Back
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Vemula Veera Swamy – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. Through the Inspector of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This appeal, under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) has been preferred by the Appellant / Accused against the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam (for short, ‘the Sessions Court’) in Sessions Case No.104 of 2009 by its judgment dated 18.08.2009, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under section 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).
2. Vide Judgment, dated 18.08.2009, the Sessions Court convicted the Accused under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under section 366 and 376 IPC. Accordingly, the accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Five (5) Years and directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC. The accused was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Ten (10) years and directed to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.
3. Fo
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 prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in the survivor's testimony led to the acquittal of the accused.
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.
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....
The sufficiency of solitary evidence in cases of sexual offences and the requirement for consistency and trustworthiness in such testimony.
Conviction for rape under IPC Section 376(2)(i) requires corroborating evidence from the victim and witnesses, firmly establishing the commission of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
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 court affirmed that consent of a minor is irrelevant in rape cases, reinforcing statutory protections and addressing evidential credibility.
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
