Thammisetty Srinu, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4067 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.219 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section

376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in

default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months vide

judgment in S.C.No.270 of 2008, dated 20.02.2009 passed by

the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. Aggrieved by the

same, present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl,

daughter of P.W.1 is deaf and dumb. P.W.1 filed complaint on

26.06.2007 stating that her daughter, P.W.3 was aged 14

years, who is deaf and dumb and when she was alone in the

house, the appellant entered the house and committed rape on

her by closing her mouth and thereafter threatened her with

dire consequences. Since the victim girl was deaf and dumb,

her statement under Ex.P3 was recorded on 04.07.2007 by

P.W.2, who is a teacher for the deaf and dumb in the

Government Residential School. P.W.2 asked the victim/PW3

in the presence of police regarding the incident. She replied by

signs that one person used to put his penis in her vagina and

when she tried to cry, he had closed her mouth. She informed

the mother P.W.1. P.W.3 is the victim girl and examined in

the court keeping P.W.2, the interpreter. During P.W.3's

examination, she reiterated her statement made earlier before

the police and identified the appellant as the person who

entered the house and forcibly had sexual intercourse with

her. In the cross-examination of P.W.3 except suggesting that

she is deposing false, nothing is elicited. Further, it is not even

the case in the prosecution that whatever is recorded in the

Court with the help of interpreter P.W.2 is incorrect.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the mother

P.W.1 had partially turned hostile to the prosecution case and

did not speak about the commission of rape. However, her

evidence may attract offence under Section 354 of IPC and not

Section 376 of IPC. Further, there is a delay in lodging the

complaint, which is not explained.

4. There is no element of doubt regarding the evidence of

P.W.3, the victim girl, who entered into the witness box and

explained as to how the appellant forcibly had sexual

intercourse with her. The said infirmities pointed out by the

learned counsel for the appellant are trivial in nature and

needs no consideration. The evidence of P.W.3 is trustworthy

and the offence of rape is proved against the appellant. In the

said circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the

finding of the learned Sessions Judge and accordingly, the

conviction recorded by the trial Court is confirmed.

10. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Since the appellant is

on bail, the concerned Court shall take steps to secure his

presence police and send him to prison to serve out the

sentence.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 04.08.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.219 OF 2009

Date: 04.08.2022.

kvs