Telangana High Court
Madiga Kindinti Venkataiah, ... vs The State Of A.P., Through P.P., ... on 6 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1808 of 2009
ORDER:
1. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section
376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of five years vide judgment in S.C.No.171 of 2004 dated
03.12.2004 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Narayanpet.
The said conviction was confirmed by the VI Additional Sessions
Judge at Mahabubnagar vide judgment in Crl.A.No.76 of 2005,
dated 15.10.2009. Aggrieved by the same, present Revision is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the victim, who was examined as P.w.1 is
that on the date of incident, she was going to attend the work of
weeding of agricultural land of Chennappa and while was passing
through the fields of Muthyalaiah, the accused intercepted her and
forcibly gagged her mouth and took her to nearby bushes and
committed rape on her. She shouted for help, however, the accused
continued to rape her. No one came to her rescue. Thereafter, she
went to her house and informed her husband/P.W.2. Both the
husband and victim went to the scene but they did not find the
accused. They went to police station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint.
The police, having received the complaint, registered FIR and sent
P.W.1 for the purpose of medical examination by the Doctor/P.W.6.
The Doctor had taken vaginal smears and sent it to FSL. Thereafter,
opinion was issued on 01.12.2003, that the victim had forced
sexual intercourse.
3. The police, having completed investigation, filed charge sheet.
Learned Assistant Sessions Judge was convinced with the version of
victim/P.W.1 that she was raped by accused. The corroborating
evidence of Doctor/P.W.6 was considered to convict the accused.
4. The said conviction was questioned in appeal before the
Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction
of the accused.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that according to P.W.1, she was forced and also beaten
when the rape was committed. In fact, she stated in her Section 164
Cr.P.C statement that the accused throttled her and till the time of
recording her statement in Court, she was unable to swallow food.
No such injury on the neck was informed to P.W.6/Doctor when
P.W.1/victim was examined, which reflects falsity of victim.
6. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT
of Delhi) (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 21). In the said case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court found material contradictions, conflicting
version of prosecutrix and accordingly reversed the judgment of
conviction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the
version of the victim should of a very high quality and caliber. There
should be consistency of the statement made by the victim from the
starting point till the end i.e., initial statement made to the police
till her statement before the Court.
7. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Misra and others v. State of
Orissa (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1307). The Hon'ble Supreme
Court while dealing with the case of rape found that the rape of
fully grown married woman single handedly was doubtful in the
back ground of the allegation of violence and force resulting in
physical pain. However, since no such injuries were found, benefit
of doubt was extended. Similarly, in the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hafiz
Faroki (AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2382) and also in the case of
Tukaram and another v. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979
Supreme Court 185). The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with
cases of rape, wherein the circumstances narrated by the victim
was not probable, benefit of doubt was extended.
8. P.W.6, who examined the victim stated that "I examined P.W.1.
I did not find any external injuries." She also admitted in cross-
examination that "It is true that there is possibility of injuries on the
person of the victim in case she was forcibly raped."
9. In the said back ground of the evidence of the Doctor/P.W.6,
the version of the victim needs to be assessed. In cross-
examination, P.W.1 stated as follows:
"I raised cries while the accused was committing rape on me. I
was raped in the thorny bushes. I sustained scratches over my
body. The accused pulled me by holding the tuft of my hair. I
struggled with the accused for half-an-hour while he was
committing rape on me. Nobody came to my rescue despite my
cries during the struggle with the accused. I did not inform to
Shanthamma and Laxmidevamma about the rape committed by
the accused."
10. Though the learned counsel had produced Section 164 Cr.P.C
statement for considering the contents as they are contradictory,
however, the same cannot be looked into since Section 164 Cr.P.C
statement is not substantive evidence and the said statement was
not confronted to the witness in the witness box.
11. The victim/P.W.1 stated that she went to weed out plants in
the land of one Chennappa. The said Chennappa's land was outside
the fields of Muthlayaiah, Bhasker and others. The victim stated
that she was raped on the throny bushes and she sustained
scratches all over the body, while she was struggling with the
accused for half an hour. The said version of using violence and the
victim/P.W1. receiving injuries is contradicted by the evidence of
the Doctor/P.W.6, who did not find any injuries on the body of
P.W.1. Further, if at all the incident had taken place for half-an-
hour and she was shouting all the time, the neighbouring farmers
would have come to her rescue. The conduct of P.W.1/victim and
P.W.2/husband also appears to be improbable. When P.W.1
informed P.W.2 regarding rape, both of them went to the fields for
finding the accused. However, they did not complain to the village
elders or the adjoining farmers regarding the incident and about the
accused. Further, the saree or the wearing apparel of victim/P.W.1
did not have any blood stains. If at all, as stated by the
victim/P.W.1 that she was raped forcibly in thorns and assaulted
by the accused, there is every possibility of there being blood stains
on the clothes. Even the defence taken by the accused is that she
consented to have sexual intercourse with him. The said version of
the accused regarding there being consensual intercourse cannot
be ruled out mainly in the back ground of the version of the victim
that there was use of violence and she received bruises all over her
body, falsified by the evidence of Doctor/P.W.6. In the said
circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to the accused.
12. In the result, the judgment of 1st appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.76 of 2005, dated 15.10.2009 is hereby set aside and the
accused is acquitted. Since the accused is on bail, his bail bonds
shall stand discharged.
13. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date : 06.08.2024
kvs
