Court dismissed criminal revision against conviction and sentence for attempted rape. Upheld lower courts' finding that absence of medical evidence does not negate reliable testimony of witnesses.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed; accused to undergo remainder of sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.772 OF 2007 Dated 3-4-2014
Between: Devathala Anandarao.
..Petitioner.
And:
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its . Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.772 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 1-6-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2005 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Eluru whereunder judgment dated 28-4-2005 in Sessions Case No.262 of 2004 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 14-52003 at about 4-30 P.M., while victim girl and Shaik Reshma were collecting dung at Komati-cheruvu tankbund fields, the revision petitioner saw the victim girl and developed evil intention and sent victim girl to far away place stating that dung was available there and there he took away the victim girl into a dried watertank on the pretext of showing dung there and committed rape on her and the victim girl informed the incident to her mother and parents of the victim searched for the accused and thereafter informed the incident to Penki Keshavarao and on 16-5-2003, the said Keshavarao traced accused and detained him near the house of Suryanarayanaraju and then mother
of the victim went to police station on 16-5-2003 and lodged a complaint which is registered as Crime No.142 of 2003 and investigation revealed that the accused committed the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. On these allegations, trial court examined 11 witnesses and marked 11 documents on behalf of prosecution and no one is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Assistant Sessions judge, Eluru found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. read with 511 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer five years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, West Godavari and V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Eluru on reappraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. When this mater is listed on 20-2-2014, no one appeared on behalf of revision petitioner and it was adjourned and again it is listed on 20-3-2014 and on that day also, no one appeared and therefore, it is posted to this day for orders. Today also none appeared on behalf of revision petitioner.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a right conclusion that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
5. According to the grounds urged in the revision, contention of the revision petitioner is that both courts committed error in convicting the revision petitioner without medical evidence that he committed rape on the victim. It is further contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of infirmities and inconsistencies and the evidence is not reliable.
6. Now the point that would arise for my
consideration in this revision is whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper? 7. POINT:
According to prosecution, incident was on 14-52003 at about 4-30 P.M., Mother of the victim lodged the F.I.R. according to which, there is no incident of rape but it is only an attempt. Both trial court and appellate court have convicted the revision petitioner only for the offence of attempting to rape but not for rape. Therefore, the objection of the revision petitioner in respect of medical evidence cannot be sustained.
8. Here on behalf of prosecution, mother of victim is examined as P.W.1, Victim is examined as P.W.2, sister of victim is examined as P.W.3, Kesavarao to whom the incident was reported and who traced the accused is examined as P.W.4 and another person Suryanarayanaraju is examined as P.W.5 and Medical Officer is examined as P.W.6 and father of victim girl is examined as P.W.7 and P.W.8 is the person who issued birth certificate of the victim, P.W.9 is the A.S.I. who registered F.I.R., P.W.10 is the Medical Officer who examined the accused for potency test and P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer.
9. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that the revision petitioner made an attempt on P.W.1 to commit rape on her. Admittedly, P.W.2 was fourteen years as on the date of offence. She deposed that on the date of incident, when she was collecting dung at Komati-cheruvu tank-bund fields, the accused informed her that dung is available in the dried water tank belonging to one Kesina Ranga Rao and on that, she has gone there and the accused came there and enquired her whether she attained puberty and he enquired about her age and thereafter, he lifted her lunga and he kept his penis near her vagina and that she raised cries. She further deposed that she narrated the incident to her mother and father. Mother
of the victim who is examined as P.W.1 and her evidence is fully supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2 and according to her as they reported the matter to the elders Kesavarao-P.W.4, they did not give report to police till 16-5-2003 and they were in search of accused. These witnesses were cross examined on behalf of accused but nothing could be elicited from them to discredit their testimony and there are no discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, on any of the material aspects. There are no contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Considering the evidence of these witnesses, trial court held that the case falls under attempt to rape as there is no supporting medical evidence. During cross examination of P.W.2, except putting general suggestions, there is no specific denial disputing the presence of the accused at the place of incident. Considering these aspects, the learned trial judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C read with 511 I.P.C. and the appellate court confirmed the same.
10. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by the trial court or by appellate court. I also do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below on any of the material aspects. 11. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that both courts have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
12. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
13. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
_______________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI
KUMAR
Dated 3-4-2014. Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.772 OF 2007
Dated 3-4-2014
Dvs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal revision should be allowed when there is no medical evidence despite prosecution witnesses corroborating an accusation of attempted rape.
Whether the lower courts erred in convicting the petitioner for attempted rape under Section 376 read with 511 IPC in absence of medical evidence.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Devathala Anandarao
State of Andhra Pradesh
S.Ravi Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
