JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed questioning the acquittal of the respondent/accused vide Judgment dated 02.04.2024 passed in S.C.No.124 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Peddapalli, for the offences under Sections 452, 354, 354C and 376 read with Section 511 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2016 at about 04.00 P.M. the victim, who is PW.1, lodged a written complaint before Julapalli Police Station stating that on 14.08.2016 at about 09.00 A.M. while PW.1 was taking bath in her bathroom, she found that the accused has captured her images in a cell phone. She raised hue and cry as such the accused entered into the bathroom, closed her mouth, tried to commit sexual assault on her and also threatened her with dire consequences that he would publish her photographs.

3. On the basis of the complaint, police have registered a case and filed charge sheet against the accused. During the course of investigation, M.Os.1 and 2 were seized.

4. Learned Sessions Judge having examined the evidence placed on record, found that the version given by PW.1 could not be believed. Though PW.1 stated that the incident took place on 14.08.2016 the complaint was lodged on 19.08.2016. It creates any amount of doubt regarding the correctness of the complaint when there was no explanation given regarding the delay. Learned Sessions Judge further found that according to PW.1, she snatched the cell phone of the accused on the date of the incident. However, the police have shown that M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered at the instance of the accused during the course of investigation, which did not contain any pictures of PW.1.

5. Learned Sessions Judge further found that there was no image of PW.1 in the cell phone which negates her version that the accused was capturing her images while she was taking bath.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that though there were contradictions and inconsistencies which crept in during the trial, the same cannot be made basis to disbelieve the entire version of the prosecution.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

8. Learned Sessions Judge found that there was a delay of five days in lodging the complaint which admittedly remained unexplained. Regarding M.Os.1 and 2 which were placed before the Court below during the trial, PW.1 stated that she snatched the cell phone from the accused, however, the police stated that it was seized at the instance of the accused, during the course of investigation. Most importantly the alleged images were not found in the cell phone.

9. In cases of acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another, [(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536], held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

10. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450] the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:

“70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would hav