CRLA/624/2009 of State of A.P., Vs Pusuluru Ramababu, on 29 December 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABADTHURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OFDECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

Present

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.624 of 2009

Between:

State of A.P.

.. Appellant

AND

Pusuluru Rambabu

.. Respondent

The Court made the following:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.624 of 2009JUDGMENT:

The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment inS.C.No.392 of 2004, on the file of the Additional AssistantSessions Judge, Tenali, dated 19.11.2004, by which theaccused was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”).

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhattiprolu, filed acharge sheet in Crime No.43 of 2004 alleging that on 05.05.2004

at 4.00 p.m. when Pulivarthi Annamma was going towards theoutskirts of Pallekona Village to the west to answer calls ofnature, the accused chased her, caught hold of her, forciblyembraced her and fell on her. On hearing her cries, PulivarthiManikyamma and Pulivarthi Mariyamma warned the accused,but the accused threatened them and escaped. On theinformation of Annamma, her husband Bhushanam informed thecaste elders and the accused did not attend before the elderswhen they called him. Then Bhushanam gave a report to thepolice on 10.05.2004, which was registered and investigatedinto. The scene of offence was examined before Mediators andthe accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the charge.

3. On appearance of the accused before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Repalle, inP.R.C.No.12 of 2004, which was taken cognizance by theMagistrate, copies of the documents were furnished to him andthe case was committed to the Court of Session. On the casebeing made over to the trial Court, charges under Sections 354and 506 I.P.C. were framed against the accused who denied thesame. During trial, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 5and marked Exs.P-1 and P-2 and the accused denied theincriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence againsthim when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973. Ex.D-1 was marked on behalf ofdefence and no other defence evidence was produced.

4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgmentreferring to the factual background and the rival contentions and noted that Ex.P-1-Report specifically referred to the names ofthe caste elders in which the name of P.W.4 was not found. The named mediators cited by the prosecution were given up,but the person not named was examined as P.W.4. The trialCourt also noted that only close relatives were cited as casteelders and P.W.2 was noted to have admitted some others to bethe caste elders of Pallekona Village. The version of P.Ws.1and 2 about the meeting convened by the caste elders was alsofound not to refer the alleged insistence by the caste elders toproduce the accused when his senior paternal uncle attendedthe meeting. The trial Court also noted the unexplained delay inreporting to the police of about five days and the improbability ofthe accused indulging in such an offence when he was agedabout 16 years and P.W.2 was aged about 30 years and amother of two children. P.W.2 was noted to have admitted thatthe accused is her son by courtesy and used to call her as“Chinnamma” and her husband as “Babayee”. The trial Courtalso noted the suggestions about the earlier disputes betweenthe families and the failure of the Investigating Officer to fix thescene of offence was also taken adverse notice of. The Court,therefore, refused to believe the version of the prosecution aspresented to it and found the accused not guilty.

5. The State, represented by the learned PublicProsecutor, came up with this appeal contending that theevidence of the witnesses was reliable and trustworthy and thecrime against the woman should have been dealt with seriouslyin proper perspective and, hence, desired the acquittal to bereversed.

6. Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counselrepresenting the learned Public Prosecutor/the appellant andSmt. A. Jana Kumari, learned counsel representing therespondent are heard.

7. The point for consideration is whether there areany strong grounds for interference with the judgment ofacquittal.

8. P.W.2 is the alleged victim and she admitted thereport to the police being given on 10.05.2004 regarding theincident on 05.05.2004. The scene of offence was stated by herto be at a distance of 5 yards from the road and at about 4.00 p.m., the possibility of independent passers-by moving onthe road being very much there, no such independent personbeing attracted by the incident deserves to be noted. The roadwas stated to be the main access road to the village and thefields. P.W.3 and Manikyamma were stated to be going to thefield to bring firewood at that time and they are patentlywitnesses by chance requiring independent corroboration beforeacceptance. P.W.2 did not go to the meetings convened by thecaste elders and she admitted that there were disputes betweenKrupa Rao, S/o. Manikyamma and the father of the accused andshe also admitted that there were several cases against P.W.1previously. P.W.1, her husband, was also admitted to behaving illicit intimacy with one Chinnamma and a case was filedagainst him by her brother-in-law in Bhattiprolu Police Station. She further admitted that the accused is aged only 16 years andthe caste elders named by her were not the persons relied onby the prosecution as the caste elders involved.

9. P.W.1, the husband of the alleged victim, deposedas though the information from P.W.2 was about the incidenthappening while she was going to the easing ground contrary tothe claims of P.W.2 about the incident happening after sheanswered the calls of nature. The senior paternal uncle of theaccused who was allegedly attending the meetings before thecaste elders was not named and P.W.1’s evidence admitsP.W.3 and Manikyamma to be closely related to P.Ws.1 and 2. While there were no other independent eyewitnesses orcircumstantial witnesses, P.W.1 also admitted that the accusedis his son by courtesy and he calls him as “Babayee”. Theevidence of P.W.1 also shows that all other witnesses cited ascaste elders, etc., are also closely related to them. The placeof offence was stated by P.W.1 to be road between Bhattiproluand Repalle at a distance of 100 feet from the road and hisclaim that P.W.2 also attended the meetings by the caste elderswas contradicted by P.W.2. P.W.1 conveniently claimedignorance about the disputes between Krupa Rao and the fatherof the accused and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is necessarilytainted with interestedness.

10. P.W.3 claimed that she and Manikyamma foundthe accused attempting to close the mouth of P.W.2 lying on theground and being attracted by the cries of the lady and the roadwas admitted by her to be a busy road with movement of busesand traffic, making nobody else being attracted by the incidentunnatural. P.W.3 did not observe whether anybody from thehouse of Aluru Veeraiah, intervening between the scene and theroad, witnessed the incident and P.W.3 admittedly did not inform about the incident to anybody including the parents of theaccused and the caste elders or village elders. She deniedstating to the police as in Ex.D-1 and the non-examination ofManikyamma who was given up, removed the opportunity tocompare the claims of P.W.3 with such evidence.

11. P.W.4, the alleged caste elder, speaking about themeetings convened by the caste elders stated that the seniorpaternal uncle of the accused was assuring to bring theaccused before the Panchayath, but as observed by the trialCourt, P.W.4 was never referred to in the earlier version as oneof the caste elders, while the named caste elders were given upand not examined. The Sub-Inspector of police who conductedthe investigation stated as P.W.5 that the investigationdisclosed the witnesses cited to be closely related to P.W.1. He did not even enquire about the relationship between theaccused and P.W.2 and he does not know about the eldersconvening meetings for four days. The version of P.W.5 aboutwhat P.Ws.1 to 4 stated to him during investigation had grossvariations from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and the claim thatthe family of the accused left the village after the incident onlydue to the incident also does not appear natural. The earliestversion in Ex.P-1 made no reference to the paternal uncle of theaccused responding to the call by the caste elders and theversion that P.W.3 and Manikyamma dropped P.W.2 at thehouse after the incident was not specifically the version in theevidence. All the above circumstances are such as wouldmake proof of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt notpossible and the trial Court also had the benefit of observing thedemeanour of the witnesses on whom it did not rely on. The reasoned conclusions of the trial Court for giving the benefit ofreasonable doubt to the accused do not appear to besusceptible for interference for any strong reasons. Thecriminal appeal has to, hence, fail.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

___________________

G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

thDate: 29December, 2011

KL

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.624 of 2009

Date: 29thDecember, 2011

KL