C.C.157 of 2017 Page 1 of 9
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA
Present: SMT.B.RAMYA,
ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
FRIDAY, DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2019
C.C. No. 157 of 2017
Between :
State Rep by its Sub Inspector,
Nagayalanka Police station .... Complainant
And
Naidu Lingaiah, s/o Susheela Rao, age 35 years r/o Edurumondi Village, Nagayalanka Mandal
Krishna District. ..... Accused.
This case is coming on 12-04-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the state and Sri.M.Venkateswara Rao, learned Advocate for the accused appeared before this court and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1)The Sub-Inspector of Police Nagayalanka P.S has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.341, 354-A of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as I.P.C.
2)The averments of the case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet in brief are as follows:
On 17-10-2016, at about 10.00 A.M., the P.W.1/Sykam Sujatha along with her daughter Nagajyosna/P.W.2 proceeded from their house, when they reached near the house of Kanna Ranga Rao, at that time the accused Naidu Lingaiah came on his Motor Cycle and teased the P.W.1 by saying that some amount fell down on the road. Then, P.W.1 noticed that there is no money. The P.W.1 and P.W.2 proceeded further, when they reached near the hotel of one Knna Venkateswara Rao, then accused came there on his Motorcycle and wrongfully restrained both the P.W.1 and P.W.2 and demanded them that they will get up on his
Motorcycle, then, P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not tolerate his words and they proceeded on their way. When, they reached near the Zenda Karra Center, the accused stopped his bike and caught hold the hand of the P.W.1 and used filthy language by saying that he will purchase
P.W.1 at any cost, then the P.W.1 pulled her hand to move from that place, but the accused
C.C.157 of 2017 Page 2 of 9 caught holding the edge of her Saree and intended to insult of her modesty in the public place. The P.W.1 raised cries, at the same time, Sykam Venkateswara rao/P.W.3 and Sykam
Lanka Biksham/L.W.5 came there, on seeing them, the accused fled away. The matter placed
before elders L.W.6, L.W.7 and L.W.8, when they called the accused and asked about his
objectionable acts, then, the accused did not care them. Hence, P.W.1 lodged a report on 23- 10-2016 at about 2.00 P.M., in the police station and basing on the same P.W.4/K.Raja
Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagayalnanka Police Station, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.92/2016 for the offences U/secs. 341, 354-A I.P.C and investigated into.
3)During the course of investigation, P.W.4/K.Raja Reddy, S.I of Police,
Nagayalanka P.S, visited the scene of offence, examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of the offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 25-10-2016, the P.W.4 served the Sec.41(a) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and obtained a written assurance from him, as he would attend before the Hon’ble Court when ever required and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
Hence, the charge sheet.
4)This case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/s.341, 354-A of IPC against the accused.
5)On appearance of the accused copies of documents as contemplated U/s.207
The Code of criminal procedure ( herein after Cr.P.C.) were furnished to the accused.
6)Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges u/s.341, 354-A IPC has been framed read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial.
7)To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4, the P.W.1/Sykam
Sujatha is the Defacto Complainant, P.W.2/Sykam Nagajyoshna is the daughter of P.W.1 and who is the eye witness, P.W.3/Sykam Venkateswara Rao is the brother-in-law of P.W.1 who is the eye witness, P.W.4/K.Raja Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, who speak about the registration of F.I.R, who investigated the case and served notice to the accused and filed charge sheet.
The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of L.W.2/Sykam
C.C.157 of 2017 Page 3 of 9
Adisesha Rao who is the husband of P.W.1, L.W.5/Sykam Lankabiksham who is the eye witness, L.W.6/ Naidu Babu Rao, L.W.7/Sykam Veera Raghavaiah, L.W.8/Naidu Mastanrao who are the village elders.
The exhibits Exs.P1 to P3 are marked for prosecution. Ex.P1 is the report of the
P.W.1, Ex.P2 is the Original F.I.R, Ex.P3 is rough sketch of scene of offence.
8) After closure of the prosecution evidence as there is incriminating material appearing against the accused under prosecution evidence, accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him, for which he stated that he has no complicity with crime and reported no defence evidence.
9)Heard the arguments of both sides and Perused the material on record.
10)Now the point for consideration is :
“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences u/s.341, 354-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”
POINT:
11)The Learned A.P.P argued that Prosecution proved its case through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused was wrongfully restrained the P.W.1 and sexually harassed her. Therefore, the accused is liable for the punishment for the offences U/secs. 341, 354-A of I.P.C.
12)On the other hand the Learned counsel for the accused contended that accused is innocent and was falsely implicated in this case and argued that there was political enmity between the P.W.1 and accused families. On basing on the evidence of the accused, the relative of the P.W.1 convicted. On taking grudge against the accused, they falsely foisted the case against the accused. He also argued that the alleged scene of the offence i.e., Flag post center is between two adjacent houses of the close relatives of the P.W.1, hence, there is no chance for the accused to commit the alleged offence against the P.W.1 and also he further argued that the alleged place of the offence is the crowded public place except witnesses
P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are relatives of the P.W.1, no other witnesses who witnessed the alleged incident was not examined by the police. There is abnormal delay of filing F.I.R for 6 days, for which prosecution counsel given very lame explanation. The Learned counsel for the accused draw the attention of this court with regard to various discrepancies and
C.C.157 of 2017 Page 4 of 9 inconsistencies in between the eviences of P.Ws. 1 to 4.
13)The offences charged against the accused are U/Secs. 341, 354-A of I.P.C.
U/sec.341 I.P.C :- Prescribed punishment for wrongful restraint.
Sec.339 I.P.C reads as follows:– Wrongful restraint: Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Sec.354-A I.P.C reads as follows:- Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual
harassment – A man committing any of the following acts -
I) Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
14)Now, it has to be seen, on 17-10-2016 at about 10.00 A.M., at Flag Pole center,
Edurumondi Village, whether the accused wrongfully restrained P.W.1 and sexually harassed her, this court carefully perused the evidence on record.
15)The case of the prosecution as unfolded from the evidence of P.Ws. 1To 4. In order to bring home guilt of accused, prosecution examined four (4) witnesses of these, P.W.1 is the Defacto Complainant who gave report to police, which is exhibited as Ex.P.1 and P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1 who accompanied the P.W.1 and also who is the eye witness of the alleged incident. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of the P.W.1. P.W.4 is the investigating officer who registered F.I.R U/Secs. 341, 354-A of I.P.C , Ex.P2 is the Original F.I.R is basing upon report of P.W.1 and investigated into it and filed charge sheet, Ex.P3 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence.
16)In the evidence of P.W.1, she deposed that on 17-10-2016 at about 10-00 A.M., while she was going to the Machilipatnam, to drop P.W.2 to her college, when they reached near the house of one Kanna Ranga Rao, the accused teased her by saying some money was fell down on the road, but she noticed no money on the road. When, she reached near the shop of One Kanna Venkateswara Rao, accused came on the Motorcycle and asked her to get on to the Motorcycle on that she did not heed his words and proceeded further, when
C.C.157 of 2017 Page 5 of 9 she reached near Flag pole center in Edurumondi Village, accused came again on Motorcycle and caught hold her right hand, asked her, where she is going, he will take her wherever she want, on that she raised cries. Mean time P.W.3 and L.W.5 came there. On seeing them, the accused fled away from that place and she narrated about the whole incident to them.
Subsequently, she informed about the alleged incident to her husband (L.W.2). On that L.W.2 raised dispute before the village elders L.Ws. 6 to 8. They called the accused but, he did not turn up before them, on suggestion of the village elders, she lodged the Ex.P1 report to police.
17)In Cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that she got drafted Ex.P1 through the
Nagayalanka Police station writer at Nagayalanka. She further deposed that, P.W.3 and L.W.5 came on her back on Motorcycle at the same time of the alleged incident. P.W.3 is her brother-in-law and L.W.5 is cousin of her husband and they also boarded the Panti along with her and she did not asked them about the place of their destination. After coming back to home, at about 8.00 P.M., she informed the above alleged incident to her husband and on the same day L.W.2 narrated the said incident to village elders L.Ws. 6 to 8, on the same day they called the accused. But, he did not turn up, before them, hence on the same, elders suggested to lodge the police report. On the next day i.e., on 18-10-2016, she got drafted the
Ex.P1 and she submitted the same to police at afternoon hours.
18)In the evidence of P.W.2, she deposed that on 1710-2016, at about 10-00 A.M., while P.W.1 was taking her to Machilipatnam to drop her hostel, when they reached near Flag
Pole Center at Edurumondi Village, accused came there on Motor cycle and cuaght hold
P.W.1’s hand stated that he will take her to any place where ever she wants and asked her to get on his Motorcycle. On that her mother raised cries and same time P.W.3 and L.W.5 came there, by seeing them accused fled away from the scene of offence.
19)In Cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that some people were present in front and behind them while they were came from their house to Flag Pole Center of Edurumondi
Village. She further deposed that P.W.3 and L.W.5 also boarded on the Panti boat, they came to the river bank from the village by foot. She also deposed that she gave her evidence about the alleged incident for the first time in her chief-examination.
20)In the evidence of P.W.3, he deposed that on 17-10-2016 at about 10.00 A.M.,
C.C.157 of 2017 Page 6 of 9 while he and L.W.5 while going to panti, when they reached near flag pole center, the accused went away from the said place on seeing them. When, he questioned P.W.1, she replied, that the accused was teasing her, caught hold her hand and asked her to board on his Motor cycle, he will pay any amount for her and weeped. He further deposed that he took
P.W.1 to village elders L.W.6 to 8, on that accused did not turn up. On the advice of village elders, P.W.1 submitted Ex.P1 report to Police.
21)In Cross-examination, P.W.3 deposed that, at about 4.00 P.M., on the date of alleged incident, he took the accused before the village elders. By that time P.W.1 was present at her house. His house is situated adjacent to the house of P.W.1. He further deposed that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not travel along with him on the said Panti boat on the date of alleged incident. He further deposed that police examined him, when he took P.W.1 to submit police report. He further deposed that on the same date of alleged incident P.W.1 submitted
Ex.P1 report to police. He further deposed that he, P.W.1, L.W.2, L.Ws. 6 to 8 went to police station on the said date. L.W.7 drafted the Ex.P1. It was drafted at the open place situated near the police station. They sat on the ground and drafted the report, on the next day morning at about 11.00 a.m., they went to police station and submitted police report. He further deposed that on 19-10-2016 police came to their village.
22)P.W.4/Sub-Inspector of Police of Nagayalanka P.S deposed that on 23-10-2016, at about 2.00 P.M., he received Ex.P1 from P.W.1. Basing on it, he registered Ex.P2 F.I.R in
Cr.No.92/2016 U/s.341, 354-A I.P.C. Immediately after registration of it, he forwarded the original F.I.R to the Hon’ble Court. He examined P.Ws. 1To 3, L.Ws. 2, 5 to 8 and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P3 rough sketch of the scene of offence. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.
23)In Cross-examination, he admitted that in column No.14 of Ex.P2, he did not obtain the thumb impression or signature of P.W.1 and in column No.15 of Ex.P2, he did not mentioned the time of dispatch. He also deposed that he did not know the place of drafting of
Ex.P1. He denied that basing on Ex.P1, without examining any witnesses, he foisted the false case against the accused by preparing entire record at Police station.
24)In order to prove the punishment U/s.341 of I.P.C, the prosecution is required to prove that :-
C.C.157 of 2017 Page 7 of 9
1. Accused obstructed the complainant.
2. He did it voluntarily.
3. It prevented such person from proceeding in certain direction in which he had the right to proceed.
In order to prove the offence U/s.354-A of I.P.C, prosecution is required to prove that accused committed:
1. Physical contact and advances involving un-welcome and explicit sexual overtures (or)
2. Demand or request for sexual favours (or)
3. Showing pornography against the will of a woman (or)
4. Making sexually coloured remarks.
25)As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, in her cross-examination, she deposed that she got drafted Ex.P1 through the Nagayalanka Police station writer at Nagayalanka and she submitted the same to Nagayalanka Police on next day of the alleged incident i.e., on 18-10- 2016 at afternoon hours, but, according to P.W.3, he deposed that Ex.P1 is drafted by the
L.W.7. It was drafted at the open place situated near the police station. On the next day morning at about 11.00 A.M., they submitted the same Ex.P1 to Police station and next day on 19-10-2016 police came to their village. But, according to P.W.4/Sub-Inspector of Police of
Nagayalanka P.S deposed that on 23-10-2016 at about 2.00 P.M., he received Ex.P1 from
P.W.1 basing on it, he registered Ex.P2 F.I.R, on the same day.
26)This ambiguity in between the evidence of P.W.1 , P.W.3 and P.W.4 is creating doubt and there is lot of discrepancy in between the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4. According to Ex.P1, accused caught holding the edge of P.W.1 Saree and tried to pull it forcefully, at
Flag Pole Center, then she raised cries, but about that particular act i.e., accused caught holding the edge of her Saree and tried to pull it forcefully, neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 nor P.W.3 deposed in their evidence. In the Cross-examination of P.W.1, she deposed that P.W.3 and
L.W.5 came on Motorcycle to the scene of the offence at the same time of the alleged incident, but P.W.2 is in her cross examination deposed that P.W.3 and L.W.5 came to the place of the alleged incident by foot. This ambiguity between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 creating doubt.
27)In the cross examination of P.W.1, she deposed that after the alleged incident,
C.C.157 of 2017 Page 8 of 9
P.w.3 and L.W.5 came along with them on the Panti Boat, but in the cross examination of
P.W.3, he deposed that P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not travel along with him on the said boat on the date of alleged incident. These discrepancies between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 creating doubt.
28)In the Cross-examination of P.W.1, she deposed that she informed about the alleged incident to her husband/L.W.2 at about 8-00 P.M., then he informed to the village elders on the same day. On the same day they called the accused, but he did not turn up
before them. But, in the cross examination of P.W.3, he deposed that at about 4.00 P.M., on
the date of alleged incident, they took the accused before the village elders, by that time
P.W.1 was present at her house. This ambiguity between the P.W.1 and P.W.3 creating doubt.
29)P.W.2 in her cross-examination deposed that Police not examined her and further she deposed that she is giving her evidence about the alleged incident for the first time in her chief examination in the court, but, P.W.4/S.I of Police, Nagayalanka P.S in his evidence deposed that he examined P.Ws. 1 to 3, L.Ws. 2, 5 to 8 and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P3 and after completion of investigation he filed the Charge sheet.
30)On perusal of the entire evidence on record there is lot of ambiguity and several discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 4. In prosecution of
Criminal case it is the duty of the Prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt by adjudicating sufficient evidence. Here the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 is inconsistent and lot of discrepancies with each other. In absence of any reliable and convincing evidence, this court cannot record the guilt of the accused. For all the above reasons this court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to give benefit of doubt in favour of accused.
31)In the light of inconsistency and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and in view of suspicious circumstances in the prosecution story and absence of reliable and convincing corroborating evidence, this court is of opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. There is no reliable evidence to prove the wrongful restraint and sexual harassment for any of the alleged offences. The point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.
C.C.157 of 2017 Page 9 of 9
32)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.341, 354-A of IPC, therefore, he is acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of
Accused that of his sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per the provisions of Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.
Typed my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 26 th day of April, 2019.
Sd/- B.Ramya
ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
AVANIGADDA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED:
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE : None.
P.W.1: Sykam Sujatha. P.W.2: Sykam Nagajyoshna. P.W.3: Sykam Venkateswara Rao. P.W.4: K.Raja Reddy.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: M.Os. MARKED: Nil
Ex.P.1: Report of the P.W.1. Ex.P.2: Original F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
FOR DEFENCE : -Nill-
Sd/- B.Ramya
ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
AVANIGADDA.
//True Copy//