Telangana High Court
Madiga Kindinti Venkataiah, ... vs The State Of A.P., Through P.P., ... on 6 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1808 of 2009
ORDER:
1. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years vide judgment in S.C.No.171 of 2004 dated 03.12.2004 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Narayanpet. The said conviction was confirmed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar vide judgment in Crl.A.No.76 of 2005, dated 15.10.2009. Aggrieved by the same, present Revision is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the victim, who was examined as P.w.1 is that on the date of incident, she was going to attend the work of weeding of agricultural land of Chennappa and while was passing through the fields of Muthyalaiah, the accused intercepted her and forcibly gagged her mouth and took her to nearby bushes and committed rape on her. She shouted for help, however, the accused continued to rape her. No one came to her rescue. Thereafter, she went to her house and informed her husband/P.W.2. Both the husband and victim went to the scene but they did not find the 2 accused. They went to police station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. The police, having received the complaint, registered FIR and sent P.W.1 for the purpose of medical examination by the Doctor/P.W.6. The Doctor had taken vaginal smears and sent it to FSL. Thereafter, opinion was issued on 01.12.2003, that the victim had forced sexual intercourse.
3. The police, having completed investigation, filed charge sheet. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge was convinced with the version of victim/P.W.1 that she was raped by accused. The corroborating evidence of Doctor/P.W.6 was considered to convict the accused.
4. The said conviction was questioned in appeal before the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction of the accused.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that according to P.W.1, she was forced and also beaten when the rape was committed. In fact, she stated in her Section 164 Cr.P.C statement that the accused throttled her and till the time of recording her statement in Court, she was unable to swallow food. No such injury on the neck was informed to P.W.6/Doctor when P.W.1/victim was examined, which reflects falsity of victim. 3
6. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 21). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found material contradictions, conflicting version of prosecutrix and accordingly reversed the judgment of conviction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the version of the victim should of a very high quality and caliber. There should be consistency of the statement made by the victim from the starting point till the end i.e., initial statement made to the police till her statement before the Court.
7. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Misra and others v. State of Orissa (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1307). The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of rape found that the rape of fully grown married woman single handedly was doubtful in the back ground of the allegation of violence and force resulting in physical pain. However, since no such injuries were found, benefit of doubt was extended. Similarly, in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hafiz Faroki (AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2382) and also in the case of 4 Tukaram and another v. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 Supreme Court 185). The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with cases of rape, wherein the circumstances narrated by the victim was not probable, benefit of doubt was extended.
8. P.W.6, who examined the victim stated that "I examined P.W.1. I did not find any external injuries." She also admitted in cross- examination that "It is true that there is possibility of injuries on the person of the victim in case she was forcibly raped."
9. In the said back ground of the evidence of the Doctor/P.W.6, the version of the victim needs to be assessed. In cross- examination, P.W.1 stated as follows:
"I raised cries while the accused was committing rape on me. I was raped in the thorny bushes. I sustained scratches over my body. The accused pulled me by holding the tuft of my hair. I struggled with the accused for half-an-hour while he was committing rape on me. Nobody came to my rescue despite my cries during the struggle with the accused. I did not inform to Shanthamma and Laxmidevamma about the rape committed by the accused."
10. Though the learned counsel had produced Section 164 Cr.P.C statement for considering the contents as they are contradictory, however, the same cannot be looked into since Section 164 Cr.P.C 5 statement is not substantive evidence and the said statement was not confronted to the witness in the witness box.
11. The victim/P.W.1 stated that she went to weed out plants in the land of one Chennappa. The said Chennappa's land was outside the fields of Muthlayaiah, Bhasker and others. The victim stated that she was raped on the throny bushes and she sustained scratches all over the body, while she was struggling with the accused for half an hour. The said version of using violence and the victim/P.W1. receiving injuries is contradicted by the evidence of the Doctor/P.W.6, who did not find any injuries on the body of P.W.1. Further, if at all the incident had taken place for half-an- hour and she was shouting all the time, the neighbouring farmers would have come to her rescue. The conduct of P.W.1/victim and P.W.2/husband also appears to be improbable. When P.W.1 informed P.W.2 regarding rape, both of them went to the fields for finding the accused. However, they did not complain to the village elders or the adjoining farmers regarding the incident and about the accused. Further, the saree or the wearing apparel of victim/P.W.1 did not have any blood stains. If at all, as stated by the victim/P.W.1 that she was raped forcibly in thorns and assaulted 6 by the accused, there is every possibility of there being blood stains on the clothes. Even the defence taken by the accused is that she consented to have sexual intercourse with him. The said version of the accused regarding there being consensual intercourse cannot be ruled out mainly in the back ground of the version of the victim that there was use of violence and she received bruises all over her body, falsified by the evidence of Doctor/P.W.6. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to the accused.
12. In the result, the judgment of 1st appellate Court in Crl.A.No.76 of 2005, dated 15.10.2009 is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted. Since the accused is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
13. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 06.08.2024 kvs