YAMANAMMA Vs. NARASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of the appellant s counsel , and also the respondents counsels.

(2.) The brief material facts of the case are that, at about 11.30 p.m. , on 12.06.2003, when the complainant went to attend nature cal l, at that time, the respondent came and made an attempt to rape her and when she screamed at the spot, the persons who were there near the place, rushed to the spot and chased the respondent and he fel l down and he was apprehended and information was sent to the pol ice and police came and took the respondent and complaint is given to the police and police have registered a case for the of fence punishable under sections 376, 511, 506 of IPC and under section 3(1) (xi ) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The pol ice after the investigation have f iled the charge sheet against the respondent herein for the of fence punishable under sections 354, 506 of IPC and under section 3(1) (xi) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and left out the of fence of 376 and 511 of IPC. The Court below has framed charge for these three offences and examined the witnesses PWs.1 to 11 and also got marked the documents exhibits P.1 toP.6 and exhibit D.1, portion of complaint exhibit P.1. The prosecution also rel ied upon M.O.No.1 white dhoti . The Court below after hearing both the parties, acquitted the respondent/accused for the of fences alleged against him. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal , the appel lant/complainant has f iled this appeal before this Court.

(3.) The grounds of the appeal are that the Court below has given more importance to minor contradictions and fai led to consider the evidence available before the Court and the same amounts to miscarriage of justice. The other contention that looking to the entire evidence on record, the lower Court ought to have convicted the accused for the charges framed against him holding that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and presumptions have not been drawn by the Court below and the observation made by the Court below in respect of the injuries to the accused to the effect that the vil lagers must have assaulted him and used criminal force on him is total ly wrong and not acceptable. There are so many jerks and jolps occurred in the evidence of prosecution and the said finding is totally wrong and untenable and hence the Court below has committed an error in acquitting the respondent.