THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.841 of 2007 Date:25.04.2014 Between:
Nenavath Devi Singh . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, 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.841 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 02-02-2007 in Crl.A.No.110/2006 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar whereunder judgment dated 13-09-2006 in S.C.No.506/2005 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar was confirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
Inspector of Police, Kalwakurthy filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging that on 28-09-2004, while P.W.2 was in the field for guarding jowar crop raised in it, accused forcibly taken her to nearby bushes, committed rape on her and that the victim girl went to Hasli & Pimpli (P.Ws.5 & 6) who are her relatives of Maisammagadda Palugu Thanda who were grazing sheep in the adjacent land and informed them about the incident and on seeing all of them, accused ran away from the spot. Later, Hasli and Pimpli brought the victim to her house and village elders tried to hold a panchayat as it is not fructified, a report was given on 29-04-2004, which was registered as Crime No.61/2004 and investigation revealed that the accused committed offence under Section 376 IPC.
On behalf of prosecution, 14 witnesses are examined and 11 documents are marked besides one material object and on behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is marked. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found accused guilty for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to suffer seven years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Mahabubnagar and I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar 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 P.W.1 who is the complainant has deposed as if he is an eye- witness, but in fact, he is not an eye-witness and he came to know about the incident through P.W.2. He further submitted that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 on important material aspects, but both the trial Court and appellate Court have not considered these inconsistencies. He submitted that according to P.W.2, after incident, she approached P.Ws.5 & 6 and narrated the incident to them, but both P.Ws.5 & 6 deposed as if they are eye-witnesses and this would throw any amount of doubt as to the correctness of the prosecution case. He further submitted that there are disputes between the family of the victim and accused and for that reason, this case is foisted against accused.
He further submitted that version of P.Ws.1 to 4 is totally different from the version of P.Ws.5 & 6 and there is absolutely no incident of rape and accused is entitled for acquittal. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgments of Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, on 28-09-2004, while P.W.2 was in her field, accused went there, lifted her into nearby bushes and committed rape on her. Out of 14 witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the father of the victim, P.W.2 is the victim, P.W.3 is mother of the victim, P.W.4 is the grand father of the victim, P.Ws.5 & 6 are the witnesses, who have seen the accused at the scene and brought the victim to her house. P.Ws.7 & 8 are the mediators for seizure of clothes of the victim, P.Ws.9 & 10 are the mediators for the observation of scene of offence, P.W.11 is the medical officer, who examined the victim and certified that there was intercourse, P.W.12 is the medical officer, who examined the victim and estimated her age, P.W.13 is the medical officer, who examined the accused with regard potency test and P.W.14 is the investigating officer. Here the main witness i.e., victim is examined as P.W.2 and she deposed that accused committed rape on her. One of the contention raised on behalf of the defence is that victim does not know what is meant by rape as she was minor and to clear this controversy and to make the matter more clear, the Court itself put some questions to the victim touching the overt acts attributed to the accused. P.W.2 has explained the act of rape in the language of the words popularly used in the rural area and that was recorded by the trial Court. In fact she was examined in camera and the Presiding Officer was also a Lady Officer. This P.W.2 has clearly narrated as to how the accused committed intercourse and the medical evidence of P.W.11 would support the evidence of victim with regard to act of rape. One of the contention of the revision petitioner is that there are disputes between the families and for that reason, the accused is implicated. This point was urged before the trial Court and appellate Court and both Courts have discarded this objection on the ground that there is no evidence for the alleged dispute and on the further ground that for the sake of land disputes one would not go to the extent of involving future of the minor. I do not find any wrong in the approach of trial Court and appellate Court for discarding the objection of revision petitioner.
7. From the evidence, it is clear that P.W.2 has been suffering from neurological disorder, but before recording her evidence, the Presiding Officer has put some questions to satisfy herself that the victim is capable of giving evidence. So from the answers given to the formal questions, the Presiding Officer has satisfied as to the mental state of the victim and then recorded her evidence. Her evidence is supported and corroborated with evidence of P.Ws.5 & 6 and other witnesses on all important material aspects. With regard to delay also, there is convincing explanation, which is rightly accepted by the Courts below. Both trial Court and appellate Court have elaborately discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and accepted them as there are no contradictions or omissions in their evidence on the main material aspects. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and those discrepancies are no way material touching the incident of rape. On a scrutiny of the material, I do not find any wrong findings in the judgments of Courts below and both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
8. For these reasons, revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the conviction and sentence.
9. The trial Court shall take steps for apprehending the revision petitioner for undergoing unexpired portion of the sentence.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:25.04.2014 mrb