m. and when they were intending to take PW.1 to the hospital, the accused along with

other henchmen high-handedly entered into the house of PW.1 and accused Nos.1 to 4 are alleged to have abused PW.1 in filthy language and demanded her to vacate the house. A2 caught hold of the hair of PW1 and A1 caught hold of her right arm and dragged her out of the house and abused her asking her to sign on papers. When PW1 questioned them and attempted to escape, A1 pulled her saree and A3 tore her blouse. They did not allow PW1 to go into the house. Then, A3 took out a knife, kept it on the neck of PW1 and asked her to sign on the papers shown by A4. Thereafter, all the accused together obtained her signatures forcibly and later they went away by threatening PW1 with dire consequences.

15. Going by the version of the accused in their Section 313 Cr.P.C., examination, it is admitted that there are civil disputes between PW1 and the accused. PW1 suppressed the fact to the extent that there are civil disputes between them and she has not come to the Court with true facts. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution from the people residing in the apartments which are adjacent to the scene of offence and the people who are going on the road are not even examined by the prosecution.

16. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 shows that there is any amount of inconsistency in her evidence. In her crossexamination, she categorically stated that on 10.01.2005 she gave a representation requesting the officials of the Tirupati Municipality not to change her name in the municipal records as she came to know that the name of A2 was being mutated in the records. She denied the suggestion that on 17.12.2003 after receiving Rs.7,20,000/- she executed sale deed in favour of A2 in respect of the house plot in which her husband also signed as witness. It is pertinent to mention here that PW1 admitted that she filed Writ Petition No.14704 of 2005 before this Court against A2, Tirupati Municipality and its officials for a direction not to dispossess her from the house and to receive tax from her. All the aforesaid facts have not been brought to the notice of the Court by the complainant, which go to the root of the case and it is fatal to her case. It is quite evident that, during the course of cross-examination, when the copy of Writ Petition was shown to PW1, she categorically admitted her signatures. In the light of the aforesaid civil disputes, which are not disclosed in the complaint, no cogent evidence has been brought on record by PW1. There are inconsistencies in the sworn statement of PW1 made before

the Magistrate and in her evidence given before the Court. For the first time in the Court, PW.1 stated that A1 and A3 caught hold of her, pulled her saree and torn her blouse. She further stated that A3 took out a knife, kept it on her neck and threatened her and at the instance of A4, PW1 signed on the papers given by A4. These aspects were not stated by PW.1 before the Magistrate at earlier point of time. The statements that are made by PW.1 before the Court are improved versions and no reasons have been given as to why the same have not been stated before the Magistrate. On a perusal of the entire material on record clearly goes to show that all the statements that are made by PW1 are improved versions, and at the same time, there is suppression of fact that civil disputes are pending between PW1 and A2 which goes to the root of the case. The trial Court, after taking all the said aspects into consideration, has rightly acquitted the accused there are no reasons to interfere with the same.

17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment passed by the Court below is unambiguous, and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.

18. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 29.02.2008 passed in SC No.101 of 2007 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

Date:02.11.2023 Asr/Nsr /DRK

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

Criminal Appeal No.938 of 2008

Date:02 11.2023

Asr/Nsr /DRK