HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1209 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 vide judgment in SC No.384 of 2008 dated 02.04.2009 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Nalgonda.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant is the father of P.W.1 victim. P.W.1 stated that the appellant, six months prior to 31.12.2007 put his hands into her jacket and pressed her breasts and rubbed her body though PW.1 resisted. However, the same was not informed due to fear of family members. One week thereafter, when the mother-P.W.4 was not present in the house, the appellant again dragged her to room and forcibly committed rape on her. The appellant threatened her not to inform anyone. Again on 20.08.2007, during afternoon hours, the appellant again committed rape on her. The said act of rape and also pressing her breasts continued. On 31.12.2007, when PW.1 was preparing to go to 2 school, the appellant held her hand and had sex forcibly. The said acts of the appellant were informed by P.W.1 to P.W.2, who is her friend. Thereafter, both P.Ws.1 and 2 met P.W.3 and informed that the appellant was harassing her sexually. P.W.3 advised that PW1 should inform TV 9 channel or lodge a complaint with the police. Accordingly, the victim girl P.W.1 lodged a complaint in the police station on 03.02.2008. After receiving the complaint, P.W.1 was sent for medical examination and the police, having concluded investigation, found that the appellant who is the father of P.W.1 had raped her several times. For which reason, the charge sheet was laid under Section 376 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the very narration of P.W.1 is highly improbable. Though the relatives and grand parents of P.W.1 were neighbors in the very same locality, there was never any complaint. Further, the most probable person to whom the complaint against the appellant would be made was her mother-P.W.4. However, no such complaint was made to her. P.W.4 during her 3 examination before the Court stated that she did not know anything about such harassment and for the first time, she came to know that the appellant was committing rape on P.W.1 when she went to the police station after the complaint. Counsel further submits that the forensic report does not reveal that there were any semen spermatozoa that were detected on the vaginal smears. Ex.P3 final report which was given by P.W.6-Doctor also mentions that there was no semen and spermatozoa detected. However, observed that the rape cannot be ruled out.
4. Counsel further contends that it is admitted during the cross-examination that there was a quarrel in between the maternal uncle and the appellant for the purpose of bearing expenditure for the treatment of P.W.4. The reason for false complaint is that the appellant was questioning P.W.1 suspecting her character as admitted during her cross- examination. For the reason of the appellant not bearing the expenditure of the treatment of P.W.4, it is suggested that at the instance of P.W.4, maternal grandparents, present false 4 complaint was filed. Accordingly, for the reason of there being no truth in the allegation made by P.W.2, the appeal has to be allowed and the appellant has to be acquitted.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the reasoning given by the appellant regarding a false complaint cannot be believed. The victim, P.W.1, who is the daughter of the appellant had specifically stated that it was the appellant, who was the perpetrator and who committed rape on her. There is no reason why the daughter would implicate the father for such a crime unless it occurred. For the said reasons, the conviction recorded by the trial Court cannot be interfered with.
6. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the appellant, who is the father was committing rape on her over a period of time and also molesting her on several occasions. P.W.1 narrated several instances of the appellant committing rape on her and also molesting her by pressing her breasts by keeping his hands into her clothes.
5
7. The argument that a false complaint is filed at the instance of the mother, paternal uncle and grand parents cannot be believed. The reason given for such false complaint is that the appellant failed to provide money for the treatment of P.W.4, for which reason, the present complaint was filed. It is highly absurd that an allegation of rape, that too, on several occasions would be made by P.W.1, who is the daughter of the appellant at the instance of her mother and others.
8. The allegation of rape in the present case is against P.W.1 who is the daughter of the appellant. No daughter would under any circumstance implicate the father in such heinous offence. The reasoning given by the appellant that money was not provided for the treatment of P.W.4 is again highly improbable reason for false implication of such nature. P.W.1 not complaining against the appellant to mother-P.W.4 and grandparents cannot be termed as infirmity to cast a doubt on the evidence of PW.1 being correct. When the father himself was the perpetrator, the victim daughter in all probability would have informed her friend, for the reason of the others 6 being family members and may have apphrended that they would support the appellant. The argument that the complaint was not made to the mother, paternal uncle and grand parents is of no consequence. P.Ws.2 and 3, who are independent witnesses stated that P.W.1 had complained about the acts of her father. If the motive as suggested was correct, the mother or maternal uncle would have taken PW1 to file the complaint.
9. The medical evidence also suggesting that there was no semen and spermatozoa found, cannot be a ground to brush aside the case of the complainant. The Doctor, P.W.6 not finding any external injuries on P.W.1 is of no consequence in the present facts of the case. The case is one of raping daughter by her own father, over a period of time. It is not the case of P.W.1 that immediately after she was raped, she went to the police station. The said suffering of P.W.1 was revealed to P.W.2, who in turn to P.W.3. In the said circumstances, not finding semen and spermatozoa on the vaginal smears is of no consequence. Accordingly, the findings of the learned 7 Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with and the conviction is confirmed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 25.08.2022 kvs 8 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1209 OF 2009 Date: 25.08.2022.
kvs 9