HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1187 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 365 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 376(2)(a) of IPC vide judgment in SC No.571 of 1999 dated 23.09.2009 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Nagarkurnool. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim PW.1 was aged around 13 years when the incident took place. On 07.05.1998 at about 9.00 p.m when P.W.1 went to Kirana shop and after making purchases, she was returning home. When she reached Jaffree Begum Tea Hotel, the appellant pulled Kurtha of P.W.1 and when she turned back, she noticed that the appellant was in fully drunken condition. When P.W.1 questioned the appellant for pulling her Kurtha, the appellant fisted on her chest thrice and gagged her mouth with hand kerchief and dragged her to Vysya Community hall and 2 there the appellant slapped on her cheek, removed pyzama, thrown her on the ground and committed rape on her twice. Due to act of the appellant, P.W.1 lost her consciousness and when she regained consciousness, she saw the appellant standing by her side. From there, the appellant dragged her to the school opposite to the police station and beat her on her cheek with shoe and also fisted on her chest and committed rape once again. P.W.1 was also taken to the outskirts of Amrabad where the appellant dropped her there. On the next day morning around 5.00 a.m, P.Ws.4 and 5 who were going on a scooter saw P.W.1 and took her on the scooter. P.W.1 narrated the incident to P.Ws.4 and 5. The incident was informed to all the family members and all of them have decided to lodge complaint and accordingly, the father of P.W.1 filed complaint.
3. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet for the offences under Section 365 and 376(2)(a) of IPC. Charges were also framed for the said offences.
3
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are several inconsistencies in the version of the victim girl and there is no corroboration from independent witnesses to say that she went out on the day when the alleged incident occurred.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the solitary testimony of P.W.1 is sufficient to convict the appellant. There is nothing in the cross- examination of P.W.1 or any of the witnesses to suggest that the appellant was falsely implicated. For the said reason, since evidence is consistent, the conviction cannot be interfered with.
6. According to the victim P.W.1, the appellant was an acquaintance as he was APSP Constable and used to visit her fruit stall frequently along with other constables. On the date of alleged incident, the appellant in a drunken condition, pulled PW1's dress and taken to the building and committed rape on her. P.W.1 was also beaten by the appellant. After committing rape initially, P.W.1 lost her consciousness. After 4 regaining consciousness again P.W.1 was subjected to beating and also the appellant raped her.
7. During the course of investigation, the dress of the victim was collected. When the Doctor, P.W.33 conducted DNA testing on the blood stains, sperm was found on the pyzama. The DNA analysis concluded that sperm originated from the appellant. Further, the evidence of P.W.21 discloses that there were several abrasions all over her body. Her hymen was not in tact. FSL report shows human semen and spermatozoa on the smears taken from her vagina were present.
8. The case is one of brutally assaulting and raping the victim girl. The oral evidence and medical evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant who had committed the said crime. There are no discrepancies in the case or anything to suggest even minutely that the version of P.W.1 is incorrect.
9. In the said circumstances, there are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions 5 Judge. The conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby confirmed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.08.2022 kvs 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1187 OF 2009 Date: 26.08.2022.
kvs