Ravi Sharma v. State

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J' SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.589 0F 2015 ORDER: This Criminal Appeal has been hied by the State aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Sessions Case No.278 of 2l,OO7 dated 05 11 2OO7 whereunder the respondent / at:cusecl is acquitted for the offences under Sections 354 427, 294(b) and 506 of IPC and he is convicted for l.he offence under Section 323 IPC' 2 The c,ase of the prosecution briefly stated as under: "The bri,:f avennents of the charge sheet are that this is a case of assault $-ith criminal tbrce with an intentiorl to outrage the mo<1est1.', rnischief causing damage, voluntarily causing simple and repot-ted on 18.03.2007' That on 18 O3-2007 the complainant Tallapatli Nannaiah came to police station Utnoor and loclgeri a written complaint by stating that on 17 3 07 at about i':O0 p.m while he along with relatives chitchatting about the engag3ment of his nephew Vijaya, his brother's son' the acused hr:reinwho wuld pay an amount of Rs'20'00O/ - to Vijaya at the tin e of her marriage which was due to her' inentinally intrfert:d in the engagement not to hx the marriage and came there rvitl an axe in drunken condition abused them invulgar language in obscene words- The complainant and ohters caught hc,ld of him but he beat the complainant arrd his son .....4 2 ANagesh with hands. ON seeing this the wife of Nagesh namely Lalitha came to rescue her husbald and the ccused abused her also in vulgar lnauge, cqaught hold her neck and pushed her on the ground and removed her saree by insulting her modesty. l,ater he bit one Srinu over his leg and beat T. Venkatapathi and T. Raju with hands. Due to fear Vijaya an{ her mother went inside the house and closed the doors. On seeing this, he damaged the house door with axe and threatened with dire consequences. The vi age elders Kendre Ramarao, Kendre Pandari and some others came and brought the accused from there-"

3. Heard Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public prosecutor. No representation on behalf of respondent/accused either in physical mode or virtual mode.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor submits that the respondent/accused has committed the offence punishable under Section s 354, 422, 294(b) arrd 5O6 of IPC and 323 of IpC. However, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 354, 427, 29a(b) and 5O6 of IpC and only convicted for the offences under Sections 323 of IpC, though the prosecution proved the case by producing oral and documentary evidence. \.. _----- . idf,* :.?"'a+qr -:, ;- ';1 ;:'t-:. ."' l,earned Additional Public Prosecutor further 5. submits that the prosecution discharged the burden to prove the commission of the offences by the respondent,/ a<:cused by producing oral and documentary evidence. However, the learned Sessions Judge rrvithout properly appreciating the evidence passed the impugned judgment, r>nly convicted the respondent/ accused for the offence unclet Section 323 of IPC, though he is liable for punishment t,lr the other offences

6. Havir-rg regarcl to the submissions made by the learned Adclitional Public Prosecutor and after perusal of the record, it reveals that basing on the complaint dated 18.03.2007 lodged by the P'W 1, who is the father-in-law of the victim i.e., P.W-3, registered a crime uide Ctirne No.58 of 20O7 against the respondent/ accused for the offences uncler Section s 354, 427,294(b) and 506 of IPC and 323 IPC.

7. The Investigating Ofhcer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet and the same was numbered a.s PRC No.17 of 2OO7' Subsequently' the said 4 I case was committed to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabvad

8. On behalf of the prosecution, p.Ws- 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.p-l to p_7 were marked. For defence evidence, D.Ws 1 and 2 were examined. At the instance of the prosecution, M.O.-1 was marked.

9. Learned Sessions Judge aJter taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 354 354, 422, 294(b) and 506 of IpC. However, proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishabie under Section 323 IpC ald convicted the accused for the said offences.

10. Learned Sessions Judge after evaluating the evidence of P.W- 1, p. W-2 and p.W_3 held that three different versions are spoken and there was no intention or force of accused on p.W_3 to commit outrage of modesty. Taking into consideration of the evidence, learned Assistant Sessions Judge come to a conclusion ': 5 that the ingredients under Section 354 IPC cannot be attracted against the respondent/ accused'

11. It is also revealed from the record that the prosecution has not produced any material bvidence to prove the offences under Section 427 lPC The learned Assistant Sessions Judge after considering the evidence of P.Ws- 1 and 2, P.W-3 come to a conclusion that the prosecution itas not recorded any panchanama to show thc value of tl-re property damaged' Hence the ingredients under Sectio n 427 IPC is not made out against the accused.

12. Insofar as the offence under Section 506 IPC on behalf of prrlsecution, one Pandari and Ramarao were examined. Ilowever, Ramarao turned hostile and Pandari was given uP bY the Prosecution'

13. In respect of the offence under Section 294-b IPC Ievelled agarnst the respondent/ accused eith'er in the complaint or in the charge sheet or in the evidence of P.Ws-2 and 3, there was no mention about the specific words abust:d against P.Ws-2 and 3' Hence, the learned Sessions ,Ju,lge rightly held that in the absence of specific 6 allegations of the abused words, the ingredients under Section 2948 was not atlracted.

74. It is relevant to mention that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence that the accused was presented with M.O.l at the scene of offence. However, the prosecution seized M.O.1 in the absence of respondent/accused, learned Sessions Jude after due verification of the evidence of p.Ws_2 and 3, righ tly come to the conclusion that the ingredients under Section 294B IPC is not attracted against the respondent/accused.

15. l,eaned Sessions Judge after evaluating the evidence rightly held that the respondent/accused has committed the offence under Sectio n 323 IpC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay line of Rs.SOO/- in default suffer R.I. for a period of one month.

16. lrarned Additional public prosecutor, basing upon the information received from the concerned olficers, submits that the respondent/accused has not filed Appeal aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge insofar as to the extent of imprisonment -':.' .,' .t' 7 for the offerLces under Sections 323 IPC and he undergone 1-h,: imprisonment and also paid fine amount In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 17 . Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi| and anotherr, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether thc trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed,. Thr: reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presurrlption of innocence in favour of the accused' Thus, the appellate court has to be reiatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal'

18. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 the Hon'ble Sullreme Court after referring to several Judgments rrrgarding the settled principles of law and the powers o1' z,ppellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at paraTO, as follows: "7O. ln ,-rre light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well- settlerl principles crystallized by number of '(zozz) s scc s:o t (zooa) to scc aso o Judgments if it is going to overmle or otherwise disturb the trial court,s acquittai:

1. The appellate court may only overmle or otherwise disturb the trial court,s acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasonsll for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and cornpelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. ..Very substantial ald compelling reasons" exist when: i) The trial court,s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably \.ry.rong: ii) The trial court,s decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii) The trial court,s judgment is likely to result in 'grave miscarriage of justice"; iv) The entire approach of the tria_l court in deaJing with the evidence was patentiy illegal; v) The trial court,s judgrnent unjust and unreasonable; was manifestly vi) The tria.l court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is exhaustive. intended to be illustrative, not 'F'Yffiz ,,,,: r 9

2. The appellate cr)urt must always give proper weight and considereLtion o the frnd'ings of the tria-l court' 3. If two reasonat>1e views can be reached- one that leads to accl'rittal, the other to conviction -the High CourtsT appellate courts must rule in favour of the accusr:d'"

19. For the foregoing reasons' this Court does not find any ground to interfe re with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge Adilabad in S'C' No.278 of 2OO7 dated 05' 1 l '2OO7 '

20. According,ly, the Criminal Appeal filed by the State faiis and s here'bY dismissed' Miscellaneor.rs petitions, if any' pending in the Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed' SD/. K.SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY/' ,.I SECTION OFFICER To, a

1. The Assistant Sessions Judge^al Adilabad : 4 Two ccs to the puorc p?ci#lluiJi"H'idn c""t r"i th" state of relansana at " s. Ohe CC to Sri Thadikonda Koteshwara Prasad' Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD CoPies +n: {ijl;; li3:'sp,.:l ]',i, Hvderabad [OUT] Ad i I a b a d D i st ri ct "lils:Jiatio.n, g3 : NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 ORDER CRLA.No.S89 of 2015 I :.-. iT [[T 2U5 /' ..,, DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL