THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1037 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:

This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused, challenging the conviction recorded by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, in SC.No.165 of 2007 dated 28.06.2010, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. PW.1 is the father of the victim girl-G.Latha, examined as PW.3. He lodged a complaint on 01.01.2007 stating that on 29.12.2006, at about 12.30 P.M., while PW.3 was in the house, the appellant, who was his neighbor, called her to his house, and committed rape on her. The matter was taken before the elders, thereafter, a complaint was filed with the Police. Then, PW.3 was sent to the doctor for medical examination.

3. PW.11 is the doctor who examined the victim girl, and PW.11 stated as follows:

“The said girl has not attained her puberty. I did not find any external injuries either on her body or on her private parts. But I found that her hymen was ruptured in posterior mid line internally and the vagina was admitted one finger. Tenderness was also present in the vagina apart from reddish black bleeding from the vagina. As such I have taken the vaginal swabs and smears and preserved the same to send to the FSL. I received the FSL report vide Ex.P6 and on the basis of the report of the FSL i.e. Ex.P6 and my examination of the said victim, I opined that “the rape cannot be ruled out in connection with the said victim girl, i.e., PW.3.”

4. The appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence of rape, and the charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge for the said offence. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on the basis of the evidence of PW.3 and other corroborating evidence.

5. Learned Legal Aid Counsel, Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri, appearing for the appellant, would submit that the complaint was filed with a delay of 3 days, and the reasons for the delay were not explained. The medical evidence does not support the version given by PW.3. No semen or spermatozoa was found on the swabs that were collected from the PW.3. PW.1 admitted that there were disputes between them, and that on account of the long pending disputes, a false case was filed. Further, PW.1 admitted that they were not on good terms, as such, the question of PW.3 going to the house of the appellant does not arise.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that there is no reason why a false complaint would be filed against the appellant. Involving the victim girl, who was around 11 years old, in such a case only to take revenge against the appellant cannot be believed.

7. The incident happened on 29.12.2006, and the complaint was filed three days thereafter, i.e., on 01.01.2007. According to PW.1, on the date of the incident, the family members had discussed the issue, and on 30.12.2006, the caste elders were informed. Since on 31.12.2006, it was the Yellamma festival, the complaint was filed on the next day, i.e., on 01.01.2007.

8. PW.11-doctor, who examined PW.3, stated that the girl had not attained her puberty and her hymen was ruptured. There was reddish black bleeding from the vagina. The opinion of the doctor was that rape could not be ruled out. Since 3 days had passed before the examination, the question of finding semen or spermatozoa on the swabs collected from PW.3 does not arise. The doctor further stated that PW.3 had not attained her puberty; as such, the question of bleeding from the vagina on account of menstrual cycle does not arise.

9. Though, it is admitted that there were disputes between the families, however, such disputes cannot form basis to infer that PW.1 had lodged a false complaint only to take revenge. The reason for the dispute, according to PW.1, is the land that lies between the houses of the appella