The main legal point established in the judgment is the weight given to the victim's testimony in sexual assault cases, the absence of the need for corroboration, and the importance of considering the victim's suffering in determining the sentence.

B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) ALL these cases arise out of common judgment in Sessions Case No. 539 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Additional assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur. Prosecution was launched against one mannava Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as " the accused" ). He wa``s charged with the commission of offence of rape punishable under Section 376 I. P. C. The accused pleaded innocence and not guilty and pleaded that he was implicated to wreck vengeance as there was strained relations inter se his father and PW 7 i. e. the fatherin-law of the victim. On appraisal of evidence, the court below has recorded conviction against the accused under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo simple Imprisonment for six months.

( 2 ) THE accused filed appeal in the court of Sessions, Guntur and before that, the State had filed appeal for enhancement of sentence on the ground that minimum mandatory sentence ought to have been imposed and the reasons recorded for imposing lesser sentence are irrelevant. The victim has also filed a revision for enhancement of sentence. The Criminal appeal filed before the Court of Sessions, guntur by the accused has been transferred to this court and all the matters have been heard by me and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) MR. T. Dasaradha Ramaiah, the learned counsel for the accused, vehemently contends that the charge of commission of offence is false and has been invented only to see that the accused is sent to Jail and that there is a strong motive for the implication of the accused, as there Is enmity inter father and P. W. 7 i. e. , father-in-law of the victim, and that the victim has been used as a tool to lodge the complaint and implicate the accused falsely and that the prosecution Is full of contradictions and improbabaities and the victim s uncorroborated statement cannot be believed.

( 4 ) MR. M. N. Narasimha Reddy, the learned additional Public Prosecutor, counters the argument stating that the evidence of the presecutrix i. e. P. W. 1 is well corroborated by the version of PWs. 5,7 and also to some extent by P. W. 6 and that even in the absence of corroboration of evidence, particularly, in a rape case, the conviction can be maintained on the sole testimony of prosecutrix. In support of his argument, he cited two decisions of the Supreme Court in bharwada Bhoginbhai Harijibhai vs. State of gujarat (1) AIR 1983 SC 753 which was followed in the later judgment rendered in toran Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2) 1987 Cri. LJ. 1986.

( 5 ) MR. T. Bali Reddy, who appears for the victim seeking enhancement of sentence, supports the argument of the learned additional Public Prosecutor stating that the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC has been made our clearly and clinchingly against the accused and that the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years ought to have been imposed and that the reasons mentioned by the learned Additional assistant Sessions Judge in imposing lesser sentence than the mandatory sentence are irrelevant and that, if not more, a minimum of seven years should be imposed as the legislation mandates.

( 6 ) PW1 Is the victim. PW 2 is a watchman at Motor Pump Shed. PW 3 and 4 are his wite and daughter respectively. They also stay with PW 2 at the pump shed. PWs 5 and 6 are carpenters who were working at the pump shed at that time. PW 7 is the father-in-law of the victim i. e. . the PW 1. PW 8 is the Doctor who examined PW 1 and PW 9 is the panch witness for seizure of clothes and bangles belonging to PW 1 and also the clothes of the accused and of scene of offence. PW 10 is the Doctor who examined the accused and PW 11 is the Magistrate who recorded Section 164 Cr. P. C. statement of pw1. PW12 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who was present when the commission of offence was reported and who issued FIR and registered the crime. PW 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document