Atmakuri Yadagiri Chanti And ... vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4028 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.414 OF 2009

JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/A1 and A2

aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Siricilla, in S.C.No.784 of 2007 dated 7.04.2009 for the

offences punishable under Sections 451 and 376(2)(g) r/w.34 of

Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of one year and ten years

respectively.

2. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 who is the mother

of two children was raped by the appellants. On 12.03.2007,

around 7 P.M. the appellants went to the house of PW1 and

asked her to open the door. Both went inside and ordered PW1 to

cook food and serve them, failing which they would kill her. The

2nd appellant/A2 took PW1's daughter outside the house and

Accused No.1 committed rape on her though she requested that

she was not well. Thereafter Accused No.1 threatened that she

should not reveal the incident to anyone and went away. The

said incident took place in between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.

3. PW1 informed the incident to PW3 the next day, who took

her to the village centre and informed to villagers. Thereafter, a

complaint was filed on the next day i.e. on 13.3.2007 and the

victim was examined by the doctor after two days i.e. on

15.03.2007.

4. The prosecution examined PW1 who is the victim and her

daughter PW2, PW3 is the woman who has taken the victim to

the village centre and informed the villages and PW4 is the

daughter of PW1's elder brother who about the presence of A1

and A2 at PW1's house.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that it is

a case of false implication. There are several discrepancies in the

case of prosecution which go to root of the case and the

narration regarding rape is highly doubtful.

6. The said discrepancies are as follows;

a) PW1 stated in the complaint that A1 and A2 had committed

rape on her. However, during the course of her examination

before the Court she stated that it was only Accused No.1 who

committed rape on her and the second accused/Appellant No.2

took her daughter outside.

b) The daughter of PW2 stated that it was her mother and the

police who instructed her to depose before the Court, for which

reason no reliance can be placed on the deposition of PW2 to

seek corroboration.

c) Contrary to the evidence of PW1, her daughter PW2 stated that

A2 also entered into their house when A1 came outside. For the

reason of A1 raping her mother both were weeping which again

is contrary to the evidence on record.

d) Though, there is no mention of PW4 in complaint, however

PW4 was introduced to say that she went to the house of PW1

and there she saw A1 and A2. In her cross-examination she

stated that the accused and PW1 were talking in cordial manner.

e) According to PW6, one person was caught and handed over to

the police for the reason of committing rape which is contrary to

the evidence on record. The Police Officer (PW18) stated that the

accused was arrested on 13.03.2007 at Thangallapalli bus

stand and remanded them.

f) Though a complaint was lodged on 13.03.2007, the victim was

examined on 15.03.2007 and it is highly improbable that semen

and spermatozoa are found on the wearing apparel and vaginal

swabs of PW1.

7. Further the aforesaid discrepancies in the prosecution case

make the case of the prosecution highly doubtful and the

appellants have to be acquitted of the charge of gang rape.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of the

solitary testimony of the victim would be sufficient to record

conviction in the offence of rape. There is no reason for false

implication of the accused. When the evidence of the victim

inspires confidence without any further corroboration the

accused is liable to be convicted. Accordingly, learned Sessions

Judge has recorded conviction by overlooking minor

discrepancies which crept in to the evidence. For the said reason

of minor contradictions or discrepancies, the Judgment of the

trial Court cannot be interfered with.

9. As seen from the record, the defense of accused is twofold.

Firstly, it was suggested that sexual intercourse took place with

the consent of PW1. Secondly it was suggested that the husband

of PW1 and A1 are friends when they were in Janashakti Party

and PW1 developed illegal contacts with Kothinti Raju and

Challarapu Rami Reddy, for which reason A1 asked PW1 to

mend her ways, failing which he would inform the husband.

Aggrieved that her illegal contacts would be revealed by A1 she

filed false case against A1.

10. The discrepancies as pointed out by the learned Counsel

for appellant do not in any manner affect the case of the

prosecution. In the normal course of events when an incident as

the present one occurs in a village, more so with a rustic villager

minor contradictions and discrepancies are bound to occur.

People are afraid of Naxalites, the appellants allegedly posed

themselves as Naxalites and trespassed into her house. The

narration given by the children PWs.2 and 4 cannot be said to

affect the prosecution case in any manner and they have spoken

regarding the presence of A1 and A2. For the reason of PW1 and

PW2 not informing anyone on the night on which day incident

occurred would not make any dent in the prosecution case.

11. Though the medical test was conducted on 15.03.2007 that

is three days after the alleged incident, it cannot be said that

finding of semen stains on the wearing apparel is of any

consequence. It is not improbable as argued by the counsel for

the appellants.

12. However, PW1 has not stated anything about 2nd

appellant/A2 that he had committed rape on her and the 2nd

appellant had taken her daughter outside while A1 committed

rape. It is not her evidence that A-1 asked A-2 to keep guard

outside or that A-2 acted in any manner suggesting sexual

assault or rape.

13. In the said circumstances and for the said reason of PW1

stating that A2 did not commit rape on her, benefit of doubt can

be extended to Accused No.2.

14. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial Court

against Accused No.2 is set aside and Accused No.2 is acquitted.

However, the conviction recorded was under Section 376 (2)(g)

for gang rape, since Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the

offence of rape, conviction is recorded against A1 under Section

376 (2) of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a

period of seven years. The imprisonment if any during

investigation and during proceedings before Courts shall be set

off.

15. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:03.08.2022 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.A.No.414 of 2009

Dated:03.08.2022

tk