Back
2011 Supreme(AP) 783
2012 (1) ALD (Cri) 713
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
R. KANTHA RAO
Shaik Adam
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Hyderabad
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1238 OF 2007
Decided on : 21-09-2011
For the Petitioner:G. Vijaya Saradhi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Palle Nageswar Rao, Addl.Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Indian Penal code,1860 – Section 376 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 53A -Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 –Section 3 - Punishment for Rape -Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment dated passed by Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge – Appellant accused was tried by learned Special Judge for charges under section 376 of IPC and Section 3 of SCs and STs Act, 1989 and he was ultimately acquitted of charge under section 3 of SCs and Act, 1989 and was found guilty for charge under section 376 of IPC convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month – Stated in her evidence before trial court that while she and were at their house appellant at came to their house caught hold of her hand laid her on ground and committed rape on her – She also stated in clear terms as to appellant committed rape without her consent and against her will – She further stated that when she raised cries he threatened her not to raise cries – After committing rape appellant left her by threatening her that he would kill her if she reveals incident to anybody – Held, Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant was aged on date of incident he has mother patient, wife and three children and that he was only earning member of the family – It is also further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been in prison in connection with this case nearly for four years and ten months and the sentence may be reduced by taking a lenient view. I am of the opinion that the circumstances submitted by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be said to be mitigating circumstances and they are not relevant for taking a lenient view to reduce punishment – Here is a case wherein rape was committed against a girl, aged while her younger sister aged years was at house and parents were away from house – Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21-05-2007 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole in SC.No. 12 of 2000.
2. Shaik Adam, the appellant/sole accused was tried by the learned Special Judge for the charges under section 376 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and he was ultimately acquitted of the charge under section 3 (2) (v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and was found guilty for the charge under section 376 of IPC convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rs. Five hundred only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
3. Against the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the present criminal appeal.
4. Heard Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
5. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows:
PW-1 the victim girl was aged about 13 years on the date of the incident. PW-2 is her younger sister, who was aged about 6 years on the date of the incident. PWs 4 and 5 are the parents of the victim girl. PW-3 is a neighbour. The house of the appellant is situated adjacent to the house of PW-1. According to the prosecution on 21-12-1997 when PWs 1 and 2 were at their house, while PW-4 their mother went to church and PW-5 their father went to work in a dall mill, the appellant, who was aged about 22 years on the date of incident, entered into the house at about 12:00 noon caught hold of the hand of PW-1, dragged her to a room, laid her on the ground and committed rape on her forcibly. PW-2 the younger sister of PW-1 witnessed the incident. PW-3 the neighbour saw the appellant going away from the house of PW-1 after committing rape.
After arrival of PWs 4 and 5, the parents of PW-1, she informed about the appellant committing rape on her. PW-2 also told them as to what she had witnessed. Thereafter, PWs 4 and 5 took PW-1 to Kurichedu Police Station at 23:30 hours on 21-12-1997. PW-9 the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, recorded the statement of PW-1 and basing on her statement, he registered a case in Cr.No. 66 of 1997 under section 376 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989. PW-10 the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Darsi investigated into the offence and after completing investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant.
6. In the course of the trial before the learned Special Sessions Judge, the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the appellant examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P9 and MOs 1 and 2. The appellant did not propose to examine any defence witness nor did he mark any document on his behalf.
7. The learned trial Court upon considering the entire evidence on record, acquitted the appellant of the offence under section 3 (2) (v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and found him guilty for the offence under section 376 of IPC and convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to punishment as stated above.
8. PW-1 stated in her evidence before the trial court that while she and PW-2 were at their house, the appellant on 21-12-1997 at about 12 noon came to their house, caught hold of her hand, laid her on the ground and committed rape on her. She also stated in clear terms as to how the appellant committed rape without her consent and against her will. She further stated that when she raised cries, he threatened her not to raise the cries. After committing rape, the appellant left her by threatening her that he would kill her if she reveals the incident to anybody. As per the evidence of PW-1, she was aged about 13 years on the date of incident and was studying Class-VI.
9. PW-2 the younger sister of PW-1 also spoke about the appellant coming to their house at 12 noon, catching hold
