IMPORTANT POINT
Kidnapping and rape – Reliance on emotional state of victim as a proxy for corroboration of allegations would be both legally unsound and procedurally inappropriate.

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. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the Sessions Court.

4. Perused the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the Sessions Court, which is challenged under this appeal. It consisted of evidence of PWs.1 to 13 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.18 and M.Os.1 to 8 were marked.

5. The facts in a nutshell, which give rise to the present appeal, are as follows:—

(a) The accused is a notorious habitual offender residing in Machilipatnam. The victim, PW.1, was a minor at the time of the alleged offence and was enrolled in the first year of B.Sc. Computer Science at Hindu College, Machilipatnam. PW.3, Mohamad Barkat Ali, who was studying at the intermediate level in the same college, shared a close friendship with the victim.

(b) On the morning of 19.01.2009, at approximately 10:30 A.M., the victim girl, PW.1, was attending college after coming from her village, Vullipalem, on her Scooty Pep bearing registration number A.P.16 AR 1731. On the way, PW.1 and PW.3 proceeded to Sai Baba Temple, Bhaskarapuram, to offer their prayers, as the college authorities had declared a holiday. While they were conversing, the accused arrived at the location on a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration number AP 16 AR 4788 and noticed PW.1. Upon introducing himself, the accused slapped PW.3, who immediately fled the scene on his cycle out of fear. Subsequently, the accused persuaded PW.1 that he would drop her at her home. Trusting his words and fearing the situation, the victim girl boarded the Pulsar motorcycle as a pillion rider. The entire incident was witnessed by PW.4, D. Sudhakar, and L.W.4, Ch. Ramesh, who happened to be present at the location.

(c) At about 11.00 A.M., the accused along with PW.1 reached dilapidated house in Adarsha Nagar and took her inside the house, then laid on cot and pulled her lower Punjabi dress. The accused committed rape on her against her consent under the threat of assault. Then, after commission of rape, the accused brought the victim girl on his motorcycle to Bhaskarapuram and dropped her threatening not to inform the incident to anybody.

(d) PW.1 returned to her village, Vullipalem, as she was unable to cope with the traumatic incident. She later came back to Machilipatnam and informed her father, PW.2, Kammili Madhusudhana Rao, about the occurrence, and a report was submitted at Chilakalapudi Police Station. PW.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, received the report and registered it as Crime No.77 of 2009 under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC, issuing express FIRs to all concerned parties. PW.12 also informed PW.13, the Inspector of Police, who subsequently visited Chilakalapudi Police Station, obtained a copy of the express FIR, and took up the investigation. During the course of the in