This Criminal Revision Case vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 1461 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1937 OF 2004

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'), is

filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant (A-1) in Criminal

Appeal No.37 of 2002, on the file of the Court of VI Additional

District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur (for

short, 'the learned Additional Sessions Judge'), challenging the

judgment therein, dated 16.11.2004, where under the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal,

confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant under

Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC')

and modified the conviction and sentence from Section 376

R/w.511 IPC to that of Section 354 IPC and sentenced the

appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the

offence under Section 354 IPC besides maintaining the fine

imposed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur (for short, 'the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge') in S.C. No.109 of 20003, dated

14.02.2002.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be

referred to as arrayed before the trial Court, for the sake of

convenience.

3. Sessions Case No.109 of 2000 arose out of the committal

order in PRC No.12 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Palakol. The case of the prosecution, in

brief, according to the charge sheet filed pertaining to Crime No.3

of 1999 of Poduru Police Station is that A-1 is the son of A-2 and

resident of Pappugunta, H/o.Jagannadhapuram of Poduru Mandal

and they belonged to Scheduled Caste. One Kolli Karuna Devi @

Karuna Kumari was the daughter of Narasimha Murthy, aged 19

years and belonged to Scheduled Caste (Mala) (the deceased) and

she was resident of Pappugunta, H/o.Jagannadhapuram of

Poduru Mandal. She used to reside in her own house along with

LW.2 - Jillella Bhudevi (grandmother). Parents of the deceased

were at Kuwait. She studied up to Intermediate. LW.2 is maternal

grandmother of the deceased. LW.3 - Kolli Maraiah and LW.4 -

Kolli Kanthamma are the grandparents of the deceased (father's

parents). LW.5 - Koyya Emeliamma is the maternal aunt of the

deceased. Rapaka Mary, Chadalavada Vimala, Kodamanchili

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

Srirama Murthy, Muppidi Venkanna and Kondeti Adinarayana are

the independent witnesses.

On 29.01.1999 at 03:00 p.m. Kolli Karuna Devi @ Karuna

Kumari (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was alone

present in the house. Taking advantage of it, A-1 trespassed into

the house situated at Pappugunta, H/o.Jagannadhapuram of

Poduru Mandal and made an attempt to commit rape on her

forcibly gagging her mouth. Then, she raised the cries for help. On

hearing the cries of the victim, the above persons rushed to the

house of the victim. They identified the accused (A-1) committing

the offence. On seeing them, A-1 absconded. During the absence

of the grandmother of the victim, the offence took place. The above

named persons along with the victim proceeded to the house of

A-2 and reported the offence before A-2 against A-1. A-2 abused

the victim in filthy language, insulted her chastity in the public

place. The victim felt insulted, left the place, reached the house

and consumed pesticide poison at about 04:30 p.m. on that day.

While she was vomiting, LWs.6 to 11 saw it and took her to a

private nursing home at Martair and Penugonda to save her. But,

she lost her breath. The dead body of the deceased was shifted to

the house premises of LW.2. LW.2 came to know about the facts of

occurrence.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

LW-1 - D. Ravi, VAO, visited the scene of offence and found

the dead body of the deceased. Hence, he prepared a report and

presented it to SI of Police, Poduru Police Station. On the strength

of his report, SI of Police registered a case in Crime No.3 of 1999

under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on 29.01.1999 at 10:30 p.m. and

investigated into.

On 30.01.1999, inquest was held over the dead body of the

deceased in the presence of LW.1 - VAO and LW.14 -

Sannamanda Rajarao and LW.13 - Kondeti Challa Rao. It was

opined that the deceased committed suicide due to the acts of A-1

and A-2. On the strength of it, the SI of Police altered the Sections

of law to Sections 448, 376 R/w.511 IPC and 306 IPC and issued

altered FIR and further continued the investigation. He got

referred the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem

examination. LWs.15 and 16, team of doctors, conducted autopsy

over the dead body of the deceased and preserving viscera, issued

preliminary postmortem certificate with pending opinion. The SI of

Police prepared letter of advice and sent the material objects to

RFSL, Vijayawada for analysis and report. On the basis of it, the

team of doctors issued final opinion with regard to the death of the

deceased i.e., the deceased would have died of phorate which is an

organophosphate insecticide poison about 18 to 24 hours prior to

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

post-mortem examination. On 31.01.1999, the SI of Police

arrested the accused and sent him for remand. Hence, A-1 is liable

for punishment under Sections 448, 376 R/w.511 IPC and Section

306 IPC and further A-2 is liable to be punished for the offence

under Section 306 IPC as he abetted the commission of the

suicide.

4. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the

case under the above provisions of law and after complying the

necessary formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

The Court of Sessions after numbering the case as Sessions Case

made over the same to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. The

learned Assistant Sessions Judge on appearance of the accused

framed charges under Sections 451 IPC and 376 R/w.511 IPC

against A-1 and charge under Section 306 IPC against A-2 and

explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial before the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were

examined and Exs.P-1 to P-15 were marked and during the course

of cross-examination of PW.5, Ex.D-1 was marked. Further,

MOS.1 and 2 were marked.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

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

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

incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by

the prosecution, for which they denied the incriminating

circumstances. They did not let in any defence evidence.

7. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides

and after considering the evidence on record, found guilty of A-1 of

the charges and convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. After

questioning him about the quantum of sentence, the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge sentenced him to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default

to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under

Section 451 IPC and further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- in

default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months for the

offence under Section 376 R/w.511 IPC and that both the

sentences shall run concurrently. The learned Assistant Sessions

Judge found A-2 not guilty of the charge under Section 306 IPC

and acquitted him under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

8. A-1 felt aggrieved of the judgment in S.C. No.109 of 2000,

dated 14.02.2002, filed the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narsapur. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal

confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 451 IPC and

modified the conviction under Section 376 R/w.511 IPC to that of

the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to suffer

Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 354 IPC

besides maintaining the fine amount imposed by the trial Court

and both the sentences shall run concurrently.

9. As against the above said judgment of the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, the unsuccessful appellant therein filed the

present Criminal Revision Case.

10. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that

arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment in Criminal

Appeal No.37 of 2002, dated 16.11.2004, on the file of the Court of

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Narsapur suffers

with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there

are any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment?

11. POINT: Sri A.S.K.S. Bhargav, learned counsel, representing

Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner,

would contend that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, while

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

disbelieving the case of the prosecution against A-2 under Section

306 IPC, believed the case of the prosecution against A-1 for the

charges under Sections 451 IPC and 376 R/w.511 IPC without

proper reasons and even the learned Additional Sessions Judge

erroneously dismissed the Appeal but however modified the

conviction to that of Section 354 IPC from that of Section 376

R/w.511 IPC besides maintaining the conviction and sentence

under Section 451 IPC. In Ex.P-1 report lodged by the VAO, there

was no whisper as to the allegations under Section 376 R/w.511

IPC. Though the direct witnesses to the occurrence i.e., PWs.4 and

5 claimed that PW.1 enquired them as to what happened but there

was no whisper as regards the allegations under Section 376

R/w.511 IPC. The allegations under Section 376 R/w.511 IPC

came to the light of the day only on the next day when the Police

proceeded for investigation after conducting inquest over the dead

body of the deceased. If really, there was incident under Section

376 R/w.511 IPC or 354 IPC, the direct witnesses would have

revealed the same to PW.1 and PW.1 - VAO would have mentioned

the same in Ex.P-1. There were disputes between the accused and

the Sarpanch of that particular village and on account of the

same, the accused was falsely implicated in the case. The

testimony of PWs.4 and 5, the so called direct witnesses, suffers

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

with discrepancies, omissions and contradictions. There were no

injuries on the person of the victim as regards the allegations of

attempt to commit rape. Under the circumstances, the judgment

of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable under

law and facts as such the same is liable to be set-aside.

12. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing

learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that PW.1 was under

the impression that he had to report the un-natural death of the

deceased, who consumed poison, to Police and he confined himself

only to narrate death of the deceased. He did not think over to

make a mention about the act committed by A-1 and A-2 in

Ex.P-1. PW.2 was not in the house at the time of offence in

question. PWs.4 and 5 were the direct witnesses who supported

the case of the prosecution. There were no ill-feelings between

PWs.4 and 5 on one hand and the accused on another hand and

both the Courts below with cogent reasons believed the case of the

prosecution. When the evidence adduced by the prosecution before

the Court below was convincing and when the Courts below

believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Revision

against the concurrent findings of the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge and Additional Sessions Judge deserves no merits. What all

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

the contentions now raised were appropriately dealt with by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as learned Assistant

Sessions Judge as such the Revision is liable to be dismissed.

13. Ex.P-1 was the report lodged by PW.1, the concerned VAO,

bringing about the factum of death of the deceased by consuming

pesticide poison. PWs.2 and 3 were not witnesses to the

occurrence. They came to know about the occurrence after the

incident. It is PWs.4 and 5 who were the direct witnesses to the

occurrence, according to the case of the prosecution. As seen from

the evidence of PW.1, he deposed that on 29.01.1999 at 07:30

p.m. Village Servant - S. Veeraiah intimated to him that Kolli

Karunadevi consumed pesticide poison. Then with the help of the

village servant, he went to Kappuguntapalem H/o.

Jagannadhapuram to the house of Jillella Bhudevi and found the

dead body there. He enquired in the neighbourhood. Chadalvada

Vimala narrated to him as to what had happened. Then he sent a

report to the Poduru Police Station through village servant. Ex.P-1

is the report. On the next day at about 07:00 a.m. Police called

him to act as mediator for the inquest over the dead body. Police

got drafted the scene observation report, Ex.P-2. He also drafted

inquest, Ex.P-3. Police seized the earth where the deceased

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

vomited. Inquest elders opined that the deceased died by

consuming pesticide. The neighbourers told them that there was

an attempt to commit rape on her.

14. PW.2 was Jillella Bhudevi. According to her, Kolli

Karunadevi is her daughter's daughter. Deceased used to reside in

her house prior to her death. Her parents were at Kuwait. She

failed in Intermediate and used to stay in the house of her. House

of the accused is beside her house intervened by a road. Houses of

Mary and Vimala are situated by the side of her house. On 29th of

January about three years ago, she went to coolie work. Kolli

Karunadevi alone stayed at the house. At 05:30 p.m. she was

informed that Karuna Devi died by consuming poison.

Immediately, she rushed to the house. Vimala and Mary intimated

her that accused (A-1) went into the house, closed the doors and

attempted to rape Karunadevi and then they took the victim to the

house of the accused (A-2) and questioned them and the wife of

A-2 and that they further abused them. So, Kolli Karunadevi

consumed pesticide poison. VAO came to their house. Police

examined her.

15. PW.3 is also hearsay witness and she claimed to be the

relative of Karunadevi. According to her, deceased Karunadevi is

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

the daughter of her younger brother. She used to reside in her

maternal grandmothers house. At about 06:00 p.m. on

29.01.1999, she came to know about the death and went to the

house of PW.2, Jillella Bhudevi. Karunadevi already died. When

she questioned Vimala and Mary, the neighbourers, they intimated

to her that Srinu (A-1) came to rape the victim and that he

escaped on seeing them and when they questioned, A-1 and A-2

abused as such deceased died unable to tolerate the abusive

words.

16. PW.4 - Mary is the direct witness to the occurrence and

according to her, incident took place on 29.01.1999 at 03:00 p.m.

By then they were available at their houses. They heard the cries

of Karunadevi as 'Baboyi Baboyi'. Then she and her sister-in-law

viz., Vimala rushed into the house of PW.2. They pushed the doors

and went into the house of Bhudevi and found the deceased lying

on the cot in the hold of A-1 Srinu. On seeing them, A-1 fled away

from the house by removing the latch of the door on the backward

side. They got her up from the cot and brought her outside and

asked her as to what happened. She intimated that Srinivas (A-1)

caught her. Then they took her to A-2, who is father of A-1, and

A-2's wife. She and Vimala asked A-2 about the incident. A-2

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

asked them and questioned them as to why they were implicating

his son when someone else went to Karunadevi. Then they sent

Karunadevi to her house stating that the matter would be dealt

with after arrival of Bhudevi. At 04:00 p.m. they found Karunadevi

when she came out from the house vomiting. She disclosed that

she consumed pesticide. Then they called Sreerammurthy and

Venkanna and took her to one doctor at Martair, where the doctor

did not admit her. Then they took her to Penugonda. On the way

to Penugonda, she died. They brought her back at 05:00 or 05:30

pm. Later, VAO came there. On the next day, she was examined by

Police.

17. The evidence of PW.5 is that the incident took place on

29.01.1999 at 03:00 pm. By then they were present at their

houses. They heard the cries of Kolli Karunadevi. She and Mary

rushed to her house. They found A-1 attempting to commit rape

on Karunadevi. Karunadevi was lying on the cot. They got

doorways on east and west. They pushed the doors and entered

into the house. On seeing them, A-1 fled away to west towards

backside. Victim was weeping. They questioned her and they were

intimated that A-1 tried to commit rape on her person. Then they

took her to the father of A-1, who is A-2. They intimated to A-2

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

about the acts of A-1. A-2 told them that not to make false

allegations and he knows the nature of the victim and he abused

the victim. Then they sent the victim to the house stating that the

matter can be dealt with after arrival of her grandmother. By

telling so, they also went to their houses. Later, after half an hour,

they found the victim vomiting by coming out from her house.

When they questioned her, she intimated that she consumed

pesticide. Then they rushed to the house of Srirammurthy and

Venkanna and after their arrival to the house of PW.2 they

intimated that the victim consumed pesticide. Then in the auto of

K. Adinarayana they took the victim to a private doctor at Martair,

where the victim was not admitted. Then they took her to

Penugonda hospital. By then, she died already. They brought back

the dead body and later VAO came there.

18. The evidence of PW.6 - Venkanna in substance is that he

heard the cries at the house of PW.2 and then he went there, Mary

and Vimala intimated him that victim consumed pesticide and

then the victim was taken to hospital in the auto. He made

arrangements in this regard to arrange auto. The doctor at Martair

refused to admit Karunadevi. Then they took her to Penugonda

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

after and after she was taken there, doctor intimated that she

already died. Then they brought back the dead body of the victim.

19. The evidence of PW.7 is almost similar to that of PW.6.

20. PW.8 is the photographer, who took photos over the dead

body of the deceased.

21. PW.9 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the

dead body of the deceased and issued opinion as to the cause of

death of the deceased.

22. PW.10 is the Investigating Officer.

23. The facts, which were not in dispute, as seen from the

evidence on record, are that the accused was the neighbourer to

the house of the victim. The house of the accused and the victim

were separated by a road. Victim discontinued her education after

studying Intermediate and she was staying in the house of her

grandmother. Whenever her grandmother went to fields, victim

used to stay alone. PWs.4 and 5 were immediate neighbourers to

the house of the victim because their houses were abutting to the

house of PW.2. PW.5 was the brother's wife of PW.4 and she was

sister-in-law of PW.4. Topographical particulars, as regards the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

location of the houses of the accused and PWs.4 and 5, were not

in dispute.

24. There was no dispute that the victim was aged about 19

years at the time of offence. There was no dispute that she

committed suicide by consuming the pesticide poison. It is

altogether a different aspect that the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge found A-2 not guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC.

The contention of the revision petitioner is that having disbelieved

the case of the prosecution as regards the charge under Section

306 IPC against A-2, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and the

learned Additional Sessions Judge were not justified in convicting

the petitioner either under Section 376 R/w.511 IPC or under

Section 354 IPC respectively. It is also the contention of the

revision petitioner that even the conviction under Section 451 IPC

is not sustainable under law and facts.

25. This Court would like to make it clear that simply because

the accused (A-2) was exonerated of the charge under Section 306

IPC, it cannot be held that the case of the prosecution was to be

disbelieved by the learned Assistant sessions Judge as well as the

Additional Sessions Judge. Keeping in view the evidence is to be

appreciated

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

26. As seen from the cross-examination part of PW.1 - VAO, he

brought to the notice of the Police about the commission of the

suicide by the victim, by virtue of Ex.P-1 report. He was not a

witness to the occurrence. Having come to know about the

commission of suicide by the deceased through his Village

Servant, he visited the house of the victim, caused enquiries with

the neighbourers as such sent Ex.P-1 through the Village Servant.

Ex.P-1 though did not whisper literally that it was sent by Village

Servant, it cannot be held that Police came into possession of

Ex.P-1 through other means. PW.10, the Investigating Officer,

clearly testified about the receipt of Ex.P-1. In cross-examination,

he deposed that it was received by him through the Village

Servant. One cannot expect that there should be a whisper in

Ex.P-1 that PW.1 was sending Ex.P-1 through the Village Servant.

Hence, it is immaterial as to whether PW.10 received Ex.P-1 either

through the Village Servant or through somebody else. Hence, the

cross-examination done on behalf of the accused either before

PW.1 or PW.10 in this regard deserves no merits.

27. Admittedly, as seen from Ex.P-1, it is the written report of

PW.1. He intimated to the Police in substance that on 29.01.1999

at 07:45 p.m. he came to know that the deceased consumed

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

pesticide and committed suicide. He learnt about it through

Village Servant. Then he rushed to the house and caused enquiry

and learnt that at 05:00 p.m. she consumed pesticide poison as

such he is bringing the facts to the notice of the Police. He opined

that he does not know the reason for commission of suicide. So a

look at the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P-1 means as he felt

that the death of the deceased was un-natural, being a Village

Administrative Officer, he though it fit to bring the said fact to the

notice of the Police as such sent Ex.P-1 to the Police. It is evident

from the cross-examination of PW.1 that soon after knowing about

occurrence, he did not make a phone call to Police and did not

take any written report either from Rapaka Mary or Chadalavada

Vimala and did not record their statements but Mary and Vimala

informed him that there was an attempt of commission of rape on

the person of the deceased. He admitted that the said allegation is

not find place in Ex.P-1. It is the contention of the revision

petitioner that, if really, there was an attempt on the part of the

accused to commit rape on the victim, certainly the said fact

would have been found place in Ex.P-1, especially when PWs.4

and 5 talked with VAO before VAO sending Ex.P-1. Much was

argued in this regard before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge

as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Courts below

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

negatived the contention of the accused by giving findings that

PW.1 was under the impression to intimate to the Police about the

un-natural death of the deceased as such he was not supposed to

make an enquiry regarding the case of death etc., This Criminal

Revision Case is filed against concurrent findings of the Court

below as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge. So, the

scope of the Criminal Revision Case is as to whether the findings

of the learned Additional Sessions Judge suffered with illegality,

irregularity and impropriety. At this juncture, I would like to refer

here Section 40 of Cr.P.C, which reads as follows:

"40. Duty of officers employed in connection with the affairs of a village to make certain report -

(1) Every officer employed in connection with the affairs of a village and every person residing in a village shall forthwith communicate to the nearest Magistrate or to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station, whichever is nearer, any information which he may possess respecting-

(a) the permanent or temporary residence of any notorious receiver or vendor of stolen property in or near such village;

(b) the resort to any place within, or the passage through, such village of any person whom he knows, or reasonably suspects, to be a thug, robber, escaped convict or proclaimed offender;

(c) the commission of, or intention to commit, in or near such village any non-bailable offence or any offence punishable under Section 143, Section 144, Section 145, Section 147, or Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 );

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

(d) the occurrence in or near such village of any sudden or unnatural death or of any death under suspicious circumstances or the discovery in or near such village of any corpse or part of a corpse, in circumstances which lead to a reasonable suspicion that such a death has occurred or the disappearance from such village of any person in circumstances which lead to a reasonable suspicion that a non-bailable offence has been committed in respect of such person;

(e) the commission of, or intention to commit, at any place out of India near such village any act which, if committed in India, would be an offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), namely, Sections 231 to 238 (both inclusive), 302, 304, 382, 392 to 399 (both inclusive), Sections 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457 to 460 (both inclusive), Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489- D;

(f) any matter likely to affect the maintenance of order or the prevention of crime or the safety of person or property respecting which the District Magistrate, by general or special order made with the previous sanction of the State Government, has directed him to communicate information. (2) In this section,-

(i) " village" includes village-lands;

(ii) the expression" proclaimed offender" includes any person proclaimed as an offender by any Court or authority in any territory in India to which this Code does not extend, in respect of any act which if committed in the territories to which this Code extends, would be an offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 302, 304, 382, 392 to 399 (both inclusive), Sections 402, 435, 436, 449, 450 and 457 to 460 (both inclusive);

(iii) the words "officer employed in connection with the affairs of the village" means a member of the panchayat of the village and includes the headman and every officer or other person appointed to perform any function connected with the administration of the village."

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

28. A close perusal of Section 40 Cr.P.C. reveals that the Village

Officer is duty bound to intimate to the Police as to the sudden or

un-natural death or of any death under suspicious circumstances

in or near such village in circumstances which leads to a

reasonable suspicion that such death has occurred, in the

circumstances which leads to a suspicion that non-bailable

offence has been committed. It contemplates the duties of VAO

with regard to the commission or intention to commit certain

offences near such village i.e., Sections 143, 144, 145, 147 or 148

IPC and further the offences under Sections 231 to 238, 302, 304,

382, 392 to 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 457 to 460 and 489-A to

489-D of IPC.

29. Having regard to the above this Court is of the considered

view that duty of an Officer like PW.1, employed in connection

with the affairs of the Village, was to furnish the information to the

Police with regard to the un-natural death and relating to the

commission of the offences and intention to commit offences as

referred to above. So, PW.1 was not an investigator to ascertain

the reasons leading to the death of the deceased. Having regard to

the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view

that PW.1 was under the impression that he had to report the un-

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

natural death of the victim to the Police and in that view of the

matter, he was not supposed to make any enquiry as to the

circumstances which lead to the death of the victim. So, if that be

the case, naturally Ex.P-1 would not contain any whisper with

regard to the offence alleged against the accused that either he

attempted to commit rape or outraged the modesty, as the case

may be.

30. Another line of contention of the accused is that according

to the evidence of PW.1, in cross-examination, the Investigating

Officer made a visit to the scene of offence on the date of offence

during the night and examined other witnesses and, if that be the

case, PWs.4 and 5 would have revealed the incident to the Police

on the same day. It is to be noticed that PW.10 - Investigating

Officer specifically deposed that though he registered FIR on the

date of offence at 10:30 p.m. having received Ex.P-1 from VAO i.e.,

PW.1 but after submission of copies, he visited the scene of offence

and found the dead body and posted a guard there. He deposed

that on 30.01.1999 at 07:30 a.m. he examined the scene of offence

in the presence of the mediators and got drafted observation

report. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased

and during investigation he recorded the statements of Jillella

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

Bhudevi, Kolli Mariah, Kolli Kanthamma, Koyya Emeliamma,

Rapaka Mary, Chadalavada Vimala, Kodamanchili

Sriramamurthy, Muppidi Venkanna, Kondeti Adinarayana,

Akumarthi Jyothi, Dasika Ravi and Nerili Gangadhara Rao. He

prepared rough sketch, which is Ex.P-15. He forwarded the dead

body for post-mortem examination. After that he altered the

Sections of law to 448, 376 R/w.511 and 306 IPC. He arrested A-1

and A-2 during investigation on 31.01.1999 at 01:40 p.m. In

cross-examination, the testimony of PW.10 is not impeached by

suggesting to him that he had knowledge about the offence

committed by the accused i.e., relating to attempt to rape on the

date of offence itself. All this goes to show that virtually PWs.4 and

5, direct witnesses to the occurrence, had no occasion to intimate

to the Police on the date of offence with regard to the act alleged

against the accused. The Investigating Officer could know about

the commission of offence alleged against the accused i.e., the

attempt to commit rape only on the next date of the offence. After

examining the statements of the witnesses, he altered the Sections

of law.

31. As seen from the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, admittedly, they

are not the direct witnesses to the occurrence. They came to know

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

about the occurrence through PWs.4 and 5. They testified that

they learnt about the incident through Mary and Vimala. PWs.4

and 5 Mary and Vimala testified this fact.

32. As this Court already pointed out the location of the houses

of PWs.4 and 5 abutting to the house of the accused is not in

dispute. The location of the house of the deceased and the

accused, opposite to each other intervened by a road, is not in

dispute. As pointed out above, PWs.4 and 5 categorically testified

that on hearing the cries from the house of the victim, they rushed

to there and found the accused caught hold of the victim and on

seeing them, he absconded from the place of offence. The

contention of the accused is that accused family had disputes with

the Sarpanch of the Village as such he was falsely implicated in

the case on hand. It is to be noticed that during the entire cross-

examination of PWs.4 and 5 nothing was elicited to show that they

have any motive to depose false against the accused.

33. According to PW.4, in cross-examination, there were clothes

on the person of the deceased by that time she and Vimala entered

into the house of victim. A-1 was in lungi. A-1 and victim were

scuffling. The bed sheet was disturbed. She did not state to Police

that A-1 and victim was on the cot and on seeing them A-1 fled

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

away from the backside door by removing its latch. According to

PW.5 in cross-examination, the eastern side doors in the house of

victim were not bolted from inside. The clothes of the victim were

on her when they found her on the cot. Her clothes were not tore.

By the time they saw A-1, he was fleeing away. A-1 having gone

out from western side door finally reached to his house. Both

PWs.4 and 5 testified that they did not inform the incident to the

Police. It is to be noticed that both PWs.4 and 5 have consistently

spoken about the presence of the accused in the house of the

victim catching hold of her. Whether the clothes of the victim were

in torn condition and they were on the body of the victim was not

supposed to be spoken by PWs.4 and 5 with mathematical

precision. Having considered the testimony of PWs.4 and 5, their

evidence with regard to the manner of the incident is totally

consistent. They had no motive at all to implicate the accused

falsely. Accused failed to connect PWs.4 and 5 with that of the

Sarpanch of the village who was alleged to have enmity with the

accused family. In my considered view, PWs.4 and 5 are the

natural witnesses to the occurrence being adjacent inmates to the

house of the accused and they were neighbourers to the house of

the victim as well. In my considered view, the act of the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge in

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

believing the testimony of PWs.4 and 5 cannot be said to be illegal

or irregular.

34. As seen from the testimony of PWs.2 to 7, it is very clear

that to save the life of the deceased they made every effort by

taking her to hospital. After victim was taken to Penugonda

hospital, she was found dead as such they brought the victim

back to the village. So, it is a case where PWs.4 and 5 engaged in

taking the victim to the Hospital to save her life. In such

circumstances, especially when the Village Administrative Officer

sent Ex.P-1 to the Police, they were not supposed to go to the

Police and lodge a report. Hence, the inability on the part of PWs.4

and 5 to report the matter to the Police is not fatal to the case of

the prosecution. When the Investigating Officer did not examine

PWs.4 and 5 on the date of offence, they were not supposed to

state before the Investigating Officer as to the attempt made by the

accused on the victim either to commit rape or that he outraged

her modesty. A perusal of the evidence of PWs.4 and 5

undoubtedly goes to show that their evidence is consistent

throughout on material aspects and their evidence does not suffer

with any infirmities, improvements or contradictions.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

35. PW.6 testified the fact that he heard cries from the house of

the Kolli Karunadevi and learnt about the incident through PWs.4

and 5 and later he brought an auto to take the victim to the

hospital. His evidence is also consistent with the evidence of PW.7,

auto driver.

36. There were no infirmities in the case of the prosecution with

regard to the photographs taken by PW.8 over the dead body of the

deceased and further the action of the Police in conducting inquest

over the dead body on the next date of the offence. In my

considered view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly

appreciated the evidence on record. He appreciated the case of the

prosecution and the defence theory in proper perspective by

analyzing the evidence on record on each and every aspect and on

each and every contention raised by the appellant on sound

reasons. The petitioner miserably failed to show that the judgment

of the learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers with any illegality,

irregularity and impropriety.

37. Though the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the

accused guilty of the offences under Sections 451 and 376

R/w.511 IPC but the learned Additional Sessions Judge minutely

examined the case of the prosecution and was of the view that the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

prosecution could establish that the accused outraged the

modesty of the victim and he dealt with the stages of the

commission of the offence i.e., preparation, attempt and

commission of the offence as such was of the view that the

evidence adduced by the prosecution would not establish that he

made an attempt to commit rape but he outraged the modesty of

the victim with an evil intention. The said findings of the learned

Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be un-reasonable, in

the light of the nature of the evidence available. Having regard to

the above, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the

learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.37 of

2002, dated 16.11.2004.

38. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

39. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under

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

lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before

24.03.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take

necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the

petitioner (A-1) in S.C. No.109 of 2000, dated 14.02.2002, in terms

of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2002, dated

16.11.2004, on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1937/2004

Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur and report

compliance to this Court. A copy of this order be placed before the

Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to

the concerned Officers in the Registry.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 16.03.2023 DSH