THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.787 of 2007 Date:02.09.2014 Between:
Narakatla Babu . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, though S.H.O., Munagala P.S., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.787 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 02-01-2007 in Crl.A.No.211/2005 on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet whereunder judgment dated 07-12-2005 in S.C.No.374/2004 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagala filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 28-04-2004, at about 12.00 noon, when the victim-P.W.1 reached the fields of one Gattu Venkataramaiah, the revision petitioner came from behind on a bicycle from Kalakova side and enquired P.W.1 by showing a photograph whether she can identify that person and when she answered that she does not know about that person and noticing that she was alone, he made an attempt to commit rape on her and that she raised cries and that the revision petitioner picked out a stone and beat her on her face, chest and on the hands and caused bleeding injuries and threatened her with dire consequences, if she reveal the same to anyone and on that on hearing the cries of victim, P.Ws.2 to 4 rushed there and on seeing them, the accused ran away and on the report of P.W.1, Crime No.58/2004 was registered and investigation revealed that the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 376 read with 511, 324 & 506 IPC. On these allegations, P.Ws.1 to 7 are examined and documents-Exs.P1 to P5 are marked on behalf of prosecution and on behalf of accused, D.W.1 is examined and no documents are marked. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to suffer two years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and also convicted him for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to suffer one year imprisonment and directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The lower Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 506 IPC and acquitted him of the said charge. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Nalgonda and II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that there is unexplained delay of eight and half hours in lodging the complaint and both trial Court and appellate Court have not considered this aspect. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R., the details of the incident are not given, but they were improved during evidence and this aspect was not considered by the trial Court and appellate Court. It is further submitted that the private Doctor, who examined the victim and bandaged the injuries is not examined by the prosecution and the same is fatal to the prosecution case.
It is further submitted that the alleged place of incident is a busy place and committing such an offence in such a busy place is highly improbable and both trial Court and appellate Court without considering the same, convicted the accused. It is further submitted that the owners of the fields are not examined and there are no eye-witnesses for the alleged incident and the evidence of victim is with inconsistent versions. It is further submitted that there are disputes between the husband of P.W.1 & D.W.1 and as the accused intervened in that dispute, he was implicated falsely due to that grudge. He further submitted that both the trial Court and appellate Court have wrongly convicted the revision petitioner and the judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly considered the evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings. He further submitted that there are no contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and both the Courts rightly accepted the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, on 28-04-2004, at about 12.00 noon, when P.W.1 reached the fields of G. Venkataramaiah, the accused came there and enquired her about a person by showing a photograph and when she answered that she does not know that person, taking advantage of her loneliness, he made an attempt to commit rape on her. To prove the same, the victim is examined as P.W.1 and circumstantial witnesses, who came to the spot on hearing the cries of victim, are examined as P.Ws.2 to 4, the mediator for the examination of scene of offence is examined as P.W.5, medical officer is examined as P.W.6 and investigating officer is examined as P.W.7.
7. Now the main objection of the Advocate for revision petitioner is that there is delay of eight and half hours in lodging the First Information Report. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the incident was at about 12.00 noon and the complaint was given on the same day at 8.30 P.M. According to accused, there are disputes between the husband of victim and D.W.1 and as the accused supported D.W.1, he was implicated in this case. Normally, delay will play a role when there is chance of implicating an enemy in any crime. Admittedly, there is no direct enmity between the family members of the victim and accused. The enmity is between D.W.1 and the family members of the victim. Even otherwise, in a case of this nature, normally a woman does not complain immediately and P.W.1 being married woman, it is quite natural to consult her husband before giving complaint. P.W.1 stated that after consulting her husband, they lodged complaint. No doubt, at one stage, she deposed that she straight away went to the Police Station and waited there till the arrival of her husband and only after arrival of her husband, the complaint was given. But the victim is being illiterate, this delay of eight and half of hours cannot be termed as long delay particularly, when there is no direct enmity between the accused and victim. From the evidence, it is clear that prior to incident, there is no acquaintance between accused and P.W.1. So under these circumstances, the contention of the revision petitioner with regard to delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be accepted. In fact this objection was raised before the trial Court and the trial Court rightly negatived it.
8. The next objection of the advocate for revision petitioner is that there are no eye-witnesses and that the place of alleged incident is a busy locality and non-examination of persons from the busy locality is fatal. But this objection is also not tenable, because an offence of this nature, will be committed in isolation, but not in the presence of witnesses. When the allegation is that accused made an attempt to commit rape noticing that she was alone and expecting eye- witnesses is highly improbable and which cannot countenanced. From the material on record, it is clear that P.Ws.2 to 4 who are in the nearby place, came to the spot on hearing the cries of P.W.1 and on seeing them, the accused ran away. In fact P.W.2 deposed in his evidence that by the time, he reached the place of incident, the accused was beating P.W.1 with a stone and when he went near the accused, he left the place along with his bicycle and he tried to caught hold of him, but he escaped. P.Ws.3 & 4 also deposed in the same lines and they are cross- examined on behalf of accused but nothing could be elicited from them to doubt their presence or discredit their testimonies, therefore, the objection of the revision petitioner that no eyewitnesses are examined is not tenable.
9. The next objection of the advocate for revision petitioner is that the private doctor who examined as P.W.1 is not examined and there is no evidence to show that P.W.1 was bandaged for her bleeding injuries. No doubt, P.W.1 deposed in her evidence that she went to the hospital of Nagabrahmmachari and she was treated there, the investigating officer has not examined the said Doctor.
For the lapses of investigating officer, the victim cannot be penalized. Further, police after registering the F.I.R., forwarded the victim to Government Hospital and P.W.6 examined her and found injuries numbering seven on her body and certified that all the injuries are simple and aged between 20 to 24 hours prior to his examination and her evidence is supported and corroborated with the wound certificate- Ex.P4. Therefore, this non-examination of private doctor is not at all fatal and therefore, this objection is also not tenable.
10. From the material on record, it is clear that on the date of incident, the accused caught hold of hand of P.W.1 and made an attempt on her and on hearing her cries, P.Ws.2 to 4 came to the spot and on seeing them, the accused ran away. Both trial Court and appellate Court have elaborately discussed evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and rightly accepted them as there are no contradictions or omissions in their evidence on any of the material aspects.
One of the point urged on behalf of the petitioner is the details of incident are not referred in the F.I.R., but this objection is also not tenable, because F.I.R cannot be an encyclopaedia and it has to give information only with regard to commission of offence and the charges have to be proved only on the basis of evidence, entire evidence need not be in the F.I.R. Considering the evidence on record, I am of the view that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence of prosecution witnesses and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
11. With regard to sentence, according to Section 354 IPC, the minimum sentence prescribed for an offence under Section 354 is five years, but however that can be reduced by recording reasons, which shall not be less than two years. The trial Court imposed only two years imprisonment, which is the minimum even after recording reasons, therefore, there are no grounds even to interfere with the sentence.
12. For these reasons, the revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming conviction and sentence.
13. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence.
14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:02.09.2014 mrb