HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1027 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten and five years for the offence under Sections 376 and 392 of IPC respectively, vide judgment in SC No.361 of 2008, dated 27.08.2009 passed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 was working as a labourer. On the date of incident, while she was going to labour adda, the appellant met her near Puranapool and asked her to accompany him for doing labour work at Golkonda site. The appellant took her to Bahadurpura and from there, boarded a bus to Golkonda. At about 12.00 noon, while they were going towards the site, the appellant allegedly committed forcible intercourse after forcing her to drink toddy. Thereafter, the appellant also took silver ankles and half tula of gold ear studs. P.W.1 went to the police and filed complaint under ExP1, which is written in English addressed to the 2 Station House Officer, Golkonda Police. The police took up investigation, filed charge for the offences under Sections 376 and 392 of IPC.
3. The prosecution produced witnesses PWs.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. The learned Sessions Jude, having gone through the evidence concluded that the appellant was guilty of rape.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant who is appointed as a legal aid would submit that there is any amount of doubt regarding the alleged incident and the evidence narrated by P.W.1 is not believable. P.W.1 has stated different timings in the complaint, while examined by the Doctor and in her chief examination before the Court. Such contrary timings is on account of falsity of the complaint. Though wearing apparel of P.W.1 was seized, it was not subjected to DNA testing to verify whether the seminal stains on the wearing apparel of P.W.1 belongs to the appellant. Further, P.W.1 is an illiterate and stated in her cross-examination that the complaint was drafted by a police officer in the police station, however, the 3 investigating officer stated that P.W.1 brought a written complaint. In the said circumstances, the conviction has to be reversed.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of P.W.1 inspires confidence and is sufficient to convict the appellant for the offence of rape.
6. Having perused the record, the complaint was lodged by P.W.1 before the Golkonda Police on the next day of incident. However, it was explained in the complaint that she had initially been to Kulsumpura police, who asked her to go to the Hussainialam police station. Again, Hussainialam police refused to accept the complaint and asked her to go to Golkonda police station. At Golkonda police station, she was sent to hospital for treatment. It is specifically mentioned in the complaint that it was the appellant who had committed rape on her. The timings mentioned in the complaint, according to the Doctor, though varies, it does not have any adverse impact on the testimony of P.W.1. There is no reason 4 why P.W.1 would make a false complaint against the appellant.
7. Though, it is not mentioned in the complaint that she was forced to drink toddy on the date of incident before rape, the same will not have any bearing when the genesis of her complaint regarding rape is believable. At the scene of offence bangles and chappal, carrier bag were found and an empty liquor bottle. The wearing apparel that was seized by police and sent to FSL examination, semen stains were found. Though DNA testing was not done, the circumstances can be read against the appellant. Collectively, the evidence of P.W.1, complaint and the corroborating seizures that were affected are enough to conclude that the appellant had committed rape on P.W.1. The discrepancies regarding timing is trivial and cannot be said that it goes to the root of the case to suspect the version of P.W.1.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, I find no grounds to differ with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed. However, the sentence 5 of imprisonment is reduced to a period of seven years under Section 376 IPC.
9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The concerned Court is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of imprisonment.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:21.09.2022 kvs 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER Crl.A.No.1027 of 2009 Dated:21.09.2022 kvs