SRIVALLA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, eight in number, were brought to trial for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2g), 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 354 but convicted A1 to A3 under Section 376(2g) and imposed a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment whereas a fine of '1,000/- was levied for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC on all the eight accused. An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court and the High Court reduced the sentence awarded to A1 to A3 from ten years to seven years rigorous imprisonment and with this modification in the order of the trial court, dismissed the appeal. It is in this background the present appeal has come before us for consideration after the grant of special leave.

(2.) The facts of the case are as under:

(3.) Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised several arguments before us during the course of hearing. He has first pointed out that but for the self-serving evidence of P.W. 1, the complainant who as also the victim of rape, there was no independent evidence with respect to the involvement of the appellants. He has also pointed out that the medical evidence did not indicate the commission of rape more particularly, as these injuries were no on the back of the victim. It has also been urged that as the FIR had been lodged belatedly the prosecution story had been created in suspicious circumstances.