PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. MOPARTHI SEETHARAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State had preferred this criminal appeal as against the order of acquittal dated 22-12-1997 recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bapatla, in S.C.No.212 of 1996. Crime No.49 of 1995 on the file of Kakumanu P.S. was registered as against the accused under Section 354 of the Indian Penal code and the same was numbered as P.R.C.No.5 of 1996 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Ponnur, which was committed to the Court of Session, wherein the same was taken on file as S.C.No.212 of 1996 and was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bapatla, who tried the case and recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, marked Exs.P-1 to P-3, Mos.1 and 2 recorded an acquittal. Hence, the appeal.

(2.) The episode of the prosecution is that P.W.1 and the accused are residents of Bandlavaripalem and that certain disputes between the families also had been specified and the accused bore grudge against the family of P.W.1. On 22-09-1995 at 5-00 a.m., when the de facto complainant-P.W.1 was going outside to answer calls of nature, the accused came in the opposite direction. After just passing ahead, the accused came behind the de factor complainant-P.W.1, gagged her mouth, embrassed her and dragged her. Then, the de facto complainant-P.W.1 raised cries. On hearing the cries of the de factor complainant, one Suseelamma-P.W.2 came there and on seeing Suseelamma, the accused pushed the de facto complainant-P.W.1 into bushes and ran away. During the struggle, the saree and jacket of he de facto complainant became torn. After receiving the report, the Sub Inspector of Police-P.W.3 registered a case and investigated the same and filed charge sheet under Section 354 I.P.C. P.W.1 is the victim, P.W.2 is the sister-in-law of PW-1 and P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor while taking this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge commented that the contradictions pointed out while recording the acquittal are only minor contradictions. The evidence of P.W.1 alone is sufficient to convict the accused under Section 354 I.P.C. The lapse on the part of the investigation also cannot be taken advantage of and hence, the acquittal recorded is bad in law.