Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Chilaparapu Bhaskara Veera Swamy – Respondent
CRLA 551/2010
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 509, 307 and 354 - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of appellate court's interference - Appellate court should not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse, contrary to evidence, or patently illegal leading to miscarriage of justice - Presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal - If two views are possible, the one favouring accused should be adopted. (Paras 10, 11, 43-45)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 378(1) and (3) - Appeal against acquittal - Delay in lodging FIR - Undue or unreasonable delay in lodging FIR gives rise to suspicion and puts court on guard - Delay must be satisfactorily explained - Inordinate and unexplained delay is fatal to the prosecution's case - Even delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate must be reasonably explained. (Paras 24-30)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354 - Outraging modesty of woman - For offence under Section 354, criminal force must be applied against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty - Test is whether the action of the offender is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman - Specific words and actions must be alleged and proved. (Paras 37-40)
Facts of the case:
The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 509, 307 and 354 of the IPC. The case arose from an incident where the complainant (PW.1), the sister of the accused, alleged that when she questioned the accused about removing fuses from an agricultural motor, he caught her hair, pushed her down, and insulted her modesty. It was further alleged that the accused then attempted to attack her husband (PW.2) with a knife. The incident was allegedly witnessed by PWs.1, 2, and 3. The complaint (Ex.P1) was submitted seven days after the incident. The accused had also filed a counter-complaint regarding the same incident. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Findings of Court:
The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, found that the Trial Court's judgment was not perverse and was based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The Court noted material contradictions in the testimonies of PWs.1 to 3, the inordinate and unexplained delay of seven days in lodging the FIR and in forwarding it to the Magistrate, the lack of corroboration by independent witnesses, the existence of prior civil disputes between the parties, and the failure of the prosecution to prove the specific words alleged to have outraged the modesty of PW.1. Consequently, the High Court upheld the acquittal.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal was perverse or unreasonable, and whether the High Court should interfere with the order of acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the findings of the trial court are perverse, contrary to the evidence, or patently illegal leading to miscarriage of justice. As the Trial Court's judgment was a possible and plausible view based on the evidence, including the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, and the failure to prove the ingredients of the offences, the acquittal was upheld.
Result: Criminal Appeal No.551 of 2010 dismissed. Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court confirmed. (Paras 47 and 48). No dissenting opinion.
The Court made the following JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal, under sections 378(1) and (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) is preferred by the Appellant / State against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.410 of 2006 by its judgment dated 08.09.2008 acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under sections 509, 307 and 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).
2. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court, which is challenged under this appeal. It consisted of evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.8 and M.O.1, were marked. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D.1 to D.5 were marked.
3. The facts in a nutshell, which give rise to the present appeal, are as follows:
(a) The accused and the de facto complainant (PW.1- Alluri Subba Lakshmi) are residents of Tanuku. PW.1 is the accused's sister, and her husband (PW.2-Alluri Madhavarao) is an advocate at the Tanuku Bar Association. PW.3 (Chilaparapu Brahmanandam) owns Ac.3.50 cents of agricultural land situated at K.Illindaraparru village, which had been cultivated by the accused. Subsequently, PW.1 purchased the said land and has been in possession and enjoyment of it with full rights from 28.03.2006. On 11.07.2006 at about 9:30 AM, PWs.1 and 2 went to the said field, where her father, PW.3, was already present. PWs.1 and 2 stopped their vehicle and proceeded towards the cattle shed. The accused was also present there and was removing the fuses of the agricultural electrical motor. PW.1 questioned him about why he was removing the fuses and asked him who he was. At that point, the accused abused her, caught hold of her hair, pushed her down, and insulted her modesty.
(b) PW.2 ran to her rescue and pushed the accused away. The accused, who is also her brother, then threatened her, stating that he had planned to kill her that very day. He brought a knife from the cattle shed and attempted to attack her, but PW.2 intervened and saved her. The accused again approached them with the knife, forcing them to run towards the road. PW.3 stopped two auto drivers, Addala Rambabu (PW.5) and Maddalasetti Subbarao (PW.6), who were passing by. They came to their rescue, disarmed the accused, and took the knife from him. The accused continued abusing them in filthy language and threatened to kill PW.2 before fleeing the scene. The accused had pre- planned the attempt to murder PW.1. PW.1 then went to the police station and submitted a written report regarding the incident. The Sub- Inspector of Police received her report and registered a case in Crime No.59/2006 for offences under Sections 509 and 307 of the IPC at Iragavaram Police Station on 18.07.2006 at 4:00 PM, and commenced investigation.
(c) During the investigation, the Sub-Inspector visited the scene of the offence and prepared a scene observation report in the presence of mediators Kadali Venkata Satyanarayana (PW.7) and Gubbala Satyanarayana (PW.8). He secured the statements of PWs.1 to 6. On 20.07.2006, the Sub-Inspector received information regarding the presence of the accused at his field at K.Illindaraparru village. He arrested the accused at 7:45 AM at the field, seized the knife, and prepared a mediator’s report in the presence of the same mediators. The accused was then remanded to judicial custody.
4. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Sections 509, 307 and 354 of IPC against the accused. Upon his appearance before the Court, copies of the relevant documents were furnished to him as mandated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. After hearing the submissions made by the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel on the question of charge, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 509, 307 and 354 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The Trial Court examined the accused as requir
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
