K. Azaraiah Wilson, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4333 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1187 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section

365 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

a period of five years and also convicted and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under

Section 376(2)(a) of IPC vide judgment in SC No.571 of 1999

dated 23.09.2009 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at

Nagarkurnool. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim PW.1 was

aged around 13 years when the incident took place. On

07.05.1998 at about 9.00 p.m when P.W.1 went to Kirana

shop and after making purchases, she was returning home.

When she reached Jaffree Begum Tea Hotel, the appellant

pulled Kurtha of P.W.1 and when she turned back, she noticed

that the appellant was in fully drunken condition. When

P.W.1 questioned the appellant for pulling her Kurtha, the

appellant fisted on her chest thrice and gagged her mouth with

hand kerchief and dragged her to Vysya Community hall and

there the appellant slapped on her cheek, removed pyzama,

thrown her on the ground and committed rape on her twice.

Due to act of the appellant, P.W.1 lost her consciousness and

when she regained consciousness, she saw the appellant

standing by her side. From there, the appellant dragged her to

the school opposite to the police station and beat her on her

cheek with shoe and also fisted on her chest and committed

rape once again. P.W.1 was also taken to the outskirts of

Amrabad where the appellant dropped her there. On the next

day morning around 5.00 a.m, P.Ws.4 and 5 who were going

on a scooter saw P.W.1 and took her on the scooter. P.W.1

narrated the incident to P.Ws.4 and 5. The incident was

informed to all the family members and all of them have

decided to lodge complaint and accordingly, the father of

P.W.1 filed complaint.

3. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet for the

offences under Section 365 and 376(2)(a) of IPC. Charges were

also framed for the said offences.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are

several inconsistencies in the version of the victim girl and

there is no corroboration from independent witnesses to say

that she went out on the day when the alleged incident

occurred.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submits that the solitary testimony of P.W.1 is sufficient to

convict the appellant. There is nothing in the cross-

examination of P.W.1 or any of the witnesses to suggest that

the appellant was falsely implicated. For the said reason, since

evidence is consistent, the conviction cannot be interfered

with.

6. According to the victim P.W.1, the appellant was an

acquaintance as he was APSP Constable and used to visit her

fruit stall frequently along with other constables. On the date

of alleged incident, the appellant in a drunken condition,

pulled PW1's dress and taken to the building and committed

rape on her. P.W.1 was also beaten by the appellant. After

committing rape initially, P.W.1 lost her consciousness. After

regaining consciousness again P.W.1 was subjected to beating

and also the appellant raped her.

7. During the course of investigation, the dress of the victim

was collected. When the Doctor, P.W.33 conducted DNA

testing on the blood stains, sperm was found on the pyzama.

The DNA analysis concluded that sperm originated from the

appellant. Further, the evidence of P.W.21 discloses that there

were several abrasions all over her body. Her hymen was not

in tact. FSL report shows human semen and spermatozoa on

the smears taken from her vagina were present.

8. The case is one of brutally assaulting and raping the

victim girl. The oral evidence and medical evidence proved

beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant who had

committed the said crime. There are no discrepancies in the

case or anything to suggest even minutely that the version of

P.W.1 is incorrect.

9. In the said circumstances, there are no grounds

whatsoever to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions

Judge. The conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge

is hereby confirmed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.08.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1187 OF 2009

Date: 26.08.2022.

kvs