YEDLA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of two orders passed on 25.2.2004 and 18.6.2004 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh convicting and sentencing accused - appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one week and under Section 417, IPC a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one week, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to both these appeals are that prosecutor (PW1) used to attend cooking in her sisters (PW2) house in day time, as her sister was attending to agricultural operations. The accused used to visit the house of P.W2 during day time between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon regularly while PW 1 was alone and persuaded her to have sexual intercourse by telling her that he would marry her. PW1 resisted for this for sometime but later on one day, the accused came to the house of PW2 in her absence, closed the doors and committed forcible sexual intercourse with PW1 against her will and consent. When she protested as to why he spoiled her life, accused promised that he would marry her. Subsequently, the process continued for some time. Accused used to come in the noon and had sexual intercourse with PW1. When she became pregnant she informed the accused and he gave tablets for abortion in order to get rid of pregnancy which did not work. Subsequently, PW1 insisted the accused to marry her. The accused informed PW1 that as his parents were not agreeing for the marriage, he would not marry her. PW1 brought this fact to the notice of her sister - PW2. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Panchayat. The accused accepted the guilt and promised to marry PW1 but subsequently, he absconded from the village. Since the persuasion could not fructify, PW1 lodged a report against the accused to police and, therefore, the police registered a case as per the prosecutor report for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 417, IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed a challan against the accused. The accused denied the charges. Prosecution in support of its case examined PW1 - prosecutor, PW2 -sister of prosecutor and other witnesses. prosecutor was sent for medical examination and PW9 - Smt. G. Pushpavalli -examined PW1. She found that PW1 was pregnant at the time of examination and the age of pregnancy is 20-22 weeks. She was also examined by Dr. Y. Jagannadha Rao - PW10 who was working as a Professor of Forensic Medicines. He confirmed about the pregnancy. He also examined the age of the prosecutor and on the basis of X-Ray examination and other physical features opined that the age of PW1 was not less than 15 years and not more than 17 years at the time of examination.

(3.) Learned Assistant Sessions Judge after recording all the necessary evidence and after hearing the parties acquitted the accused for the offences under Section 417 as well as 376 of IPC. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal appeal was preferred by the State before the High Court. The High Court after examining the evidence came to the conclusion that so far as the age of prosecutor is concerned, in view of the testimony of PW10 who conducted the physical examination of the prosecutor and has opined that she is not less than 15 years and not more than 17 years at the time of examination and there can be error of age as -1 or +1 in either way, it is highly doubtful whether the age of PW1 is below 16 years and opined that she is more than 16 years of age. So far as the age of the prosecutor was concerned, she cannot be said to be below 16 years.