Dismissed

Yeleti Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Aug 2014CRLRC/1480/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of nine months under Section 376 IPC for rape. The High Court found the courts below correctly appreciated evidence, including DNA results confirming paternity, and rightly rejected delays and age pleas due to lack of proof.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence; steps for apprehension of the accused to undergo un-expired portion of the sentence. Miscellaneous petitions are dismiss

Yeleti Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1480 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This revision is preferred against judgment dated 31.07.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2006 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajahmundry, where under, judgment dated 23.01.2006 in S.C. No.55 of 2005 on the file of Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry is confirmed.

¶5

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as

¶6

follows:-

¶7

Inspector of Police, Rajahmujdnry Town filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that victim, by name, Bankapalli Sridevi used to attend household work in the house of accused and the victim attained puberty about two years prior to the incident and about one year prior to the incident, the accused went to the house of victim and asked her to come with him to his house on the pretext that there was some work, and when she followed him, the accused after reaching his house, bolted the doors and asked her to fulfil his desire, and when she refused, he shut her mouth and forcibly cohabited, and thereafter, threatened her not to reveal it to anyone and due to fear she did not reveal this incident to anyone. The accused has continued sexual cohabitation with the victim whenever there was an opportunity. While so, on 14.05.2004, the victim got pain in her stomach and she complained the same to her mother who took her to Navatha Nursing Home, and the medical officer on examination found that

¶8

victim was carrying six month pregnancy and on that, the mother enquired the victim and then she revealed the matter to the mother thereafter it was placed before elders i.e., PWs.6 and 7, who advised them to approach police and on that a report was given on 02.06.2004, which is registered as Crime No.249 of 2004 and investigation revealed that the accused committed rape on a minor girl and thereby liable for punishment under Section 376 of IPC. On these allegations, trial Court examined 15 witnesses and marked twenty documents on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to suffer seven (07) years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal to the Court of Sessions and learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, on a reappraisal of the evidence, dismissed the appeal by confirming conviction and sentence. Now, aggrieved by conviction and sentence, the present revision is preferred.

¶9

3. Heard learned Public Prosecutor.

¶10

4. When this case came up for hearing on 14.03.2014 on the request of advocate for petitioner, it was adjourned and again it was listed on 08.08.2014, but on that day, no one appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner, therefore, the matter is posted to this day under the caption ‘for orders’. Inspite of that, no one appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner and no arguments are advanced.

¶11

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence of the prosecution witnesses and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.

¶12

6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the Judgment of the Courts below is legal, proper and correct?

¶13

7. POINT:- According to prosecution, the victim used to work in the house of the accused as servant-maid and the accused took advantage of the situation on one day he committed rape on her and continued the sexual assault by threatening the victim and it came to light only when the victim complained to her mother about some pain in her stomach, and when she was taken to hospital, on examination, it was found that she was pregnant. To prove its case the victim is examined as PW.1 and her mother is examined as PW.2 and local elders are examined as PWs.3,4 and 6. Medical officer is examined as PW.5. A person working in the school, where PW.1 studied, is examined as PW.7, to prove the age and date of birth of the victim. PW.8 is the neighbour of the accused. PW.9 is the medical officer, who examined accused with regard to his potency test. PW.11 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered F.I.R. PW.12 is Medical officer, who examined PW.1 and confirmed pregnancy. PW.13 is Dr G.V. Jagdamba, who conduct DNA test in respect of PW.1 and child born to PW.1 confirming that the accused is biological father of child and PW.14 is the Investigating Officer.

¶14

8. According to the ground urged in the revision petition, the contention of accused is that the trial Court and the appellate

¶15

Court erred in convicting him. It is contended that both the Courts failed to notice that there was long unexplained delay in lodging F.I.R and so also failed to notice that the victim was 19 years and she is a consenting party. It is further contended that both the Courts have failed to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

¶16

9. Though the revision petitioner contended that victim was 19 years and a consenting party, there is absolutely no evidence to support the said plea. On the other hand, the evidence of PW.7 would clearly disclose that PW.1 studied in Municipal Corporation Elementary School, Rajahmundry, and as per the school records, her Date of Birth was 10.06.1990, and Ex.P5 is the certificate showing the entries in the school Registry. It is also clear from the evidence of PW.7 that she studied in the said school from 02.07.1996 to 12.06.2003. If age of PW.1 is calculated on the basis of Ex.P5, she was around 14 years, as on the date of incident. When there is positive evidence to show that the victim was 14 years, the contention of accused that she was 19 years cannot be accepted without any supporting evidence. Both the trial Court and appellate Court have rightly considered this aspect and rightly discarded the objection of the accused.

¶17

10. The other objection of the accused is that there is inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R and the same is not explained. But from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is clear that the accused threatened the victim and prevented her from disclosing incident to anyone and the same came to light only on 14.05.2004 when the victim complained to her mother about some pain in her stomach. So, there is an explanation from the victim and her mother for the delay in lodging F.I.R and the same is quite convincing, particularly, when the victim is only a servant under the accused.

¶18

This explanation is quite convincing. Both the trial Court and appellate Court have considered this aspect also and rightly negatived accepting version of prosecution with regard to delay.

¶19

11. The other objection of the accused is that he is falsely implicated and no way connected with the incident and that he never committed rape on the victim. Here, from the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that as per DNA test, accused is biological father of the child born to PW.1. Therefore, the objection of accused is that he has not committed any rape and is not concerned with the incident, cannot be accepted.

¶20

12. As seen from the material papers, both the trial Court and the appellate Court have eloberately considered each and every objection raised on behalf of the accused, including case law, and I do not find any wrong appreciation either by trial Court or by appellate Court on any of the material aspects.

¶21

13. On a thorough scrutiny of the entire evidence, I am of the view that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have rightly convicted the accused and the judgment of the Courts below are based on sound reasoning and there is no illegality or improprietory in the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court.

¶22

14. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below and that the revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶23

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence and trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of the accused to undergo un-expired

¶24

portion of the sentence.

¶25

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed.

¶26

__________________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶27

Date:13.08.2014 gvl

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶29

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1480 of 2007

¶30

Date:13.08.2014

¶31

gvl

Yeleti Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yeleti Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. B. Geetha Rani, Vs B. Sreeramulu

Manda Krishna Kumar, Vs Budithi Venkateswarlu

Smt. G. Ramadevi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bogala Shambi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Uppalapati Sriramulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vuppala Praneeth Vs D.Santhosh