Dindi Narayana vs The State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 4821 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1027 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten and five years for the

offence under Sections 376 and 392 of IPC respectively, vide

judgment in SC No.361 of 2008, dated 27.08.2009 passed by

the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.

Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 was working as

a labourer. On the date of incident, while she was going to

labour adda, the appellant met her near Puranapool and

asked her to accompany him for doing labour work at

Golkonda site. The appellant took her to Bahadurpura and

from there, boarded a bus to Golkonda. At about 12.00 noon,

while they were going towards the site, the appellant allegedly

committed forcible intercourse after forcing her to drink toddy.

Thereafter, the appellant also took silver ankles and half tula

of gold ear studs. P.W.1 went to the police and filed complaint

under ExP1, which is written in English addressed to the

Station House Officer, Golkonda Police. The police took up

investigation, filed charge for the offences under Sections 376

and 392 of IPC.

3. The prosecution produced witnesses PWs.1 to 13 and

marked Exs.P1 to P10. The learned Sessions Jude, having

gone through the evidence concluded that the appellant was

guilty of rape.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant who is appointed as a

legal aid would submit that there is any amount of doubt

regarding the alleged incident and the evidence narrated by

P.W.1 is not believable. P.W.1 has stated different timings in

the complaint, while examined by the Doctor and in her chief

examination before the Court. Such contrary timings is on

account of falsity of the complaint. Though wearing apparel of

P.W.1 was seized, it was not subjected to DNA testing to verify

whether the seminal stains on the wearing apparel of P.W.1

belongs to the appellant. Further, P.W.1 is an illiterate and

stated in her cross-examination that the complaint was

drafted by a police officer in the police station, however, the

investigating officer stated that P.W.1 brought a written

complaint. In the said circumstances, the conviction has to be

reversed.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits

that the evidence of P.W.1 inspires confidence and is sufficient

to convict the appellant for the offence of rape.

6. Having perused the record, the complaint was lodged by

P.W.1 before the Golkonda Police on the next day of incident.

However, it was explained in the complaint that she had

initially been to Kulsumpura police, who asked her to go to the

Hussainialam police station. Again, Hussainialam police

refused to accept the complaint and asked her to go to

Golkonda police station. At Golkonda police station, she was

sent to hospital for treatment. It is specifically mentioned in

the complaint that it was the appellant who had committed

rape on her. The timings mentioned in the complaint,

according to the Doctor, though varies, it does not have any

adverse impact on the testimony of P.W.1. There is no reason

why P.W.1 would make a false complaint against the

appellant.

7. Though, it is not mentioned in the complaint that she

was forced to drink toddy on the date of incident before rape,

the same will not have any bearing when the genesis of her

complaint regarding rape is believable. At the scene of offence

bangles and chappal, carrier bag were found and an empty

liquor bottle. The wearing apparel that was seized by police

and sent to FSL examination, semen stains were found.

Though DNA testing was not done, the circumstances can be

read against the appellant. Collectively, the evidence of P.W.1,

complaint and the corroborating seizures that were affected

are enough to conclude that the appellant had committed rape

on P.W.1. The discrepancies regarding timing is trivial and

cannot be said that it goes to the root of the case to suspect

the version of P.W.1.

8. For the aforementioned reasons, I find no grounds to

differ with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed. However, the sentence

of imprisonment is reduced to a period of seven years under

Section 376 IPC.

9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The

concerned Court is directed to take steps to secure the

presence of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out

the remaining part of imprisonment.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:21.09.2022 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.A.No.1027 of 2009

Dated:21.09.2022

kvs