1) The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal.

2) It is the prosecution case that on 04.12.2000 at 17.30 hours when P.W-1 was returning to her house after attending coolie work and when she reached Samanakuntla Vorrey, the accused committed rape on her in spite she raising cries. Plea of the accused is one of total denial and not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found him guilty of the charge.

3) During trial in the lower Court, the prosecutrix/victim woman was examined as P.W-1. There are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. Immediately after the offence, P.W-1 is stated to have returned to the house and informed the same to her husband P.W-2. P.Ws 1 and 2 went to Siricilla police station on the same day at 9.00 P.M and gave Ex.P-1 report to P.W-10 who was the then Sub Inspector of Police in that police station. P.W-10 received Ex.P-1 and registered the same and issued Ex.P-8 F.I.R. P.W-9 is the then Inspector of Police, Siricilla Circle who took up investigation in the case. He sent P.W-1 to Government Hospital, Karimnagar for examination and report. P.W-7 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Karimnagar who examined P.W-1 on 05.12.2000 at 7.00 P.M and issued Ex.P-5 certificate. After receiving Ex.P-4 F.S.L report, she gave Ex.P-6 final opinion certificate. P.W-9 arrested the accused on 08.12.2000 at 4.00 P.M. On the same day the accused was sent to Government Hospital, Siricilla where P.W-8 who is the civil assistant surgeon examined the accused for potency test and gave Ex.P-7 certificate opining that the accused is capable of performing sexual intercourse. During investigation, P.W-9 observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators P.Ws-3 and 4 under the cover of Ex.P-3 scene of offence observation report.

4) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that all the material witnesses in this case turned hostile to the prosecution and that there is no incriminating material against the accused to warrant his conviction. It is further contended that though the prosecutrix/P.W-1 spoke to the offence in her examination-in-chief, had given gobye to her version in her cross-examination and denied the offence and that therefore, no reliance should have been placed on examination-in-chief of P.W-1. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor placing reliance on Vijay Alias Chinee V. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010)8 Supreme Court Cases 191 of the Supreme Court contended that evidence of P.W-1 itself is sufficient to find the accused guilty under Section 376 I.P.C and that the Court need not expect any corroboration for P.W-1’s evidence in cases of this nature.

5) It is P.W-1’s evidence that about 2 years ago at about 6.00 P.M when she was returning from her work, the accused came behind her, caught hold of her hand and committed rape on her and that she went to her house and informed the same to her husband and that both of them went to police station on the same day and presented Ex.P-1 report. When the Additional Public Prosecutor in the lower Court read over contents of Ex.P-1, P.W-1 admitted the same to be true and correct. P.W-1 further deposed that she does not remember who drafted the report and that she affixed her thumb impression on Ex.P-1. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that in Ex.P-1, P.W-1 did not state that contents of Ex.P-1 were read over to her. Since Ex.P-1 is written report presented by P.W-1 to the police, there was no legal obligation for the police to read over contents of the same to P.W-1 before registering the same. Section 154 Cr.P.C contemplates the exercise of reading over contents of the report by the police officer to the informant, in case the informant gives oral report and it was reduced by the police officer into writing. It is only in the case of