PADMAMMA Vs. A V R NARSIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Raghunath, counsel representing the appellant and also Smt. Jhansi, representing B. Adinarayana Rao, counsel representing first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Sri Raghunath, learned counsel representing appellant with all vehemence would contend that this is a typical case of torture and ill-treatment of a woman, who made a request to the first respondent- accused to take action against the offender and instead of taking action against the offender, the first respondent-accused beat the complainant - appellant. Learned counsel also would submit that the evidence of P.W. 1 is well supported by her duaghter P.W.2 and in the light of the evidence available on record, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, Exs.P-2 and P-3 the photographs and Exs.P-4 and P-5 the negatives and the news item published in Ex.P-6 and also the wound certificate Ex.P-7 the prosecution was able to establish the charge as against first respondent-accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence acquittal recorded cannot be sustained.

(3.) On the contrary, Smt.Jhansi, learned counsel representing first respondent would submit that this is a private complaint filed by the appellant-complainant as against the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Tandur P.S. under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 the interested testimony, there is no other evidence available on record. Learned counsel also would submit that the news item published as Ex.P-6 need not be given serious consideration, since it is only a publication made in a newspaper which is just in the nature of hearsay evidence. Learned counsel also would submit that when acquittal had been recorded, unless there are compelling reasons to arrive at a different conclusion, normally the order of acquittal not to be disturbed in appeal, even if on appreciation of evidence the other view also is possible, hence, the acquittal not to be disturbed by this Court as appellate Court.