IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
(MAHILA COURT) AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT: Sri.Y.Someswara Rao, V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30 th day of JANUARY, 2015
SESSIONS CASE NO. 303/2013
PRC.NO. 103/2012 (On the file of III Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyd)
Committed by : Sri P.Vasanth
III Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad
Crime No. & Police Station : 323/2012 of P.S. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad
Name of the Complainant : The State through the SubInspector of Police, P.S. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
Name and description of Accused M Sharfuddin Kanoo @ Shareef, S/o.Late Bandali, :Age: 72 Yrs, R/o.Flat No.23, Rock Roof Apartments, BlockI, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyder4abad.
Prosecution conductedby :Smt. T.Padmalatha, Addl. Public Prosecutor
Accused defended bySri K.S.P.Bhaskar, Advocate for Accused
Offences charged :U/Ss. 354 IPC
Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the court :Found not guilty
Sentence/Order : In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence U/sec.354 IPC and he is acquitted U/sec.235 (1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled six months after this judgment. The unmarked property if any shall be disposed according to law after appeal time is over.
This case coming on 30012015 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri K.S.P.Bhaskar, Advocate for Accused and of the Addl. Public
Prosecutor for the State and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:
: J U D G M E N T :
1.The SI of police PS.Banjarahills filed a charge sheet against accused U/sec.
354 IPC.
2. The brief facts of charge sheet are that on 14042012 at 5.00 A.M police
Banjarahills P.S. received a written complaint from LW.1 Chaganti Laxmi,
R/o.Flat No.36, Rock Roof Apartments, Banjarahills, Hyderabad stating that on 13042012 at 11.00 P.M when the watchman of their building asked to shift her car from the compound to some other place since just before that a cement work has done at parking place on that when she was about to take her car to place the same some where else in the meanwhile accused came there started abusing her and torned her nighty. To protect herself from the accused she pushed him and reported the matter to police with a request to take necessary action against the accused.
3. Basing on receipt of the above complaint LW.3 M.Venkateswar Rao, the then S.I. of police Banjarahills P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.323/2012 U/sec.
354 IPC and handed over C.D file to LW.4 B.Ramesh SI of police Banjarahills
PS for further investigation. Accused also lodged a complaint before the police against the defacto complainant herein and the same is also registered as a case in Cr.No.324/2012 U/sec. 324 IPC and the same is also pending for investigation.
4. During course of investigation LW.4 examined the defacto complainant (LW.1) and recorded her statement. He visited scene of offence which is situated at Rock Roof Apartments,Banjarahills, Hyderabad and secured the presence of LW.2 who is an eye witness to the incident examined and recorded his statement. While the investigation was in progress, accused obtain anticipatory bail from IV A.M.S.J Court, Hyderabad in
CRL.MP.No.1801/2012 dt. 23052012 and as per the directions of the court
the accused surrendered before P.S on 01062012 and furnished sureties
before him and accordingly accused was released on bail. During course of
further investigation though the LW.4 made efforts to examine some more witnesses to collect evidence but nobody came forward to speak about the incident in the locality and that could not examine any other witnesses. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused U/sec. 354
IPC as investigation disclosed that the accused committed the offence punishable under above section of law and accordingly charged.
5.The learned III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took the case into cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 354 IPC and registered the same as PRC No. 103/2012. On appearance of the accused copies of relevant documents as required U/s 208 Cr.P.C furnished to him.
Since the offence U/s 354 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the learned III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad committed the case to the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
6. After receipt of the case records from III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad registered it as
Sessions Case No. 303/2013 and made over the same to this court for disposal
according to law.
7. After receipt of the record and also on appearance of accused and after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, and on satisfied of prima facie allegations, Charge was framed for the offences punishable U/secs. 354 IPC against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trie.
8. During the course of trial in order to prove their case, prosecution exmined
PW.1 to 3 and marked ExsP1 & P2.
9. After closure of prosecution side witnesses accused is examined U/sec.313
Cr.P.C. by placing incriminating evidence available against the accused for which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
10. Heard both sides.
11. The point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution could able to establish their case against the accused U/s 354 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”.
12. Now the case of prosecution in nutshell is that on 13042012 at 11.00
P.M when the PW.1 was present in Rockroof Apartments LW.2, the watchman of the apartment asked her to shift her car from the compound and to place the same some where else as cement work has been done there at parking place just before and that when the PW.1 was about to take her car out but in the meanwhile accused came there abused her in a filthy language and torned her nighty.
13. It is a case of outraging the modesty of a women (PW.1) by the accused on 13042012 at 11.00 P.M in Rockwood Apartment, Banjarahills, Hyderabad.
In order to prove their case police examined and cited as many as 4 witnesses in list of memo of evidence along with charge sheet. Out of them prosecution examined only three witnesses such as LW.1, 3 and 4 as PW.1 to 3 respectively and the rest of witnesses such as LW.2 is not examined by the prosecution. Out of three witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW.1 is the defacto complainant/victim. PW.2 and 3 are Investigating Officers.
14.PW.1 stated in her evidence by corroborating contents of Ex.P1 that on 13 042012 at about 10.00 to 11.00 P.M as usual she return to home and parked the car in parking place and went to upstairs. In the meanwhile she heard quarreling noise and that came down. Having seen her the accused who was in a drunken condition abused her in filthy language and also caught hold her nighty and torned the same. Then she pushed the accused. Again witness says that the accused sent the watchman to her room and accordingly on the information furnished by watchman she came down to the apartment and then only such an incident occurred. After that she went to PS and reported matter to the police under Ex.P1.
15. PW.2 & 3 who are Investigating Officers stated in their respective evidences that on 14042012 at 5.00 A.M PW.2 received Ex.P1 from PW.1 and registered a case later handed over CD file to PW.3 for further investigation and accordingly PW.3 also stated that after received CD file from
PW.2 he visited scene of offence examined other witnesses observed scene of offence and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused.
16. However it is the case of accused during cross examination of prosecution side witnesses such as PW.1 by putting a s uggestion that on 30042012 at 9.30 P.M PW.1 parked her car on a wet cement work in the premises of the apartment for which the accused raised an objection being a care taker and also Secretary of the Apartment Owners Association and that the PW.1 assaulted the accused and also hurreled stones consequently accused received injuries and that he lodged a complaint before Banjarahills
PS and the same is registered as a case in Cr.No.324/2012 U/sec. 324 IPC against the P.W.1. Further the earlier father of the PW.1 acted as President of the Owners Association of Rockroof Apartment, as father of the PW.1 being
President of the Apartment Owners Association committed Financial
Irregularities and accordingly the accused also issued a legal notice to the father of the PW.1 by keeping all the facts above in mind as the accused got issued a legal notice to the father of PW.1 and also as the accused lodge a complaint against the PW.1 which was registered as a case in Cr.No.324/2012, as a counter blast PW.1 filed a false complaint against accused but infact no such incident occurred at that relevant time and the accused not at all attacked on her nor abused nor torned her nighty but it is a creation for the purpose of this case and that accused is no way responsible for the said incident.
17. As can be seen from the examination of the accused U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C, the accused also taken same plea by way of filing separate written statement.
Accused not only filed a separate written statement but he also try to establish his case by way of filing certain documents along with written statement, such as a certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.324/2012 basing on the complaint of the accused herein against the PW.1 annexed to copy of complaint dt.13042012 at 5.00 P.M, statements of witnesses, medical certificate of the accused issued by Causality Medical Officer, O.G.H., Hyderabad, Copy of Charge sheet, Office copy of legal notice dt. 30102010 said to have been issued by the accused to the father of the PW.1 who was the then president of Rockroof Apartments,
Owner Welfare Association and also some other medical record stands in the name of the accused herein. As can be seen from the evidence of PW.2 and 3 who are the Investigating Officers they clearly admitted in Cross
Examination that on the same day the accused also submitted a complaint against the PW.1 herein basing on which they registered a case in
Cr.No.324/2012 . It is pertinent to note that in the present case basing on the complaint of the PW.1 police registered a case in Cr.No.323/2012. However basing on the complaint of the accused herein the police registered a case in
Cr.No.324/2012 . It clearly goes to show as per prosecution the complaint given by the PW.1 against the accused is earlier then the complaint given by the accused against the PW.1.
18 Admittedly, there is a case and counter case are pending against accused and the defacto complainant herein. As per the case of prosecution and also from the evidence of Pws. 2 and 3, both accused as well as defacto complainant submitted their respective complaints before police at the same i.e. at 5 a.m. on 14.4.2012 and that they registered cases as Cr.Nos. 323 of 2012 and 324 of 2012 against accused and also defacto complainant herein respectively. On the other than, as can be seen from oral as well as written arguments of learned counsel for accused and also from the plea of accused during the cross examination of prosecution side witnesses as well as examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is clear case and also contention of accused that the alleged incident occurred on 13.4.2013 at 9.30 p.m. as P.W.1 parked her car on the wet cement floor in cellar on that they advised and also requested P.W.1 to remove the car from that place and to park the same somewhere else on that PW.1 quarreled with accused and hurled a stone which hit on the face of accused as a result of which he sustained injury and lost two teeth and immediately he went to police station and submitted report to the police and accordingly police also referred him to hospital, but, in fact, no such incident occurred at 11 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution but having come to know that accused submitted a complaint against P.W.1 before the police, then on the next day morning PW.1 went to police station and submitted a report to police against accused. But, unfortunately, police suppressed complaint submitted by accused and registered a case basis on the complaint given by P.W.1 at first and later police registered complaint given by accused herein. In view of rival contentions it is crucial and also necessary to decide whose complaint is submitted at first and whose complaint s submitted later, that is the main issue to be decided in the present case.
19 As pointed out earlier, even though accused has taken plea during the cross examination of prosecution side witnesses as well as examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not sufficient unless and until case of the accused have to be established by placing cogent evidence in view of rival contentions. In order to prove the case of accused that he has submitted complaint much earlier than the complaint submitted by P.W.1 he mainly relied on the documents submitted by accused along with written arguments at the time of arguments. As can be seen from the documents filed by the accused along with written statement as pointed out earlier those are : copy of complaint dated 17.4.2012 submitted by accused herein to the police, statements of witnesses, medical certificate of accused issued by Casualty
Medical Officer, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and copy of charge sheet. As can be seen from the copy of complaint dated 13.4.2012 said to have been submitted by accused herein to the police, the same is dated 13.4.2012 but subsequently the time is altered as 5 a.m. However, as can be seen from the date and time of the complaint submitted by accused herein
before the police with a naked eye it can be said that the same was submitted
on 13.4.2012 at 10 p.m. but, unfortunately, the same is altered as 14.4.2012 at 5 a.m. However, as can be seen from the top of complaint wherein it is clearly mentioned that the said incident occurred at 9.30 p.m. on 13.4.2012.
More over, as can be seen from the statements of witnesses i.e. accused herein being L.W.1 and also statement of one Sri Ramesh Patro as L.W.2 wherein also it is also clearly stated that the said incident occurred on 13.4.2012 at 9.30 to 10.30 p.m. Even in charge sheet copy in C.C.No. 1813 of 2012 also it is clearly mentioned that the said incident occurred on 13.4.2012 at 9.30 p.m. Inspite of mentioning the time of alleged incident as 9.30 p.m. but for the reasons best known to the police in first page on top of the complaint dated altered as 14.3.2012 from 13.4.2012 and also altered time
as 5 a.m. from 10 p.m. It appears the intention of the police to help P.W.1
herein to register case much earlier as if she submitted complaint earlier even though accused submitted complaint earlier than P.W.1.
20Further, more, even it is assumed for a moment that accused submitted complaint on 14.4.2012 at 5 a.m. as per the evidence of Pws. 2 and 3 immediately after registering case they referred accused being defacto complainant / injured in the earlier case to hospital. If, so, the doctors would have examined subsequent to 5 a.m. on 14.4.2012. But, unfortunately, as can be seen from copy of medical certificate submitted by accused along with documents clearly shows that accused herein i.e. P.W.1 therein examined by the doctor on 14.4.2012 at 12.56 p.m. It is further clearly mentioned that injured was accompanied by police constable No. 7889 of Banjara Hills Police
Station. It shows that accused herein that is the injured in counter case was sent to hospital through P.C. No. 7889 of Banjara Hills Police station prior to 12.56 a.m. on 14.4.2012. It is also pertinent to note that the alleged incident in both cases occurred in Rock Roof Apartments, Banjara Hills. It is the evidence of P.W.1 as well as case of accused that after the said incident they went to police station Banjara Hills and submitted report. Even it is assumed for a moment that the said incident occurred at 11 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution and also stated by P.W.1 in the present case it can be expected that atleast half an hour time would be taken to reach Banjara Hills police station from the place of incident. It is further evidence of Pws. 2 and 3 that after registering case they referred the injured to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. The distance between Osmania General Hospital and Banjara Hills police station is nearly more than 5 Kms. and one can expect that atleast one hour time may be taken to reach Osmania General Hospital from Banjara Hills police station. If really the said incident occurred at 11 p.m on 13.4.2012 as alleged by the prosecution and also as stated by PW.1 and subsequently report was submitted to police and thereafter the injured was referred to
Hospital as pointed out earlier it is the case of prosecution that accused as well as P.W.1 submitted complaints before the police at 5 a.m. on 14.4.2012.
If really accused as well as P.W.1 submitted reports to the police at 5 a.m. on 13.4.2012 it is not possible to refer accused herein being injured in counter case to hospital before 5 a.m. on 14.4.2012. However, medical certificate issued by Osmania General Hospital pertaining to accused herein clearly shows that doctors examined accused herein being injured present in
Osmania General Hospital at 12.56 a.m. in 14.4.2012. It is improbable to believe that if the accused being injured in counter case submitted report to the police on 14.4.2012 at 5 a.m. it is not possible to examine accused by the doctors in Osmania General Hospital at 12.56 a.m. on 14.4.2012. It shows that accused would have submitted report prior to 5 a.m. on 14.4.2012.
When, it is the case of accused that he submitted report to police at 9.30 p.m.
but by keeping aside the complaint given by accused he was referred by the police to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. After return from hospital then only to help P.W.1 police registered a case at 5 a.m. as if accused submitted a report before police at 5 a.m. On 14.4.2012. It clearly goes to show the intention of the police to help P.W.1 on one way or other and also it can be inferred that police suppressed the fact that accused submitted report
before the police in between 9.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. registered the case at
5.00 a.m. In order to prove their case prosecution mainly relied on the oral testimonies of Pws. 1 to 3 besides certain documentary evidence. Out of three witnesses examined by prosecution Pws. 2 and 3 are no other than
Investigating Officers whereas PW.1 is defacto complainant. It is pertinent to note that as per the case of prosecution and also as per the evidence of P.W.1 the alleged incident occurred in Rock Roof Apartments, Banjara Hills at 11 p.m. There is every possibility to observe the incident by the other inmates of the apartment. Unfortunately, police failed to examine any other tenants or owners in Rock Roof Apartment. Prosecution also failed to give any explanation for non examination of any other eye witnesses or any other tenants or owners in Rock Roof Apartments. Even though if it is assumed for a moment that no one came forward to give statement to the police on the incident when prevented police to issue a notice to the concerned witnesses directing them to present before them and to examine them. But, unfortunately, no material is placed by prosecution to make such efforts to issue notices to the concerned witnesses.
21 Further, more, even it is assumed for a moment that no other tenants or owners of Rock Roof Apartments came forward to give statements on account of the incident what prevented the police to examine other family members of P.W.1 to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 or to support the case of prosecution. It is not the case of prosecution that P.W.1 is residing alone in the said apartment. However, it is the case of accused that P.W.1 used to come to the flat of her parents in Rock Roof Apartments. The same is also not denied by P.W.1. It clearly goes to show that P.W.1 is residing along with her family members at the time of alleged incident and that the witnesses are available to examine to the police, but, unfortunately, police failed to examine any other family members of P.W.1. No explanation is given by prosecution. Absolutely, except the oral testimony of PW.1 no other independent witness or any other tenants or owners in Rock Roof Apartments are examined by police.
22Even it is assumed for a moment that nobody came forward to give evidence before the police and for the circumstances warranted to the police they failed to examine the family members of PW.1, as can be seen from the case of prosecution and also evidence of PW.1 at the time of alleged incident along with accused and PW.1 L.W.2 who is watchman of the apartment was also present and witnessed the incident and the police examined L.W.2 and also cited him as a witness in the list of memo of evidence along with charge sheet. As such, L.W.2 is important and material witness to the case of prosecution. At least, prosecution ought to have examined L.W.2, but, unfortunately prosecution failed to examine L.W.2. No material is placed by prosecution that they made any attempt to examine L.W.2. Simply stated that
L.W.2 left the apartment and that they could not examine L.W.2. When L.W.2 is an important and material witness to the prosecution case it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to made attempts to trace out L.W.2 and to produce him before the court and to examine him, but, unfortunately no material is placed by prosecution to show that police made attempts to trace out L.W.2 or to examine L.W.2. Non examination of L.W.2 is very much fatal to the case of prosecution.
23 Except the sole testimony of P.W.1 no other material is placed by prosecution to support the case of prosecution or to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. No doubt, corroboration is not rule of law but it is rule of prudence.
Even in certain circumstances if the sole evidence of prosecutrix is cogent and inspires confidence the same can be based for conviction. How far the evidence of PW.1 is cogent and consistent and inspires confidence to be considered later. Admittedly, case and counter cases are pending against the accused and P.W.1 herein. As per the case of prosecution alleged incident occurred at 11 p.m. and both accused and P.W.1 submitted their respective reports before the police and basing on which registered two different cases, one is in Cr.No. 323 of 2012 and another is in Cr.No.324 of 2012. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1 she stated that on 13.4.2012 at 10 or 11 p.m.
when she returned to home and parked her car in parking place and went to upstair into the room and changed her dress then she heard some quarreling noise and that she came out to the cellar and having seen accused in drunken condition abused her in filthy language and also torn her nighty. It is very surprise to note that at first instance P.W.1 stated that at 10 or 11 p.m as usual she returned to home and parked the car and went to her room in the upstairs and changed her dress and heard some quarreling noise and that she came down to cellar, at the same time again P.W.1 stated that while she was present in the room L.W.2 who was watchman came to her and asked to shift her car to some other place as cement work has been done at the parking place. It clearly goes to show that there is no consistency in the evidence of
P.W.1. Perhaps, P.W.1 was not sure of the said incident and that is why such inconsistent statement was given by P.W.1.
24 Further, more, as pointed out earlier, it is the evidence of PW.1 that when she was about to shift her car to somewhere else accused came there and abused her in filthy language in drunken condition and torned her nighty.
If really accused was in drunken condition and abused PW.1 in filthy language, certainly the same fat would have stated by P.W.1 before the police and if so, Pws. 2 and 3 would have stated the same before the court, but, unfortunately, as can be seen from the evidence, P.W.3 clearly stated in his cross examination that PW.1 has not stated before him that the accused came in drunken condition and abused her. Further, more, it is also clear case of prosecution as well as evidence of PW.1 that accused torn nighty of P.W.1 and that is why police invoked Section 354 IPC. But, unfortunately, in this regard, I would like to say that if really accused torn nighty of P.W.1, certainly, the same fact would have stated by P.W.1 before the police in her 161 Cr.P.C.
statement, if, so, certainly the same fact would have been stated by P.W.3
before the court, but, unfortunately, as can be seen from the evidence of PW.3
especially in his cross examination P.W.3 clearly admitted that PW.1 has not stated the said fact before him that accused torn her nighty. When such is the case that accused has not caught hold hand of PW.1 the question of torn of night does not arise. Further, more, even it is assumed for a moment that accused torn nighty of P.W.1, it can be expected that PW.1 ought to have handed over torn nighty to police. At least, it can be expected that P.W.1 would have shown torned nighty to police. If so, certainly, the same fact would have stated by PW.3, but, unfortunately, PW.3 has not stated that PW.1 shown the torn nighty. He further admitted that PW.1 has not handed over torn nighty and that did not seize such torn nighty.
25Further, it is the case of accused that PW.2 or PW.3 never visited scene of offence and that is why they have not examined any other independent witness in Rock roof apartments nor seized any material from the place of offence. If really PW.3 visited scene of offence it can be expected that at least PW.3 would have examined any other independent witness in the apartment but did not so. At least, it can be expected that PW.3 would have seized material objects from the scene of offence. It is clear case of prosecution in charge sheet in C.C.No. 1813 of 2012 that P.W.1 herein being accused in the said case hurled a big stone on the injured and consequently injured sustained grievous injury and also last two teeth. When such is the case it can be expected that at least P.W.3 would have seized such stone, but, unfortunately, it appears PW.3 did not seize any such stone or any other material objects from the scene of offence. At least, PW.3 ought to have prepared rough sketch of scene, but did not do so. All those clearly goes to show that PW.3 might not have visited scene of offence which supports and strengthen the case of accused herein that without visiting scene of offence
Pws. 2 and 3 prepared all the documents in the present case and also filed a false case against accused. Therefore, in the above stated circumstances, it can not be said that evidence of P.W.1 is cogent, consistent and inspires confidence in the mind of court and in such circumstances, evidence of PW.1 has to be corroborated with any other evidence, but, unfortunately, prosecution failed to place any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of
PW.1 or to support the case of prosecution.
26As pointed out earlier, present case is filed by prosecution against accused under Section 354 IPC. Ex.P.1 complaint is base for registration of the case and for investigation and also for filing charge sheet. As can be seen from the contents of complaint wherein it is simply mentioned that accused started abusing her and torn her nighty. But, there is no whisper in Ex.P.1 complaint with regard to outraging of modesty of PW.1. Perhaps, police was also under the impression that ingredients under Section 354 IPC are not attracted in view of contents of Ex.P.1, and that police issued FIR Ex.P.2 under Section 324 IPC. As can be seen from the contents of Ex.P.2 with a naked eye though the police have invoked Section 324 IPC at first instance but subsequently, for the reasons best known to the police Section 324 IPC is altered to Section 354 IPC. But, unfortunately, prosecution failed to give any explanation under what circumstances they were constrained to alter Section of law from 324 IPC to 354 IPC.
27. Further, more, as can be seen from charge sheet averments also wherein it is mentioned in the first para that accused abused her in filthy language and pushed her aside. Subsequently, in same charge sheet it is further mentioned that accused abused her in filthy language and also torn her nighty. Even it is assumed for a moment that accused abused her in filthy language and also torn her nighty it does not mean that ingredients under
Section 354 IPC attracted. But, unfortunately, as can be seen from the contents of charge sheet also there is no whisper that accused had intention to outrage her modesty. As pointed out earlier, even in Ex.P.1 complaint also it is not specifically mentioned that accused had intention to outrage modesty of
P.W.1 nor accused outraged her modesty, but, surprisingly as can be seen from the evidence P.W.1 simply stated that accused abused her in filthy language and torn her nighty. Eeven in evidence also PW.1 has not specifically stated that accused outraged her modesty. PW.1 has not stated in her evidence nor mentioned in charge sheet as well as in complaint accused torn her nighty, but as pointed out earlier if really accused torn nighty of
P.W.1, certainly, the same would have been handed over to police by P.W.1 but did not do so. As can be seen from the material on record, no evidence to the effect that accused has outraged modesty of P.W.1. As such, prosecution failed to establish offence under Section 354 IPC against accused in this case.
When the prosecution failed to establish ingredients under Section 354 IPC it can not be said that prosecution could able establish its case against accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC and accused is liable to be convicted.
28In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that prosecution failed to establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offence under Section 354 IPC.
29 In the result, accused is found not guilty for offence under Section 354 IPC. He is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of period of six months from the date of this judgment. Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30thday of January, 2015.
V. ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
(MAHILA COURT), HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:
P.W.1: Smt.Lakshmi Chaganti
P.W.2: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao
P.W.3: Sri Bhadramraju Ramesh
Witnesses Examined For Defence: NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :
Ex.P.1: Complaint
Ex.P.2: First Information Report
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NIL
M.Os. MARKED: NIL
V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
(MAHILA COURT ) HYDERABAD