Telangana High Court
Gajji Chandraiah vs State Of A.P. on 24 August, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.794 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section
376(f)of IPC r/w Section 511 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years vide judgment
in SC No.435 of 2008 dated 14.07.2009 passed by the
Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. Aggrieved by the same,
present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant resides
in the same village where P.Ws.1 to 3 reside. PWs.1 and 2 are
the parents of P.W.3, the victim girl. The victim girl was aged
about 7 years when the incident occurred. It is the case of the
prosecution that P.W.1, who is the father of the victim girl filed
a complaint Ex.P1 stating that when P.W.1 and his wife, P.W.2
went to attend agriculture work, the appellant who is resident
of the same village took P.W.3 to his house on the premise of
giving chocolate and he removed the underwear of P.W.3 and
also removed his underwear and laid on her. The said
incident was known on the next day when P.W.2 tried to bathe
P.W.3 and that is when P.W.3 victim girl informed P.W.2 that
she was getting pain in her private parts. When questioned
she has narrated the incident.
3. P.Ws.1 and 2 who are parents have stated about P.W.3
intimating them about the acts of the appellant. The victim girl
P.W.3 was examined in the Court. During her examination
preliminary questions were put by the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge to ascertain the capacity of victim to
understand the situation and also to answer the questions.
Having found that P.W.3 was mentally alert, the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge had recorded the evidence.
4. According to P.W.3, on the date of incident, the appellant
carried her to his house and removed her underwear and also
his underwear and laid on her by keeping his organ on the
place where she passes urine. The appellant also gave 0.50
paise to the victim girl. Due to fear, she did not inform anyone
about the said incident. However, on the next day, when she
suffered the pain, she had informed the same to her parents
P.Ws.1 and 2.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
even according to the evidence of P.W.3 in her cross-
examination she stated that the appellant and the parents
informed as to what to depose in the court. For the said
reason of P.W.3 being tutored, the conviction has to be set
aside.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits
that the said act of the appellant was on a seven year old girl
and such minor discrepancies are bound to occur, for which
reason, the finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge
cannot be interfered with.
7. The evidence of P.W.3 victim girl is that her underwear
was removed and appellant laid on her and tried to commit
rape on her. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that in
the complaint and also on the basis of the evidence, there was
no penetration to any extent, for which reason, the Assistant
Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant under Section
376(2)(f) r/w Section 511 of IPC.
8. The findings of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge
cannot be interfered with. However, the conviction is one
under Section 376(1) IPC r/w 511 of IPC, for the reason of the
appellant not being a relative, guardian or a teacher or a
person in position of trust or authority towards the victim and
thereby attempted rape on such victim as required under
Section 376(2)(f) of IPC.
9. In the said circumstances, the appellant is convicted for
the offence under Section 376(1) r/w Section 511 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
five years. The period of judicial custody shall be set off under
Section 428 of Cr.PC.
10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a
sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 24.08.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.794 OF 2009
Date: 24.08.2022.
kvs
