THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.611 of 2007 Date:04.07.2014 Between:
Undrajavarapu Rambabu . 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.611 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 06-02-2007 in Crl.A.No.88/2005 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru whereunder judgment dated 07-04-2005 in Sessions Case No.333/2003 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Town Police Station filed charge sheet against accused alleging on 07-04-2003, at about 4:00 P.M., while victim girl was playing in the street, the accused called her by offering a chocolate and took her into the middle room of his house and made an attempt to commit rape on her and when the victim girl raised cries, S. Vijayakumari came to the spot and found the accused leaning upon the victim girl.
On seeing Vijayakumari, the accused ran out of his house through the western side door way and on the report of parents of victim, police registered Crime No.93/2003 and investigation revealed that the accused made an attempt to commit rape on the victim and thereby liable for punishment for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. On these allegations, seven witnesses are examined and three documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 376 read with 511 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session, West Godavari and V Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed both conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The main ground on which revision petitioner challenged the judgment of trial Court and appellate Court is that both Courts have placed reliance on the interested testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3, which is not supported and corroborated with any other independent evidence. It is contended that there are family differences between the accused and the parents of the victim and for that reason, the case is foisted against him. It is further contended that victim is tutored by her parents and that she was not referred to any Doctor and there were no injuries on the person of P.W.2. It is further contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to alleged occurrence and scene of offence. It is contended that both the Courts erred in convicting the accused and the same has to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is quite convincing and trustworthy and there are no contradictions or omissions in their evidence and both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly accepted their evidence and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
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 07-04-2003, at about 4:00 P.M., P.W.2, the victim girl aged about six years, while playing in the street, the accused called her by luring her with a chocolate and took her into the middle room of his house and made an attempt to commit rape on her and when the victim raised alaram, P.W.1 went there and found both P.W.2 and accused were in nude position and that report was given to police about the incident. To prove its case, victim was examined as P.W.2, mother of the victim who witnessed the accused with the victim in the room in nude position was examined as P.W.1, father of the victim was examined as P.W.3, one of the elders before whom the matter is placed was examined as P.W.4, sister of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.5, one of the mediator for the observation of scene of offence was examined as P.W.6 and the police officer who registered F.I.R and conducted investigation in part was examined as P.W.7. Here, the victim is a child witness and trial Court, after taking all precautions, examined her who testified to the contents of the F.I.R. From the evidence of P.W.2, it is clear that while she was playing in the street between her house and the house of the accused, the accused took her into his house on the pretext of giving chocolate and there he removed her clothes and thereafter his clothes and fell on her and made an attempt to commit rape on her. She deposed that she raised cries and on that her mother rushed to the spot and found both of them. P.W.1 deposed in her evidence that she was going to vegetable market and at that time, she heard the cries, on hearing the same she went into the house of accused and found there, the accused and P.W.2 were in naked position. She deposed that on seeing her, the accused by wearing his clothes ran away from the back door, thereafter, she informed the same to her husband and also to elders and lodged a complaint. Here, P.W.4 deposed that the matter was placed before the elders i.e., Sangam of the Village, where P.Ws.1 & 3 were advised to go to police station. According to P.W.4, both accused and P.W.1 are related to him. Here evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 is convincing and supporting with each other and there are no omissions or contradictions in their evidence. One of the objections of the revision petitioner is that P.W.2 was not sent to hospital and there were no injuries on her person. But this objection is not tenable, because it is only an attempt and it is not the case of the victim that she sustained any injuries in the process of attempt.
7. The other contention of the revision petitioner is that there are family disputes and due to that he was falsely implicated. Except, baldly saying that there are family disputes, no details are given and such details are not put to P.Ws.1 & 2 during their cross-examination. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is quite convincing and trustworthy and both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly accepted their evidence. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that there are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court on any of the material aspects and both Courts have rightly convicted the accused and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
8. For these reasons, I am of the view that this revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, revision is dismissed as devoid of merits.
10. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:04.07.2014 mrb