Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(AP) 185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
The State of AP - Appellant
Versus
Boya Lakshmanna – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2008
Decided On : 20-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Public Prosecutor (AP)
For the Respondent: Vedula Srinivas.

The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in sentencing, asserting that punishment must reflect the gravity of the offence, especially in cases involving minors.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 451 and 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 235(2) and Section 222(3) - Conviction for attempt to commit rape - The accused was convicted for trespassing and attempting to commit rape on a minor girl, aged 13 years, and sentenced to one year and five years of rigorous imprisonment respectively, with fines imposed - The court emphasized the need for proportionality in sentencing, especially in serious offences, and noted that undue sympathy should not lead to inadequate punishment. (Paras 2, 8, 20)

(B) Sentencing - The court reiterated that the punishment must reflect the gravity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it, citing the principle of proportionality in sentencing as crucial for maintaining public confidence in the justice system. (Paras 12, 20)

Facts of the case:
The accused trespassed into the victim's home and attempted to commit rape on her while her family was away. The victim, aged 13, raised an alarm, leading to the accused fleeing the scene. The incident was reported to the police later that day.

Findings of Court:
The Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused based on the victim's testimony and corroborating evidence, concluding that the accused attempted to commit rape but did not succeed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the sentence imposed was adequate given the nature of the crime and the age of the victim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Assistant Sessions Judge's sentence was appropriate considering the circumstances of the case, emphasizing that the severity of the crime warranted a serious response from the justice system.

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed, confirming the original judgment.

JUDGMENT :

(K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.)

The respondent/State, represented by its Public Prosecutor in Sessions Case No.256 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to, as ‘learned Assistant Sessions Judge’), is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal.

2. Vide Judgment, dated 30.06.2005 in Sessions Case No.256 of 2004, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 376 (2) (f) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) in terms of Section 235 (2) read with 222 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the offence punishable under Section 451 IPC; accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) read with Section 511 of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused was given set-off under Section 428 CrPC for the period of detention undergone by him during the course of investigation and trial.

3. The substance of the charge as against the accused is that on 06.09.2003 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused trespassed into the house of P.W3 and committed rape on his daughter (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the victim girl’) and thereby, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 376 (2) (f) of IPC.

4. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that:

(a) On 06.09.2003 at about 9.00 a.m. P.W3 and his wife viz. Bhaskaramma, went to agricultural work in their field, leaving their daughter i.e. the victim girl, who is aged about 13 years, in the house with the company of her grandmother viz. Salamma; that at about 2.00 p.m. the accused trespassed into the house of the victim girl and asked about her grandmother; that the victim girl told him that her grandmother went to attend nature calls, on that, the accused lifted the victim girl, laid down her in the Gadipadu of the house, removed her petty coat and her innerwear and forcibly committed rape on her and kissed her on the cheeks; that the victim girl raised hue and cries and in the meanwhile, the grandmother of the victim girl entered into the house and on seeing her, accused left the victim girl and ran out from the house by pushing the grandmother, aside; that P.W4, who was passing in front of the house of the victim girl, witnessed the accused coming out from the house.

(b) On 06.09.2003 at about 5.00 p.m. the incident was reported to Gudur Police. Ex.P1 is the report. Basing on Ex.P1- report presented by the victim girl, P.W10, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.28 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 376 IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P12 is the original FIR.

(c) P.W13, Inspector of police, Gudur Police Station took up investigation. During the course of investigation, on 07.09.2003, police arrested the accused and seized his clothes in the presence of mediators under the cover of a Panchanama. Ex.P2 is the Seizure Panchanama, dated 07.09.2003. The accused was arrested and got remanded to judicial custody. On 11.09.2003, P.W13 referred the accused to the Government Hospital for Potency Test. Ex.P6 is the Potency Test Report, dated 11.09.2003. P.W13 forwarded the material objects to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis under letter of advice. Ex.P13 is the copy of letter of advice. After receipt of all relevant documents and completion of investigation, P.W13 filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the Charge Sheet.