Cherlopalli Ravindra Reddy, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1930 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1050 OF 2007

ORDER:-

      This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who

was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2005, on the file of

Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, challenging the judgment,

dated 25.07.2007, where under the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Hindupur, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and

confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the

accused in S.C.No.724 of 2004, on the file of Assistant Sessions

Judge, Penuknoda.

      2)     The   parties   to   this   Criminal   Revision   Case   will

hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for

the sake of the convenience.

      3)     The Sessions Case No.724 of 2004, on the file of

Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda, arose out of a committal

order passed in P.R.C.No.26 of 2004, on the file of Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Penukonda.

      4)     The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Gorantla Police Station in Crime No.25 of 2004 of Gorantla Police

Station, filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First
                                  2


Class, Penukonda, alleging the offences under Sections 354 and

506 of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) as follows:

      (i) L.W.1-Mopurappagari Sailaja, aged 16 years, is resident

of Gangadevipalli Village of Gorantla Mandal and she is the victim.

She is studying 10th Class in Zilla Parishad High School at Budili

Village. Every day she used to go to school by walk and return

after the school.

      (ii) On 24.02.2004 at 8-30 a.m., while she was going alone

on foot to the school, near the fields of Desai Rajasurendra

Reddy, the accused, who was present near the well, taking

advantage of loneliness of the victim, went nearer to her and

interacted with her for some time. All of sudden, he caught hold

of her neck, closed her mouth and dragged her to the nearby

tamarind trees, which are situated in the fields of Desai

Rajasurendra Reddy.     She lost her books and chappals on the

road margin when the accused took her away with force. When

she was trying to escape, the accused took out a knife from his

waist and threatened her that he will kill, if she informs about the

incident to her parents. At the same time, L.W.5-Lalepalli

Srinivasappa, L.W.6-Pathapallem Mahaboob Basha and L.W.7-

Goprla Gopi were passing near the place and they observed the

books scattered on the road margin.      In the meanwhile, L.W.3-

Rangappagari Suresh Babu, who saw the books, identified that
                                  3


those belongs to L.W.1. L.W.5 called for Sailaja. Then, she raised

cries. On hearing the cries, L.W.5 to L.W.7 went near the

tamarind grove and on seeing them, the accused fled away. On

enquiry, L.W.1 informed the incident to L.W.5 to L.W.7. They

chased the accused, but, in vain. Then, L.W.1 along with L.W.3

went to school. On the same day, L.W.5 to L.W.7 went to

Gangadevipalli Village and informed the incident to L.W.4-

Rangappagari Ramachandra Reddy, who in turn informed the

incident to L.W.2-Mopurappagari Laxminarayana Reddy, father of

L.W.1. On enquiry, L.W.1 narrated the incident to her father.

     (iii) On 05.03.2004 at 4-00 p.m., L.W.2, the father of

L.W.1, along with L.W.1 came to Gorantla Police Station and

preferred a report. L.W.8-K.Sainath, Sub Inspector of Police,

Gorantla Police Station, registered it as a case in Crime No.25 of

2004 under Sections 354 and 506 of I.P.C. and investigated into.

During investigation, he examined L.W.1 to L.W.7 and recorded

their statements.    On 10.02.2004 he arrested the accused and

sent him to judicial custody. Hence, the charge sheet.

     5)    The      learned   Judicial   First   Class   Magistrate,

Penukonda, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 354

and 506 of I.P.C. against the accused.       On appearance of the

accused and on complying the provisions under Section 207 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), by virtue of an
                                 4


order, dated 04.10.2004, committed the case to the Court of

Sessions. Thereupon, it was assigned with Sessions Case Number

and was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda.

On appearance of the accused before the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, Penukonda and on following the procedure under

Section 228 of Cr.P.C., charges under Sections 354 and 506 of

I.P.C. were framed and explained to the accused in Telugu, for

which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

     6)    On behalf of the prosecution, before the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda, P.W.1 to P.W.7 were

examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 were marked and Ex.D.1 was

marked. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, the accused

was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the

incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence, for which he

denied the same and stated that he has no defence witnesses.

     7)    The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda, on

hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as

documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the charges

under Section 354 and 506 of I.P.C. and convicted him under

Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about the

quantum    of   sentence,   sentenced   him   to   suffer   rigorous

imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in

default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the
                                 5


charge under Section 354 of I.P.C. and further sentenced him to

pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment

for three months for the offence under Section 506 of I.P.C.

Challenging the same, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal

Appeal No.18 of 2005, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge,

Hindupur, which came to be dismissed on merits. Questioning the

said judgment, dated 25.07.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.18 of

2005, the unsuccessful appellant, filed the present Criminal

Revision Case.

     8)    Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point

that arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment, dated

25.07.2007

in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2005, on the file of

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, suffers with any

illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any

grounds to interfere with the said judgment?

POINT:-

9) Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel appearing for

the Revision Petitioner, would contend that basing on the solitary

evidence of P.W.1, which remained uncorroborated from any

source, the conviction imposed against the revision petitioner is

not sustainable under law and facts. P.W.5 and P.W.6 were not

the witnesses to the occurrence and they were circumstantial

witnesses, whose evidence is not at all trustworthy. Though the

alleged incident was on 24.02.2004 and though the incident was

learnt by P.W.2, the father of P.W.1, on 26.02.2004, F.I.R. came

to be lodged after one week and the delay remained unexplained

by the prosecution. There were ill-feelings between the father of

accused and P.W.2 and taking advantage of ill-feelings, the

accused was implicated falsely. P.W.3 did not support the case of

the prosecution. P.W.2, the father of victim, was not a witness to

the occurrence. Though it was alleged that the accused used force

by catching hold of the neck of the victim, but, there were no

marks of violence and the oral evidence of P.W.1 has no support

from any medical evidence and even the victim was not referred

to the hospital. There was an abnormal delay in lodging the

report. On account of animosity between father of accused and

P.W.2, the false implication cannot be ruled out on account of

delay. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda,

erroneously sustained the conviction against the accused and the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, erroneously

dismissed the Criminal Appeal, as such, the Criminal Revision

Case is liable to be allowed.

10) The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner would

rely upon the decisions in (1) Mahadeo Kundalik Vaidya &

others vs. State of Maharashtra1, (2) Rajeevan & another

vs. State of Kerala2 and (3) Marudanal Augusti vs. State of

Kerala3.

11) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel,

representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that

the accused did not probabalize before the Court below about the

animosity between the father of accused and father of P.W.1 i.e.,

P.W.2 and P.W.1 denied the above suggestions. P.W.1 had no

reason to implicate the accused falsely who was a student at the

time of incident and who was aged about 16 years. P.W.4 found

the books and chappals of P.W.1 on the road and P.W.5 identified

the same as that of P.W.1 and P.W.5 and P.W.6 supported the

case of the prosecution. In fact, they chased the accused, but, in

vain. Both the Courts below with cogent reasons, found favour

with the case of the prosecution and there are no grounds to

interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Hindupur in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2005.

12) Admittedly, P.W.1 was no other than the victim.

P.W.2 was father of the victim. P.W.3 was cited by the

prosecution, who did not support the case of the prosecution.

P.W.4 was the person who claimed to have learnt about the

2001 ALL MR (Cri) 2147

2003 ALL MR (Cri) 820 (S.C.)

(1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 425

incident through P.W.5 and P.W.6 and informed the same to

P.W.2. P.W.5 and P.W.6 were cited by the prosecution to speak

about the incident that they spotted the chappals and books of

P.W.1 on the road and after that they heard the cries of P.W.1

and that on coming to know about the incident through P.W.1 and

found the accused running away and chasing the accused, etc.

P.W.7 was the investigating officer.

13) Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, her evidence in

substance is that she studied 10th class during the academic year

2003-04 at Budili Village of Gorantla. Her native place is

Gangadevipalli. L.W.2-Mupurappagari Lakshminarayana Reddy is

her father. She knows the accused, who is resident of

Gangadevipalli village. The distance between her village and Budili

is three kilometers. She and other students used to go to Budili

School on bicycles every day. On 24.02.2004 at 8-00 a.m., she

started to go to school from her house, as her bicycle was

punctured. At about 8-30 a.m., when she reached near the

agricultural lands of Racha Surendra Reddy, the accused came

from her back side and asked her why she is going to school

alone. She told him that other students are coming on her behind.

Then, he caught hold of her, closed her mouth with one hand and

caught hold of her neck and dragged to the tamarind trees of

Racha Surendra Reddy forcibly. Then all her books and chappals

fell on the ground. L.W.5 to L.W.7, who are going by the road

saw her books and chappals. On hearing the voice of L.W.5 to

L.W.7, the accused removed his hand from her mouth and then

she cried loudly. On her cries, L.W.5 to L.W.7 approached her

and on seeing them, the accused ran away. L.W.6-Mahaboob

Basha chased the accused by taking the bicycle of L.W.3-Suresh

Babu, who came there on bicycle, but the accused was not traced

by Mahaboob Basha. Then, she and Suresh Babu went to school.

The accused dragged her nearer to the tamarind trees of Racha

Surendra Reddy with an intention to outrage her modesty and

threatened her to kill, if she revealed the incident to her parents.

After attending the school, she returned back to her home at 5-00

p.m. She did not reveal about the incident to her parents with a

fear that her future may ruined as she was studying 10 th class by

then. On 26.02.2004 the villagers of Budili informed about the

incident to their villagers and then her parents came to know

about the incident through the villagers. Thereafter, her father

asked her on 26.02.2004 about the incident and she revealed the

incident to her father. Her father left to St. Johns Hospital,

Bangalore for treatment, as he was suffering with brain T.B. Her

father returned back to the village on 04.03.2004. On 05.03.2004

she and her father went to Gorantla Police Station and she lodged

a report with police. Ex.P.1 is the report.

14) P.W.2, the father of victim, deposed that he came to

know about the occurrence of the incident and on 26.02.2004 at

9-00 p.m., when he was in the bazaar of the village through

L.W.4-R. Ramachandra Reddy. L.W.4 claimed that he came to

know about the incident through the villagers of Budili. Then, he

went to his house and informed the incident to his wife. After

that, on the next day morning, he left to Bangalore to take

treatment. He took treatment in the hospital at Bangalore for four

days and returned back to the village. After return back to village,

he came to know that the accused was making efforts to kidnap

P.W.1. Thereafter, he and P.W.1 went to Gorantla Police Station

and P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 report.

15) According to the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.1 is his

classmate. He knows the accused. He did not know anything

about the case. He knows P.W.1. He was studying 10th class at

Budili during the year 2003-04. The prosecution cross examined

him and he denied during cross examination that he stated before

police as in Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2 is proved by the prosecution by

examining P.W.7, the investigating officer, who deposed that

P.W.3 stated before him as in Ex.P.2. The hostility of P.W.3 is

proved by the prosecution. Merely because P.W.3 did not support

the case of the prosecution, the rest of the evidence cannot be

thrown out.

16) P.W.4 supported the case of the prosecution to the

effect that he knows about the incident through Mahaboob Basha

of Budili Village, who came to the village and informed him that

the accused assaulted P.W.1 with an intention to outrage her

modesty. Therefore, he narrated the same to P.W.2 on the same

day.

17) Now, coming to the evidence of P.W.5, he deposed

that the offence took place about 11 months ago between 8-30

a.m. to 9-00 a.m. at a tamarind tree of Raja Surendra Reddy. On

that day, he L.W.6-Mahabbob Basha, L.W.7-Gorla Gopi were

going to coolie work towards Gangadevipalli to Budili by walk.

While passing through the agricultural lands of Raja Surendra

Reddy, they found a pair of chappals and books fell down on the

road and then they were collecting all the books and chappals. By

that time, P.W.3 was coming on a bicycle towards Budili. Then,

they asked P.W.3 to observe to whom the books belonged to.

P.W.3 observed the books and told that they belonged to P.W.1.

They called P.W.1 and then P.W.1 came near to them by crying

and they found one person was running towards western side.

They questioned P.W.1 as to what happened. She told the

incident. Then, L.W.6-Mahaboob Basha took the bicycle of P.W.3

and chased the accused, but the accused could not be caught hold

of.

18) Turning to the testimony of P.W.6, the incident

occurred about 11 months ago at 8-30 a.m. at the agricultural

lands of Raja Surendra Reddy. Then, he, P.W.5 and L.W.7-Gopi

were going to the house of Raja Reddy of Gangadevipalli. On the

way, they observed some books and chappals in the agricultural

lands of Raja Surendra Reddy and they were collecting books and

chappals. Then, they heard the cries of P.W.1 from the side of

tamarind trees in the land of Kesava Reddy. They approached

near to P.W.1 and by then P.W.3 came on a bicycle. Then he took

the bicycle from P.W.3 and tried to catch hold of the accused.

The accused was going towards western side and later towards

northern side and he did not trace him. Later, he returned back

to the road. He informed the incident to P.W.4 at mid-day time.

19) P.W.7 is the investigating officer, who deposed that

on 05.03.2004 at 4-00 p.m., P.W.1 came to the police station

along with her father and presented Ex.P.1 report. He registered

it as a case in Crime No.25 of 2004 under Sections 354 and 506

of I.P.C. Ex.P.3 is the F.I.R. He examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 in

the police station. Later, he proceeded to Gangadevipalli village

and examined P.W.3 and P.W.4. P.W.3 stated before him as in

Ex.P.2. He visited the scene of offence along with P.W.2 and

P.W.3 and it is located below the tamarind trees situated in the

land of Raja Surendra Reddy. He prepared rough sketch which is

Ex.P.4. During investigation, he examined P.W.5, P.W.6 and

L.W.7-Gorla Gopi and recorded their statements. He found the

accused absconding. On 10.03.2004 at 8-15 p.m., he

apprehended the accused and sent him for remand. After

completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

20) The accused before the Court below got probing cross

examination of P.W.1. She was called upon to state about the

minute details of the topographic particulars in and around the

scene of offence and with regard to timings of school, etc. During

the course of cross examination, she testified that the school

timings are 10-00 a.m. to 4-30 p.m. She, Suresh Babu,

Chandrasekhar and Madhu used to go to school on bicycles with

carriers. Generally, she did not carry her carrier with her. Other

colleagues get her carriage. On the date of incident she did not

take her carriage. L.W.3-Suresh Babu was coming behind her on

that day. The distance between road and the tamarind trees is

about 20 yards. When she reached the agricultural lands of Racha

Surendra Reddy, the accused suddenly came her behind and

asked her why she was going alone. The tamarind trees are

situated towards southern side of the road. The thorny bushes

also exist near the tamarind trees. Cultivable lands are there

surrounding the tamarind trees. Agricultural wells of Budili

Narayana Reddy and Lakshmi Reddy are existing near to the

tamarind trees. She did not observe whether any crops were

raised near the agricultural lands. Lakshmi Reddy raised crops

surrounding the agricultural well. No biting or nail marks caused

to her when the accused caught hold of her neck. No blood came

out from her mouth when the accused closed her mouth with his

hand. She struggled to escape from the clutches of the accused.

She did not cause any nail bites and tooth bites to the accused.

Her books fell down on the road itself. Her chappals were also left

at the place where her books fell on the road. On hearing the

cries of somebody, the accused ran away. She revealed the

incident to L.W.5-Sreenivasappa, L.W.6-Mahaboob Basha and

L.W.7-Gorla Gopi. She revealed the incident to her father on

26.02.2004. Her father and one Siva Reddy took a road work on

contract and father of accused took another road work on

contract. She does not know whether her father and Siva Reddy

drawn amounts pertaining to the contract taken by the father of

accused for which the accused beat her father. There were no

disputes between their family and family of the accused. She

denied that her father lodged a false complaint against the

accused due to differences between her father and the accused.

21) As seen from the above cross examination of P.W.1,

her testimony remained unshaken. She spoke minute aspects of

topographical particulars of the incident. Her evidence has

corroboration from Ex.P.1. Her evidence has corroboration from

the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 with regard to lying over of her

chappals and books on the road in pell-mell condition. Though

P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution, but, he was

not a witness to the occurrence. He was said to be following

P.W.1 as a student. At some distance, he came to know about

the incident later. Therefore, his hostility has no effect to the case

of the prosecution in any way. There is consistency in the

evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 that P.W.2 learnt about the incident

through P.W.4. Further there is consistency in the evidence of

P.W.4 and P.W.6 that P.W.4 came to know about the incident

through P.W.6. The accused failed to probabalize his defence

theory that as he beat the father of the victim in connection with

a dispute between his father and P.W.2, he was implicated falsely.

22) It is rather improbable that a girl like P.W.1 who was

aged about 16 years would go to the extent of implicating the

accused in a false case thereby exposing her reputation at stake.

In Indian background of society, a girl like P.W.1 unless had

questionable antecedents would not make false implication of the

accused that the accused outraged her modesty.

23) Apart from this, absolutely, P.W.5 and P.W.6 found

the books and chappals of P.W.1 on the road and ascertained that

as they belonged to P.W.1 and in the meanwhile, P.W.1 came

there and informed the incident to them and P.W.6 with the

bicycle of P.W.3 chased the accused, but in vain. Absolutely,

nothing is elicited during the cross examination of P.W.5 and

P.W.6 to disbelieve their testimony. Virtually, P.W.5 and P.W.6

have no reason whatsoever to depose false against the accused.

During cross examination they denied that they did not witness

the incident and that they are deposing false. Hence, in a case of

this nature, the solitary evidence of victim is sufficient if it is

trustworthy. The evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy. Apart from

this, the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 prove categorical

circumstances against the accused that P.W.6 chased the

accused, but in vain and P.W.1 informed about the incident to

P.W.5 and P.W.6 immediately after the incident when they

spotted the books and chappals of P.W.1 on the road. So, the

evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 would lend an assurance to the case

of the prosecution.

24) As evident from the defence of the accused before the

Court below, his contention is that there was delay in lodging

Ex.P.1 to the police and it is fatal. Admittedly, the incident was

happened on 24.02.2004 when P.W.1 was going to school. After

the incident, she gone to school and returned back to village, but

she did not reveal the incident to anybody. As evident from Ex.P.1

and the evidence of P.W.1, she could not lodge report

immediately. P.W.1 was studying 10th class at the time of incident

and she was going to school. Her evidence is that she was

threatened by the accused not to reveal the incident to anybody.

Anyhow, P.W.2 learnt about the incident on 26.02.2004 through

the villagers only and later confirmed it from P.W.1. The evidence

is that as P.W.2 went to St. John Hospital, Bangalore for

treatment to the brain disease and after returning to the village

only, report could be lodged. Having considered Ex.P.1 and the

evidence adduced, both the Courts below found favour with the

case of the prosecution by holding that the delay is properly

explained by the prosecution. This Court has no reason to differ

with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Hindupur in this regard.

25) A girl like P.W.1 in the backdrop Indian society, who

was unmarried, would be hesitant to lodge a report immediately

and in my considered view, the prosecution has categorically

established the delay in lodging report with the police. Apart from

this, the evidence of P.W.1 is fully trustworthy and it has

corroboration from Ex.P.1 as well as from the evidence of P.W.5

and P.W.6. P.W.5 and P.W.6 have no reason to depose false

against the accused.

26) It is a case where it is not the evidence of P.W.1 that

the accused caused any injuries with her. Her evidence is that the

accused dragged her to tamarind trees by shutting her mouth.

The accused did not elicit anything from the mouth of P.W.1 as to

whether there were any probability and possibility for receipt of

any injuries. Under the circumstances, the non-receipt of any

injuries by P.W.1 in the hands of the accused, would not falsify

her evidence. The very fact that the chappals and books of P.W.1

were lying on the road which were spotted by P.W.5 and P.W.6

goes to prove the fact that P.W.1 was dragged to tamarind trees

with force by the accused. Hence, the contention of the accused

that P.W.1 did not receive any injury, if the incident is really true,

deserves no merits.

27) Coming to the decision in Mahadeo Kundalik

Vaidya's case (1 supra), the High Court of Judicature of Bombay

at Aurangabad Bench in the case under Section 302 of I.P.C. and

taking into consideration the interested testimony of witnesses

and enmity between the accused and the informant, found favour

with the defence of the accused. The above said decision has

nothing to do with the present case on hand, as the evidence of

P.W.1 is trustworthy and prosecution has explained the delay in

lodging Ex.P.1 properly and the accused failed to probabalize the

enmity between his father and the father of P.W.1.

28) Turning to Rajeevan's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the background of enmity between two rival

political parties and taking into consideration the fact that the

police gone to spot within half an hour of the incident, considered

the delay in lodging the report with suspicion and extended

benefit of doubt and uphold the order of acquittal. Coming to the

present case on hand, as pointed out the prosecution has

explained the delay properly, as such, the above said decision is

of no use to the case of the revision petitioner.

29) In Marudanal Augusti's case (3 supra) dealt with

facts that F.I.R. is held to be fabricated and brought into

existence after the occurrence. The above decision is of no use to

the case of the revision petitioner in the light of the detailed

reasons furnished supra, believing the case of the prosecution.

30) A perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Hindupur goes to reveal that the learned

Additional Sessions Judge took into consideration overall facts and

circumstances and with proper reasons disbelieved the defence

theory. It is not that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did

not meet with the contentions raised by the appellant in the

grounds of appeal.

31) Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I

am of the considered view that the judgment, dated 25.07.2007

in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2005, does not suffer with any

illegality, irregularity and impropriety, as such, I see no reason to

interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Hindupur.

32) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

33) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately

under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the

trial Court on or before 24.04.2023 and on such certification, the

trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence

imposed against the appellant and to report compliance to this

Court.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 17.04.2023.

PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

Registry to circulate a copy of this order to the Court below on or before 24.04.2023.

CRL. REVISION CASE NO.1050 OF 2007

Date: 17.04.2023

PGR