Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Panditi Lakshmareddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.645 Of 2007
Decided On : 08-04-2022
CHILD WITNESS - CRIMINAL LAW - [Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C] - [Sections 376, 511 of IPC] - The court discussed the evidentiary value of a child witness testimony and referred to various legal principles and judgments to establish the reliability of the child witness's testimony. The court also analyzed the legal position in respect of the offence of 'attempt to commit rape' and referred to relevant case laws to determine the act and conduct of the accused as indicative of his definite intention to commit rape. The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and dismissed the revision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 376 read with 511 IPC for attempting to rape a minor girl. The victim and witnesses testified that the accused forcibly attempted to rape the victim and threatened her. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that the punishment imposed was excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the child witnesses to be reliable and corroborated by other witnesses. It upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, emphasizing the reliability of the victim's testimony and the absence of tutoring of the child witnesses. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the offence of 'attempt to commit rape' was not made out, citing relevant case laws to establish the act and conduct of the accused as indicative of his definite intention to commit rape.
Issues: The issues involved the reliability of the child witnesses' testimony, the evidentiary value of their statements, and whether the act and conduct of the accused constituted an attempt to commit rape.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidentiary value of the child witnesses' testimony, the absence of tutoring, and the act and conduct of the accused to establish the intention to commit rape. It also emphasized the principles of proportionality in sentencing and the need for just and adequate punishment for the offender.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and dismissed the revision. The petitioner's bail was cancelled, and the trial court was directed to ensure that the petitioner served the remaining period of the sentence as imposed by the appellate court.
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri T.S. Rayulu, learned counsel representing Smt Kavitha Gottipati, for the petitioner revisionist and Sri S. Venkata Sai, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
2. The criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C”) has been filed challenging the judgment dated 22.03.2007, passed by the X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet, partly allowing the appeal of the petitioner in Crl.A.No.4 of 2005, maintaining the judgment dated 05.10.2004, convicting the petitioner for offence under Sections 376 read with 511 IPC, but reducing the sentence of 5 years R.I as imposed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala in S.C.No.160 of 2004 to 4 years R.I and confirming the remaining portion of the sentence.
3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla Police Station, filed the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused stating that on 29.12.2003 at about 12.00 noon when “the victim” along with P.Ws.3 to 5 went to the fields to collect plum fruits (Regu Pallu), the accused with evil intention to commit rape, took the victim towards the red gram field near Daggu Bhavi, threw her down removed Langa and tried to commit rape and when P.Ws.3 to 5 reached there, the accused threatened them with dire consequences. On hearing the hue and cry P.Ws.6 and 7 rushed to the spot, the accused fled away. The accused also slapped the victim, who returned home and informed the same to her mother (PW.8). The victim’s father P.W.1, on returning home learnt about the incident and on 29.12.2003 at 9.00 p.m. lodged report to the Police Station.
4. The Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla registered case in Crime No.280 of 2003 under Sections 506, 376 read with Section 511 IPC, sent FIR to the Court and the officers concerned and made investigations. He examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence on 30.12.2003 at 10.00 a.m in the presence of the mediators and also prepared rough sketch of the scene. The Investigation Officer (I.O) (PW.10) arrested the accused on 17.01.2004, produced him to the Court and obtained remand. After completion of the investigation the IO filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 376 read with 511 IPC.
5. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurazala, took the case on file under Sections 506(2), 376 r/w 511 IPC against the accused and after complying with the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Guntur, who made it over to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala.
6. In trial, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked for the defence. After closing the prosecution case, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not offer any defence.
7. The learned trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 376 r/w Section 511 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default to undergo Simple Imprisonment SI for two months.
8. The appeal filed by the revisionst-accused was partly allowed in the terms already mentioned above against which this revision has been filed.
9. Sri T.S. Rayulu, learned counsel for revisionst submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction has been based on the testimony of child witnesses which are most unreliable. There was inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses P.Ws.2 to 5. Attempt to commit rape is not proved and in any case the punishment imposed is excessive and deserves to be reduced.
10. Sri S. Venkata Sai Nath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the conviction can be based on the testimony of child witnesses. There was no inconsistency in the evidence of the child witnesses which found corroboration from other evidence. The minor discrepancies are of no significance. The offence was proved beyond reasonable doubts. No leniency de
The evidentiary value of child witnesses in rape cases can establish conviction if their testimony is credible; penalties must reflect the gravity of crimes against minors.
Insufficient evidence for conviction under IPC Section 376(1) necessitates conviction for attempted rape under Section 376/511 due to partial penetration.
Partial penetration is sufficient for a conviction of attempted rape, reaffirming the necessity of proven intent to commit the offence.
Pre-2013 IPC requires penile penetration for rape conviction; contusion with intact hymen and witness accounts establish only attempt under Section 511 read with 376 IPC.
The evidence of the victim was found to be trustworthy and credible, and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. did not affect the credibility of the prosecution version. The court confirmed the conviction ....
The conviction of the appellant for sexual offences under IPC and the Goa Children's Act was upheld based on consistent testimony of the victim, emphasizing the necessity of protecting child victims ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
