IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1946 OF 2007 Between:
Penuballi Harinadh … Revision Petitioner/Appellant Accused V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & AP .… Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Revision Petitioner : Sri Thanneeru Srinivas Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1946 OF 2007 O R D E R :
This Criminal Revision is against judgment dated 28/11/2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2006 on the file of I-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, whereunder judgment dated 03/01/2006 in SC.No. 95 of 1998 on the file of Princip;al Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam district, is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Inspector of Police, Bhadrachalam filed charge sheet against Revision Petitioner alleging that on 06/07/1996 in the evening at about 06:00 p.m. while the victim Kunja Devi along with Rathamma was returning back to her house after attending cooli work, the Revision Petitioner caught hold the hand of victim and dragged her into the bushes, gagged her mouth and committed rape on her. On the report of victim, Police registered Crime No. 161 of 1996 for offence under section 376 IPC and the investigation revealed that Revision Petitioner is liable for punishment for offence under section 376 of IPC.
3. On these allegations, trial court examined PWs 1 to 13 and marked Exs.P-1 to Exs.P14 on behalf of prosecution. No witness is examined on behalf of accused but Ex.D-1 contradiction from the deposition of PW-2 is marked.
4. On a overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found Revision Petitioner guilty for offence under section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer seven years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- . Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions and the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present criminal revision is preferred.
5. When the case is listed on 13/08/2014 no one appeared on behalf of revision petitioner and the matter is adjourned by two weeks. Again the mater is listed on 12/09/2014 and no one appeared on that day, therefore, it is directed to be posted to this day under the caption “for orders”. In spite of that no one appeared on behalf of Revision Petitioner.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of victim is supported and corroborated with the evidence of PWs 4 to 6, who are circumstantial witnesses and other witnesses, both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
7. Now the point for consideration is “whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, proper and correct?”
8. P O I N T : According to prosecution, on 06/7/1996 at about 06:00 p.m., while PW-1 was returning home after attending cooli work the accused caught hold of her hand, dragged her into bushes, gagged her mouth and committed rape. PW-1 is the victim, PW-2 is the witness who was accompanying PW-1 when PW-1 was dragged into bushes. PW-1 deposed in her evidence the way in which the accused committed rape on her and about injuries suffered by her in the process. PW-2 was treated hostile and she has not supported prosecution case but the other witnesses PWs 4 to 6 who are circumstantial witnesses clearly deposed supporting the version of prosecution and their evidence is further supported by medical evidence of PW-12. PW-1 is aged about 18 years as on the date of incident and the incident was at about 06:00 p.m. and report was lodged with the police on the same day at 08:30 p.m. The averments of FIR are fully supported and corroborated with the evidence of PW-1. PWs 7 and 10 are mediators for the observation of scene of offence but they have not supported prosecution case. Both trial court and appellate court considering the evidence of PW-1, which is supported and corroborated with the evidence of PWs 4 to 6, 12 and the evidence of other official witnesses, held that prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for offence under section 376 of IPC.
9. It is contended in the grounds of revision that evidence of victim is not supported by any other independent evidence and that there are contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 and her testimony is not supported by any material. Both trial court and appellate court have elaborately discussed the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and thoroughly considered each and every objection raised on behalf of accused. Now the very same objections which were raised before the appellate court are again raised in the grounds of revision.
10. On a scrutiny of the material, I do not find any substance in the grounds that were raised in the revision. The learned appellate Judge has meticulously examined the evidence of each witness including trustworthiness of victim. After considering the evidence of all the witnesses and considering the objections raised on behalf of accused, the appellate judge confirmed the conviction recorded by trial court and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or appellate court.
11. On a scrutiny of the material, I do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below on any of the material aspects. Though PW-2 has not supported the prosecution version, the evidence of victim is fully supported and corroborated with the contents of FIR and the evidence of PWs 4 to 6. The medical evidence discloses that victim was subjected to sexual intercourse and seminal stains were found on the petty-coat of victim and underwear of Revision Petitioner. The medical evidence and other circumstances have fully corroborated with the evidence of victim supporting her version. The report was also given to the police immediately within two hours and the details of the incident were narrated. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of PW-1 on any of the material aspects, therefore, there are absolutely no grounds to disbelieve her testimony. Both trial court and appellate court have rightly accepted the evidence of prosecution witnesses and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
12. For the above reasons, I am of the view that this criminal revision is devoid of merits, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence. Trial court shall take steps for apprehension of the Revision Petitioner to undergo un-expired portion of sentence.
14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this Criminal Revision shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
22/09/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1946 OF 2007 Circulation No. Date: 22/09/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43