Marepally Venkanna, Nalgonda ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4281 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1209 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 vide judgment in SC No.384 of 2008

dated 02.04.2009 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at

Nalgonda.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant is the

father of P.W.1 victim. P.W.1 stated that the appellant, six

months prior to 31.12.2007 put his hands into her jacket and

pressed her breasts and rubbed her body though PW.1

resisted. However, the same was not informed due to fear of

family members. One week thereafter, when the mother-P.W.4

was not present in the house, the appellant again dragged her

to room and forcibly committed rape on her. The appellant

threatened her not to inform anyone. Again on 20.08.2007,

during afternoon hours, the appellant again committed rape

on her. The said act of rape and also pressing her breasts

continued. On 31.12.2007, when PW.1 was preparing to go to

school, the appellant held her hand and had sex forcibly. The

said acts of the appellant were informed by P.W.1 to P.W.2,

who is her friend. Thereafter, both P.Ws.1 and 2 met P.W.3

and informed that the appellant was harassing her sexually.

P.W.3 advised that PW1 should inform TV 9 channel or lodge a

complaint with the police. Accordingly, the victim girl P.W.1

lodged a complaint in the police station on 03.02.2008. After

receiving the complaint, P.W.1 was sent for medical

examination and the police, having concluded investigation,

found that the appellant who is the father of P.W.1 had raped

her several times. For which reason, the charge sheet was laid

under Section 376 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

very narration of P.W.1 is highly improbable. Though the

relatives and grand parents of P.W.1 were neighbors in the

very same locality, there was never any complaint. Further,

the most probable person to whom the complaint against the

appellant would be made was her mother-P.W.4. However, no

such complaint was made to her. P.W.4 during her

examination before the Court stated that she did not know

anything about such harassment and for the first time, she

came to know that the appellant was committing rape on

P.W.1 when she went to the police station after the complaint.

Counsel further submits that the forensic report does not

reveal that there were any semen spermatozoa that were

detected on the vaginal smears. Ex.P3 final report which was

given by P.W.6-Doctor also mentions that there was no semen

and spermatozoa detected. However, observed that the rape

cannot be ruled out.

4. Counsel further contends that it is admitted during the

cross-examination that there was a quarrel in between the

maternal uncle and the appellant for the purpose of bearing

expenditure for the treatment of P.W.4. The reason for false

complaint is that the appellant was questioning P.W.1

suspecting her character as admitted during her cross-

examination. For the reason of the appellant not bearing the

expenditure of the treatment of P.W.4, it is suggested that at

the instance of P.W.4, maternal grandparents, present false

complaint was filed. Accordingly, for the reason of there being

no truth in the allegation made by P.W.2, the appeal has to be

allowed and the appellant has to be acquitted.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submits that the reasoning given by the appellant regarding a

false complaint cannot be believed. The victim, P.W.1, who is

the daughter of the appellant had specifically stated that it

was the appellant, who was the perpetrator and who

committed rape on her. There is no reason why the daughter

would implicate the father for such a crime unless it occurred.

For the said reasons, the conviction recorded by the trial Court

cannot be interfered with.

6. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the appellant, who is the

father was committing rape on her over a period of time and

also molesting her on several occasions. P.W.1 narrated

several instances of the appellant committing rape on her and

also molesting her by pressing her breasts by keeping his

hands into her clothes.

7. The argument that a false complaint is filed at the

instance of the mother, paternal uncle and grand parents

cannot be believed. The reason given for such false complaint

is that the appellant failed to provide money for the treatment

of P.W.4, for which reason, the present complaint was filed. It

is highly absurd that an allegation of rape, that too, on several

occasions would be made by P.W.1, who is the daughter of the

appellant at the instance of her mother and others.

8. The allegation of rape in the present case is against

P.W.1 who is the daughter of the appellant. No daughter would

under any circumstance implicate the father in such heinous

offence. The reasoning given by the appellant that money was

not provided for the treatment of P.W.4 is again highly

improbable reason for false implication of such nature. P.W.1

not complaining against the appellant to mother-P.W.4 and

grandparents cannot be termed as infirmity to cast a doubt on

the evidence of PW.1 being correct. When the father himself

was the perpetrator, the victim daughter in all probability

would have informed her friend, for the reason of the others

being family members and may have apphrended that they

would support the appellant. The argument that the

complaint was not made to the mother, paternal uncle and

grand parents is of no consequence. P.Ws.2 and 3, who are

independent witnesses stated that P.W.1 had complained

about the acts of her father. If the motive as suggested was

correct, the mother or maternal uncle would have taken PW1

to file the complaint.

9. The medical evidence also suggesting that there was no

semen and spermatozoa found, cannot be a ground to brush

aside the case of the complainant. The Doctor, P.W.6 not

finding any external injuries on P.W.1 is of no consequence in

the present facts of the case. The case is one of raping

daughter by her own father, over a period of time. It is not the

case of P.W.1 that immediately after she was raped, she went

to the police station. The said suffering of P.W.1 was revealed

to P.W.2, who in turn to P.W.3. In the said circumstances, not

finding semen and spermatozoa on the vaginal smears is of no

consequence. Accordingly, the findings of the learned

Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with and the conviction is

confirmed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 25.08.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1209 OF 2009

Date: 25.08.2022.

kvs