HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.219 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months vide judgment in S.C.No.270 of 2008, dated 20.02.2009 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl, daughter of P.W.1 is deaf and dumb. P.W.1 filed complaint on 26.06.2007 stating that her daughter, P.W.3 was aged 14 years, who is deaf and dumb and when she was alone in the house, the appellant entered the house and committed rape on her by closing her mouth and thereafter threatened her with dire consequences. Since the victim girl was deaf and dumb, her statement under Ex.P3 was recorded on 04.07.2007 by P.W.2, who is a teacher for the deaf and dumb in the Government Residential School. P.W.2 asked the victim/PW3 2 in the presence of police regarding the incident. She replied by signs that one person used to put his penis in her vagina and when she tried to cry, he had closed her mouth. She informed the mother P.W.1. P.W.3 is the victim girl and examined in the court keeping P.W.2, the interpreter. During P.W.3's examination, she reiterated her statement made earlier before the police and identified the appellant as the person who entered the house and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. In the cross-examination of P.W.3 except suggesting that she is deposing false, nothing is elicited. Further, it is not even the case in the prosecution that whatever is recorded in the Court with the help of interpreter P.W.2 is incorrect.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the mother P.W.1 had partially turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not speak about the commission of rape. However, her evidence may attract offence under Section 354 of IPC and not Section 376 of IPC. Further, there is a delay in lodging the complaint, which is not explained.
3
4. There is no element of doubt regarding the evidence of P.W.3, the victim girl, who entered into the witness box and explained as to how the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. The said infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are trivial in nature and needs no consideration. The evidence of P.W.3 is trustworthy and the offence of rape is proved against the appellant. In the said circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge and accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is confirmed.
10. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Since the appellant is on bail, the concerned Court shall take steps to secure his presence police and send him to prison to serve out the sentence.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 04.08.2022 kvs 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.219 OF 2009 Date: 04.08.2022.
kvs 5