IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1503 OF 2007 Between:
Nallapu Ramesh … Revision Petitioner/Appellant/ Accused V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Inspector of Police, Madhira Town Police Station, Khammam district Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & AP … Respondent/Complainant Counsel for Revision Petitioner : Sri B.Shashi Bhushan Rao Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following: [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1503 OF 2007 O R D E R :
This Criminal Revision is against judgment dated 26/10/2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2007 on the file of III-Additional Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court-II], Khammam, whereunder judgment dated 13/12/2006 in SC.No. 84 of 2006 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupalli, is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this Revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Madhira, Khammam district, filed charge sheet against Revision Petitioner alleging that on 07/12/2004 at about 08:00 p.m., when PW-1 was taking bath in the bathroom of her house, accused entered into bath room through tamarind tree, caught hold her, hugged her, closed her mouth and when she raised hue and cry, her co-sister came to her rescue and accused pushed her co-sister and fled away from the place and a report was given to Police which is registered as Crime No. 142 of 2004 for offence under section 354 of IPC. Investigation revealed that accused is liable for punishment under section 354 of IPC.
3. On these allegations, trial court conducted trial, during which, PWs 1 to 5 are examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 are marked. On behalf of prosecution, no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of Revision Petitioner.
4. On a overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found Revision Petitioner guilty for offences under section 376 read with section 511 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.
5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, Revision Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2007 to the Court of Session, Khammam and III-Additional Sessions Judge, [FTC-II] Khammam, converted the conviction under section 376 read with section 511 IPC into section 354 IPC but upheld the sentence.
6. Now aggrieved by the dismissal of the above criminal appeal, the accused preferred the present criminal revision.
7. Advocate for Revision Petitioner submitted that there is delay of 16 hours in lodging FIR and the same is not explained with any reason. He submitted that except the evidence of PW-1 there is no other evidence to support prosecution case and the evidence of remaining witnesses is only ‘hearsay’ evidence. He submitted that trial court and appellate court have committed error in convicting Revision Petitioner and the judgments of courts below are liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that evidence of PW-1 is supported and corroborated with the evidence of PW-2, who is her co-sister, who immediately came to the spot on hearing the cries of victim PW-1. He submitted that the very same objection was raised before the court below and both courts after considering the evidence negatived the objection and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
9. Now the point that arises for consideration in this Criminal Revision is “whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper ?”
10. P O I N T :
According to prosecution, on the night of 07/12/2004 at about 08:00 p.m., when PW-1 was taking bath in the bathroom of her house at Mahadevapuram, the accused entered into bathroom through a tamarind tree and caught hold her, hugged her, closed her mouth then PW-1 raised cries and on hearing the cries her co-sister came there for her rescue and on seeing her accused ran away.
11. To prove the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 5 are examined.
PW-1 is the victim, PW-2 is her co-sister, PW-3 is a circumstantial witness, PW-4 is a mediator for observation of scene of offence and PW-5 is the Investigating Officer. One of the objections of Revision Petitioner is that alleged incident was at about 08:00 p.m. on 07/12/2004 but the complaint was given on the next day at 12:00 noon and there is a delay of sixteen hours and the same is not explained.
12. Admittedly, PW-1 is a married woman. According to prosecution that there was an attempt on her to commit ‘rape’ and for this kind of incident normally without consulting family members, no married woman will give report immediately. As seen from the evidence on record, the distance between Mahadevapuram and Police Station is about four kilometres, the incident was at about 08:00 p.m., and therefore, there is nothing un-natural for the victim to stay back on that night and go to the Police Station on the next day. Trial court considered this aspect and discarded objection of the Revision Petitioner for the alleged delay.
13. As seen from the evidence of PW-1, it is clear that she is illiterate woman and she gave explanation during her evidence for the delay. The evidence of PW-1 is quite convincing with regard to the incident and also for delay, and therefore, objection of Advocate for Revision Petitioner cannot be sustained.
14. The next objection of Revision Petitioner is that there are no witnesses to support the version of PW-1 and the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is hearsay evidence. According to prosecution, PW-2 is a co- sister of victim. She deposed that on the date of incident she was watching T.V. and at that time she heard the cries of PW-1 on that she rushed towards bathroom to rescue her and the Revision Petitioner came out of bathroom, pushed her away and escaped. Advocate for Revision Petitioner submitted that in the cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that she came to know about the incident through PW-1. Her admission may be true to the extent of attact that was made against PW-1 because the incident was inside bathroom and one cannot be expected to witness what happened inside bath room. So victim must have apprised PW-2 about the events that happened inside the bathroom. Therefore, PW-2 was right in saying that she came to know through PW-1 but the fact remains that PW-2 noticed Revision Petitioner coming out of bathroom and while running away he pushed PW-2. This proves the presence of Revision Petitioner at the place of offence and this part of evidence is fully supported and corroborated with version of PW-1. For an incident of this nature one cannot expect eye-witness and this type of offences are committed in isolation.
15. The other witness PW-3 is a circumstantial witness. He deposed that on the date of incident, he came to Mahadevapuram centre along with passengers in a Autorickshaw at about 08:00 p.m. and he heard cries of ladies and that he came to know about the incident through PW-1. No doubt he is a not a direct witness and he came to know about the incident only through PW-1/victim. The evidence of this witness is not very much material and when the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is convincing and supporting with each other with regard to the incident and the same cannot be discarded. Further there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of these two witnesses; PWs 1 and 2. Nothing could be elicited from them inspite of cross-examining them to discredit their testimony. Both trial court and appellate court after elaborate discussion of the evidence of these two witnesses; PWs 1 and 2, held that Revision Petitioner committed offence. So the objection of Revision Petitioner with regard to the evidence of PW-2 cannot be sustained.
16. The trial court found Revision Petitioner guilty for offences under section 376 read with section 511 IPC and the appellate court converted into 354 IPC. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence or incorrect findings in the judgments of either trial court or appellate court on any of the material aspects.
17. On a close scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
18. With regard to sentence, trial court and appellate court imposed minimum punishment of two years Rigorous Imprisonment, and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
19. For the above reasons, this Criminal Revision is dismissed as devoid of merits. Trial court shall take steps to apprehend the Revision Petitioner to undergo un-expired portion of sentence.
20. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this Criminal Revision shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
05/09/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1503 OF 2007 Circulation No.82 Date: 05/09/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43