SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(AP) 585

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
Nadimimiti Srinivasa Rao Srinu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 657 of 2009
Decided On : 22-11-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: V. Venugopala Rao.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor A.P.

Headnote:

Criminal procedure code,1973 - Section 207 209 and 313 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 376 -Punishment for rape –Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other account - Power to examine the accused - Grandfather of alleged victim while one is his wife - House in which P.W.1 was living consists of three portions - In one portion P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and others live while one resides in second portion and accused used to reside in rear portion of said house. P.W.2 victim was affected with brain tumour while she was six months of age and since then she has been staying in house - When alleged victim was aged about 13 years incident in question is said to have been taken place - On said morning P.W.2 was not found in house - It is said that when P.W.2 went out to pass urine accused gave money to her and asked her to give same to her grandmother -At same time accused took her into his portion closed her mouth removed her cloths and committed rape on her - Whether there was any incident at all and if so - Whether there is any evidence to connect accused with crime - Whether there was any bleeding more so in absence of any injuries on body of victim – Held, Grandmother of victim is said to have accompanied to doctor for reasons best known that she was also not examined - Evidence of P.W.2, if found reliable can be made basis to convict accused even without any corroboration from any quarters - admissions in evidence of P.W.2, totally destroys her version in chief - Public Prosecutor ought to have been more vigilant at that point of time -He allowed these admissions to remain on record without cross-examined her on these aspects - One of circumstances which requires to be noted is that P.W.2 said to have left house at in morning and P.W.1 claims to have noticed her coming out from house of accused at nearly four hours later - If really she was raped as alleged by prosecution which was at as per Charge Sheet same would again falsify prosecution case - Since one does not know as to what happened from - When once evidence of P.W.2 throws suspicion on prosecution case and in absence of any other evidence connecting accused with crime Court is of opinion that benefit of doubt can be extended to accused - Doctor in her cross-examination categorically admits that in view of psychiatric problem victim cannot narrate properly - She further admits that there was no elasticity of vagina - Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

The Criminal Appeal is filed, against the conviction and sentence imposed in Sessions Case No.86 of 2007, on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, wherein, the sole accused was tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, “I.P.C.”] and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months.

2. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 16.10.2005 at about 11.00 hours at M.R. Lakshmana Rao Street, Bhimanavaripeta, Vijayawada, the accused said to have committed rape on a minor girl, aged about 13 years while she was moving in the compound.

3. The facts, as culled out from the prosecution witnesses, are as under :

(i) P.W.1 is the grandfather of the alleged victim, while one Anasuyamma is his wife. The house, in which P.W.1 was living consists of three portions. In one portion P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and others live while one Achari resides in second portion and the accused used to reside in the rear portion of the said house. P.W.2 the victim was affected with brain tumour while she was six months of age, and since then she has been staying in the house. When the alleged victim was aged about 13 years, the incident in question is said to have been taken place. On the said date i.e., on 16.10.2005 at about 11.00 A.M., in the morning P.W.2 was not found in the house. It is said that at about 7.00 A.M., when P.W.2 went out to pass urine, the accused gave money to her and asked her to give the same to her grandmother. At the same time, the accused took her into his portion, closed her mouth, removed her cloths and committed rape on her.

(ii) P.W.1 along with his wife searched for her, but in vain. At about 11.00 A.M., when they came near to the portion of the house of the accused, noticed the accused coming out of his house while P.W.2 came behind him weeping. When asked as to what happened, P.W.2 is said to have been informed that the accused took her into his portion, closed her mouth and then committed rape on her. The wife of P.W.1 took his granddaughter to the portion of the house of P.W.5 and on examination, found bleeding from her private parts which was informed to P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with his wife took their granddaughter to the Police Station, where a report was lodged with P.W.8-Sub-Inspector of Police. Ex.P1 is the said report. Basing on which a case in Crime No.260 of 2005 came to be registered under Section 376 I.P.C. Ex.P9 is the F.I.R. Further investigation in this case was taken up by P.W.9-Inspector of Police, who on receipt of Ex.P9, secured P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements. P.W.9 instructed P.W.8 to take the injured to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, for medical examination. P.W.9 visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report of the offence which is marked as Ex.P10. P.W.9 also prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P11. He examined P.Ws.5, 6 and others and recorded their statements.

(iii) P.W.3-Assistant Professor, Siddardha Medical College, examined P.W.2 on 16.10.2005 at 10.10 P.M., and found no injuries on her body. On examination of private parts, she found on the lower part of vaginal and on lower part of L. Majora and left minora coated with white material. Linear abrasion of about 0.4 cms was also noted. The Vagina was admitting one finger with difficulty. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate of P.W.2 issued by P.W.3.

(iv) P.W.9 who continued with the investigation, arrested the accused at Milk factory centre in Bhimanavaripeta, Vijayawada on 17.10.2005 in the presence of P.W.7. On interrogation, he confessed about the commission of offence. Pursuant thereto lungi worn by him, at the time of commission of the offence, was recovered, which is placed on record as M.O.4. Ex.P12 is the panchanama for the said seizure.

4. After coll

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top