HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.974 OF 2007 Dated 20-8-2014 Between:
Madu Narasimham.
And:
..Petitioner.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.974 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 12-7-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2006 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Krishna at Machilipatnam whereunder judgment dated 10-10-2006 in S.C.No.61 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Mylavaram Police Station filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that he is resident of Pondugala Thanda, Mylavaram Mandal and P.W.1 is also resident of same village. On 14-4-2005, P.W.1 drove her goats into the forest, so also the accused drove his goats into forest and at about 3 P.M., P.W.1 asked accused for some water, on that, the accused took P.W.1 to a well and after drinking water, while she was returning to her goats, accused caught hold of her hands and took her near mango trees by force and when she tried to raise cries, he put a towel in her mouth and thereafter, forcibly committed rape. P.W.1 somehow removed towel and raised cries. On hearing the same, P.Ws.3 and 4 came there and on seeing them, revision petitioner ran away. P.W.1 narrated the incident to P.Ws.3 and 4 and she came back to her house with their help and explained the incident to her parents. On that, parents of P.W.1 placed the matter before panchayat and after waiting for one week, the elders took the victim to police station who recorded the statement of victim. Investigation revealed that victim was 17 years old and the revision petitioner committed rape and as such, he is liable for punishment. On these allegations, trial court examined ten witnesses and marked ten documents on behalf of prosecution and examined one witness and one document on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer seven years imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Krishna at Machilipatnam, on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence, aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
According to Public Prosecutor both trial court and appellate court appreciated evidence on record and considered all the points raised on behalf of revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
According to the grounds urged in the revision, the contention of the revision petitioner is that ingredients of Section 376 I.P.C. are not at all attracted and that both courts have convicted the revision petitioner mechanically. It is further contended that the testimony of P.W.1 is with improbabilities and inconsistencies and convicting the revision petitioner relying on such improper and inconsistent evidence is not legal.
It is further contended that prosecution except examining interested witnesses have not examined any independent witnesses and without noticing the same, both courts grossly erred in accepting highly interested testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 5. It is further submitted that the sentence of imprisonment is totally illegal and not based on evidence.
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 14-4-2005, when the victim and accused went into forest, the accused at about 3 P.M. committed rape on her. To prove its case, the victim is examined as P.W.1, mother of victim is examined as P.W.2, P.Ws.3 and 4 are the persons who arrived at the scene on hearing the cries of the victim, P.W.5 is the caste elder of the village, P.W.6 is the panchayat Secretary who was present at the time of preparation of scene observation report, P.W.7 is the Medical Officer who examined the victim and P.W.8 is the Medical Officer who determined the age of victim, P.Ws.9 and 10 are the Police Officials who investigated the case.
It is contended that P.Ws.1 to 5 are interested witnesses and prosecution except examining interested witnesses has not examined any independent witnesses. As seen from the evidence, P.Ws.3 to 5 are not closely related to the victim, they only belong to the same caste but all the three in one voice deposed supporting the version of prosecution. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, on the other hand, their evidence is quite convincing and supporting with the version of P.W.1.
It is contended that there is delay in lodging F.I.R. But P.W.2 and victim clearly explained the reason for delay and the said reason is supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 as one of them is the caste elder in whose presence, the matter is placed for mediation. In fact, all these objections are raised before the trial court and appellate court and both the courts have rightly discarded them and I do not find any wrong appreciation either by trial court or by appellate court.
On a scrutiny of material on record, I am of the view that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is quite natural and convincing. Their evidence is supported by the medical evidence and the evidence of other official witnesses which clinchingly show that the accused committed rape on P.W.1 on 14-4-2005. On behalf of accused, one witness is examined as D.W.1 who is also a village elder to support the defence version. But both courts have discarded the evidence of D.W.1 while considering the other village elders and I do not find any wrong in the findings of the trial court or appellate court.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings and both courts have rightly convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C., and that the same has to be confirmed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
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 20-8-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.974 OF 2007 Dated 20-8-2014