Gandabattula Nagaraju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6530 AP

                                         1


                   HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                MAIN CASE NO.: Crl.A.No.310 of 2022
                             PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.      Date                                 ORDER                              OFFICE
No.                                                                               NOTE

4.    08.09.2022   RC, J

                                    Crl.A.No.310 of 2022

                           Admit.

                           Notice.
                                                                  ________
                                                                     RC, J
                                      I.A.No.1 of 2022
                           The    present     application    is   filed   duly
                   praying to suspend the sentence passed in
                   S.C.No.6 of 2019, dated 28.06.2022 on the file
                   of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge,
                   Machilipatnam and to release the petitioner/
                   accused       on   bail,    wherein      the   appellant/
                   petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer
                   simple imprisonment for a period of ten years
                   and shall also pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default
                   of payment of fine, shall suffer imprisonment
                   for a period of three months for the offence
                   punishable under Section 376 of IPC and also
                   sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a
                   period of six months for the offence punishable
                   under Section 506 IPC.


                           Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
                   and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor
                   for the respondent-State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds contended that there are defects in investigation and lapses on the part of the medical officers and the same was due note and discrepancies in the depositions of all the witnesses and having noticed the same, the Court below did not take the same into consideration in favour of the appellant and the learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment wherein the Court below has observed that "In the same way, the defects in investigation and lapses on the part of the medical officers and the frailties in the depositions of all the witnesses are natural, all together they are human beings, as such the defects, lapses and frailties in the evidence of above witnesses cannot take way the kernel of the case of the victim woman, when the evidence of victim woman has inspired the confidence of this Court and held to be trust worthy."

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the version of the victim in Section 164 Cr.P.C statement and in the cross- examination of victim are contradictory in nature and the learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim, which is placed on

record, and also the cross-examination evidence of the victim and in support of his contention he places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi)1 wherein it is held that "22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room

(2012) 8 SCC 21

for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting

materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."

Taking into consideration the facts of the case and on perusal of Section 164 Cr.P.C statement and cross-examination of victim, it is categorically stated by the victim that the incident of rape that took place on 23.08.2017 was not informed to the police but the same was informed to Magistrate in Section 164 Cr.P.C statement and also the report has been given on 28.08.2017 and by noticing all these, this Court prima facie noted that there is some discrepancy in the very version of the victim.

For the reasons stated supra and as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are applicable to the facts of the present case and also the appeal would take sufficient time for disposal, this Court deems it appropriate to consider this application. Accordingly, the execution of substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner in S.C.No.6 of 2019, dated 28.06.2022 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam is hereby ordered to be suspended till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

The petitioner shall be released on bail on execution of self bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the

learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

On such release, when the matter is listed for final hearing, the petitioner is directed to appear before this Hon'ble Court in terms of the Batchu Ranga Rao and others vs. State of A.P.'s case [2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 DB AP].

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

________ RC, J SPP