HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1901 OF 2006 Dated 2-7-2014 Between:
Allampally Narsimha.
And:
Petitioner.
The States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1901 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is against the judgment dated 19-10- 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.199 of 2005 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge (I Fast Track Court), Nalgonda whereunder judgment dated 11-11-2005 in S.C.No.476 of 2004 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinthapalli filed Charge Sheet against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 I.P.C. alleging that on 14-9-2003 in the morning hours, when P.W.1 went to the field at Vinjamur village to collect Bajra spikes and after collecting them, she tied them into a bundle, but she could not lift the same and at that time, the accused went there, thrown some cucumber pieces on her face, for which she objected and warned him that she would inform the same to the villagers and on that, the accused pounced upon her, pushed her on to the ground, sat on her, pulled her saree and P.W.1 resisted the same but the accused gagged her mouth and lifted her petty coat with an intention to commit rape on her, and on seeing blood oozing from her private part, accused left her but while leaving, he threatened her with dire consequences to kill if she inform the said incident to any one. On the same day, at about 8-30 P.M, P.W.1 along with her husband went to police station and lodged a complaint and the police after investigation, found that the accused has committed offence of attempt to commit rape. On these allegations, learned Assistant Sessions Judge conducted trial during which, five witnesses are examined and three documents are marked besides marking M.O.1 on behalf of prosecution and no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court held that the evidence on record would attract ingredients of Section 354 I.P.C. and thereby, convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer three years imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nalgonda, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
The main argument of advocate for petitioner is that except the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4, there is no independent evidence supporting the alleged incident. He submitted that a story is created by P.W.1, for which, P.Ws.2 to 4 supported due to differences between accused and sarpanch of the village. He further submitted that the evidence of victim is with full of improbabilities and the version put forth by her create serous doubt as to the correctness of the prosecution case and both the courts have not extended the benefit of these improbabilities to the accused. He further submitted that there is no material to show that the accused used criminal force or assault with an intention to outrage the modesty of P.W.1 and therefore, conviction under Section 354 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.1-victim has clearly narrated the incident and her version is supported and corroborated with the substantial witnesses-P.Ws.2 to 4 and there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of these witnesses and therefore, the contention that there are improbabilities in the evidence of P.W.1 is incorrect. He further submitted that both trial court and appellate court have considered all the objections raised on behalf of accused and rightly convicted the accused and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
According to prosecution on 14-9-2003 when P.W.1 went to the fields, the accused made an attempt on her to commit rape and as the accused found some blood oozing from the private parts of the victim-P.W.1, he left her without executing the attempt. Admittedly, both P.W.1 and accused belong to same village and they are known persons. The victim is examined as P.W.1 and she categorically deposed the manner in which the accused made an attempt on her to commit rape. She deposed in her evidence that three days prior to this incident, she underwent abortion due to which, there was bleeding from her private part and that the accused on noticing it left her. She deposed that she raised cries when the accused made the attempt but nobody came to her rescue as there were none in the nearby fields at the time of incident. One of the objection raised on behalf of accused is that P.W.1 stated in her evidence that Shakru, Ramulu and Manya got fields near her fields and that she has to cross their fields to reach her field but the Investigating Officer has not examined any of these persons. This very same objection was raised before trial court and appellate court but as P.W.1 clearly stated in her evidence that there were none in the nearby fields at the time of incident, this objection was over ruled since no purpose will be served by examining these persons. Both trial court and appellate court have rightly negatived the contention of the accused and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence on this core.
According to P.W.1, she met P.W.3 and one Dasru on the way and narrated incident to them and they in turn informed P.W.2; who came to the spot and ascertained the details from victim-P.W.1. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is fully supported and corroborated with the version of P.W.1 with regard to incident. Though accused contended that he was implicated due to differences with the sarpanch of village, there is no material to substantiate the same. In the cross-examination, except putting suggestions to the witnesses-P.Ws.1 to 3, nothing is elicited from them to support the defence version.
I have closely examined evidence of victim-P.W.1 and also evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 and I do not find any grounds to treat them as untrustworthy. As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of these witnesses on any of the material aspects and on the other hand, their evidence is convincing and corroborating with each other.
Advocate for revision petitioner cited a ruling of Honourable Supreme Court in HANUMAN v. STATE OF
[1]
HARYANA ( ) for the proposition, when there is
exaggeration in the prosecution story, the benefit of it must go to the accused. He also cited a ruling of Himachal Pradesh High Court in KAMALJIT ALIAS
[2]
KAMAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ( ) for the
proposition that when the material witness contradicted prosecutrix on material points and when the delay in lodging F.I.R. is not explained, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
The proposition laid down in these two decisions is not disputed but those principles have no application to the case on hand. In this case, there are no material contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 differing from the version of P.W.1. Further, here in this case, there is no exaggeration of the version spoken to by P.W.1 which is fully supported and corroborated with the testimony of other witnesses.
The other objection raised on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the ingredients of Section 354 I.P.C. are not attracted as there is no evidence to show that accused has used criminal force of assault. But this contention cannot be accepted because it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused pushed P.W.1 on to the ground and when she resisted, he gagged her mouth, then, lifted her petty coat made an attempt on her to commit rape. These aspects would clearly attract the ingredients of Section 354 I.P.C. and both trial court and appellate court have rightly convicted the accused for the said offence.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of both the courts and that there are no merits in the revision and same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 2-7-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1901 OF 2006 Dated 2-7-2014
[1] AIR 1977 SC 1614
[2] 2014 CRI.L.J.295