IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Yalukala Suryanarayana, S/o.Chitti Appadu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.944 of 2009
Decided on : 14-06-2023
Rape - Criminal Appeal - Section 376 of I.P.C, Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to the charge of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentencing provisions under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted of raping a minor girl and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appeal challenged the conviction and sentencing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the victim's testimony and medical evidence, proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues were whether the prosecution proved the rape charge beyond reasonable doubt and whether there were grounds to interfere with the trial court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's consistent testimony, corroborating evidence from other witnesses, and medical evidence to establish the accused's guilt. The court also dismissed the defense's arguments regarding omissions in the evidence and the delay in lodging the report.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment convicting the accused was confirmed. The court directed the registry to certify the judgment to the trial court for necessary compliance.
JUDGMENT :
The unsuccessful accused in Sessions Case No.160 of 2008, on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada (“Sessions Judge” for short), challenging the judgment, dated 02.03.2009, filed the present Criminal Appeal. The unsuccessful accused in the above said case faced charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C” for short) and after completion of trial, he was convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, for the sake of the convenience.
3. The Sessions Case No.160 of 2008 arose out of a committal order in P.R.C.No.30 of 2008, on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, pertaining to Crime No.166 of 2008 of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada City, alleging the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C.
4. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, S.N. Puram Police Station, Vijayawada City, filed a charge sheet as above alleging in substance as follows:
(ii) L.W.1, the victim girl, is studying 7th class in S.T.V.R.M.C.H. School. She is living with her mother L.W.2- Bondada Lakshmi and her elder brother in a thatched house for rent near railway track. Her father died in an accident about one month back. Her mother used to do coolie works to look after the welfare of the children.
(iii) As the shop of the daughter of the accused is very nearer to the house of the victim, she used to visit the shop frequently for purchase of bangles, ribbons, nail polish, etc. Two days prior to Ugadi festival, she went to the said fancy shop and by then the accused was transacting the business. She asked the accused for nail polish and the accused told her that the nail polish and ribbons are in his house and took her to his house, which is situated in the next street. He took the victim to the middle room where a cot is lying and asked her to remove her clothes and lye on the bed. When she refused to do so, he threatened her that he would kill her mother and brother and made her to remove her clothes. He also removed his clothes and laid on her and raped her. He gagged her mouth not to shout. Afraid of the words of the accused, the victim did not disclose the offence to anybody. Afterwards also whenever victim goes to school, accused used to threaten her and asked her to come to his house. He frequently gives nail polish without taking money.
(iv) On 11.04.2008 at 1-30 p.m., the accused threatened and took the victim to his house and again raped her. When victim went to the house of the accused, the neighbourers L.W.4-Peketi Vara Lakshmi, L.W.5-Jampala Prasanna, L.W.6- Kadavala Lakshmi and L.W.7-Datti Parvathi, saw her. Thereafter, the accused went to the school of victim and asked her to come to his house which was also witnessed by L.W.8- Cheemala Gunnamma @ Gundamma, who is the friend of the victim. Gundamma immediately informed the same to L.W.2, the mother of the victim and when the mother of the victim enquired her, she disclosed the entire incident. Then the mother of the victim went to the house of the accused to question him and accused ran away from the house. Later, L.W.2 and the brother-in-law of the victim i.e., L.W.3-Vinjarapu Ramu took the victim to S.N. Puram Police Station and reported the matter to the police.
(v) L.W.17-Sub-Inspec
The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of proof required to establish guilt in a rape case, the admissibility of corroborating evidence, and the significance of medical evid....
In a case of rape, conviction can be sustained basing on solitary testimony of prosecutrix – No undue leniency can be shown towards accused.
The court upheld the conviction of the accused for the offence of rape under Sec. 376(2)(f) IPC, emphasizing the reliability of the victim's testimony and the corroboration from medical evidence.
Kidnapping and rape – Reliance on emotional state of victim as a proxy for corroboration of allegations would be both legally unsound and procedurally inappropriate.
The judgment establishes the guilt of the accused based on the evidence of attempted rape and assault, highlighting the importance of proving the accused's actions and intentions in criminal cases.
The appellate court confirmed the conviction of the accused for raping a minor based on consistent victim testimonies and supporting medical evidence, affirming the standard of proof required in sexu....
The judgment underscores the importance of victim testimony and medical evidence in sexual assault cases, particularly involving minors, affirming strict liability under the POCSO Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the evidence supported the conviction for kidnapping, it was insufficient to establish the allegations of rape and sexual assault due to....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.