HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1707 OF 2006 Dated 23-4-2014 Between:
Boya Gopal @ Kaki Gopal.
And:
Petitioner.
The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1707 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 28-9-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2005 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur whereunder judgment dated 22-12-2005 in S.C.No.110 of 2004 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Inspector of Police, Itikalapalli filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that five months prior to 5-6- 2003 on one day afternoon while victim-P.W.2 was grazing her cattle near tank bund, the accused having noticed her alone committed rape on her and the victim kept quite due to fear and only on noticing that she became pregnant, she revealed the rape committed by the accused and on a complaint from P.W.1, police registered Crime No.39 of 2003 and investigation revealed that accused committed rape on the victim and liable for punishment for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. During trial, seven witnesses are examined and ten documents are marked on behalf of prosecution. No witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of defence. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer seven years with a fine of Rs.250/-. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Ananthapur and IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananatapur on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that there is a long delay of five months in lodging F.I.R. and when the contention of the accused that case is foisted at the instance of uncle of P.W.2 by name Gopal, this delay will play a vital role. He further submitted that except the evidence of victim, there is no other direct evidence. He further submitted that both trial court and appellate court have erred in convicting the accused and the same is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that victim and her mother explained the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and both trial court and appellate court have rightly accepted the delay as both P.Ws.1 and 2 are rustic villagers. He further submitted that there is enmity between uncle of P.W.2 by name Gopal and the revision petitioner and the same is not substantiated by any material on record. He further submitted that both trial court and appellate court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
6. 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?
7. POINT:
According to prosecution, five months prior to 5-6- 2003 while P.W.2 was grazing cattle on tank bund, accused having noticed the victim was alone, committed rape on her and that P.W.2 did not disclose the same to her mother due to fear and when P.W.1 noticed that her daughter did not get monthly period for four months, she took her to Devi Nursing Home where the Medical Officer informed her that their daughter is pregnant and when she questioned her daughter, she disclosed the incident to her, thereafter, report is given and on investigation, it is found that accused has committed rape on the victim. To prove its case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses. P.W.1 is the mother of the victim, P.W.2 is the victim girl, P.W.3 is the uncle of victim, P.Ws.4 and 5 are Medical Officers and P.Ws.6 and 7 are Investigating Officers. Mother of victim deposed in her evidence that when she noticed that her daughter did not get monthly periods for four months, she took her to Devi Nursing Home, at Anantapur where, after examination the doctor informed her that her daughter is pregnant and on her request, doctor performed abortion and that she gave a complaint to police which is Ex.P.1. She further deposed that her daughter is a minor and also of unsound mind.
P.W.2 the victim deposed that on the date of incident while she was grazing their cow on the tank bund, the accused came to her and raped her in spite of her protest and that none were present at that time. She deposed that she raised cries, nobody came to her rescue, she returned back home and did not inform to her mother due to fear and only after she was taken to a doctor at Anantapur where she was declared pregnant, she disclosed the same to her mother on enquiry. Both the witnesses are cross examined on behalf of the accused but nothing was elicited from them to doubt their testimony.
8. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that there is a long delay of five months and the same is fatal to the prosecution case.
9. Here according to P.W.1, the incident came to light only on the day the victim was taken to Devi Nursing Home, Anantapur and immediately after knowing the incident, she lodged a complaint. The victim clearly stated that she did not inform the incident to her mother due to fear. Further, from the evidence, it is clear that P.W.2 is a mentally unsound girl and which fact is not disputed by accused. From the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is clear that the accused had knowledge that P.W.2 is a girl of unsound mind. So, in these circumstances, the explanation offered by P.W.1 for the delay is quite convincing and the trial court rightly accepted it on the ground that both P.Ws.1 and 2 are rustic villagers.
10. The other contention of the revision petitioner is that there are no independent witnesses. But this objection is not tenable because for an offence of this nature, the main witness could be victim and there cannot be any eye witness.
11. Here the evidence of P.W.2 is cogent and convincing and her evidence is supported and corroborated with the evidence of her mother P.W.1, her uncle P.W.3 and Medical Officers P.Ws.4 and 5 and both trial court and appellate court have considered evidence of these witnesses and convicted the revision petitioner. Learned trial judge has elaborately discussed the evidence of all prosecution witnesses and answered each and every objection raised on behalf of the revision petitioner. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or by appellate court. I also do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below.
12. On a scrutiny of material, I am of the view that the judgment of the trial court is a well considered judgment which is rightly upheld by the trial court and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
13. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
15. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 23-4-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1707 OF 2006 Dated 23-4-2014