The single judge dismissed the Criminal Revision Case. The court held that the trial Court properly appreciated evidence and acquitted the accused of outraging modesty. The revision was rejected as no perversity or illegality existed.
The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and miscellaneous petitions were closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1038 OF 2005
DATED 14th NOVEMBER, 2012.
BETWEEN :
K.Aswini .. Petitioner-De facto Complainant and
K.Arun Kumar & another
..Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1038 OF 2005
ORDER:
De facto complainant filed the present Criminal Revision Case by invoking the provision under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment dated 13.04.2005 rendered in Sessions Case No.19 of 2004 whereby the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, acquitted R.1 herein for an offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).
The case of the prosecution, as seen from the impugned judgment, is as follows:
Petitioner and Accused were working in the same school. On 16.10.2001 when the victim went to the class room of the accused along with her students on some work, accused sent away the students on some pretext and hugged the victim and pressed her private parts and outraged her modesty. In spite of reporting the matter to the Principal also no action was taken against the accused. Further, on 19.12.2002 also again accused tried to outrage the modesty of the victim by caught holding and kissing her. Hence, the case.
This Court perused the entire judgment and also heard the
arguments.
The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused on the following
grounds:
Having perused the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has properly appreciated the entire evidence and after assigning proper reasons acquitted the accused from the alleged offence.
Further, in a revision against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if there is any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the lower Court. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is pointing towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusal of the record and the judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge.
Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 14th November, 2012. sur
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's acquittal of the accused under Section 354 IPC given the delay in lodging complaint and lack of proper investigation.
Whether there is perversity or illegality in the acquittal order warranting revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.Aswini
K.Arun Kumar & another
Raja Elango
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
