( 1 ) THE Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1993 is preferred by the State, being aggrieved by the judgment, sentence and conviction passed by the learned Principal assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali in Sessions case No. 447/1991 by which, the learned assistant Sessions Judge, instead of convicting the accused under Section 376 of indian Penal Code, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 354 of indian Penal Code sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine a further simple imprisonment for two months. It is to be noted at this state itself, that the accused, being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 20th August, 1992 in sessions Case No. 447 of 1991 had preferred an appeal before the First Additional sessions Judge, Guntur in Criminal Appeal no. 175 of 1992. The said appeal has been withdrawn by this Court and it is now numbered before this Court as Transfer criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1995. Since both these criminal appeals relate to the same case, the office has now posted both of them together for final hearing.

( 2 ) I have heard the counsel for the appellant-State and accused.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary for me to summarily note the facts of this case. According to the prosecution on 13-2-1991 at about 11. 30 a. m. the accused Lingisetty sreenu, son of Venkateswarlu, finding the victim girl alone entered into the house of papaiah at Barripalem and raped Thota padma, the daughter of Papaiah aged about 14 years. The said Padma is a dumb girl but she is not a deaf girl. According to the prosecution, at the relevant time, the brother of Padma, by name Venkateswarlu returned home and found the accused in a naked position lying on Padma and her petty coat was lifted. On seeing Venkateswarlu PW1, the accused managed to run away inspite of an attempt being made by PW1 to catch hold of him. Padma told PW1 through signs that the accused had raped her. Later, PW1 informed his mother PW2 and also his father pw3. At the night at about 2 a. m. , on 14-2-1991 Padma and her brother and her parents went to the police station. On the complaint of PW1, PW7, the Sub-Inspector of Police who was present in the station registered the case in Crime No. 13/1991 under section 376 IPC and accordingly issued the first Information Report. Ex. P1 is the complaint filed by PW1. Immediately thereafter, the victim girl Padma was sent to a lady Doctor PW6, who examined her. According to PW6, there was no injury on the person of the victim girl. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused was sent to the Doctor PW9, who also found that there were no injury on the person of the accused. After recording the statement, PW8 has filed charge-sheet in the Court.

( 4 ) THE learned Principal Assistant sessions Judge, Tenali registered the said case as Sessions Case No. 447 of 1991. He framed the following charge:"that you (Lingisetty Sreenu son of venkateswarlu, Burripalem, Tenali mandalam) on or about the 13th day of february, 1991 at 11-30 a. m. , in the house of Thota Venkateswarlu at Burripalem committed rape on Thota Padma daughter of Papaiah, a dumb girl of 14 years and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian penal Code, and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge. "

( 5 ) IN support of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 9 and got marked documents vide Exs. P1 to P11. PW1 is Thota Venkateswarlu, the brother of the victim girl Padma. PW2 and PW3 are her mother and father. PW4 is the victim girl herself. PWS is the uncle of the victim girl. PW6 is the Doctor who examined Padma. PW7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the case on the basis of the complaint Ex. P1 given by PW1. PWS is the inspector of Police, who filed the chargesheet and PW9 is the Doctor who examined the accused.

( 6 ) PW1, the brother of the victim