STATE Vs. REVANNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main point for consideration in this appeal preferred by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent for offences of rape and criminal intimidation, is to what extent inconsistencies in depositions of prosecution witnesses, and doubts entertained by the Trial Judge in view of such inconsistencies or any lapse in investigation would affect the acceptability of that evidence

(2.) THE prosecution of the respondent was preceded by the following events On the evening of 6-3-1992, the complainant (PW. 1) took his daughter (referred to as P W 2) aged about 6 years, to the Government hospital, alleging rape on her by the accused/respondent (In this judgment names of the witnesses are omitted to avoid identity of the victim and they are referred to as prosecution witnesses) The girl (P W 2) had pain in her private parts and her labia majora was swollen That had been first noticed by P W 2's aunt (P W 4) on the evening of that day when P W 2 had complained to her On enquiry, P W 2 is stated to have revealed to PW 4 that on the afternoon of 5-3-1992, the accused (respondent) had induced her and taken her to his backyard (Hittalu)and after making her to lie down, had lied on her and had sexually assaulted by putting his organ into her private part That information had been convened to P W 2's mother (P W 3) by P W 4 and that is how the complainant had ascertained about the incident on the evening of 6-3-1992 The girl was examined by the medical officer (P W 6) and also by lady medical officer (P W 5) They found labia majora swollen with edematous bruises and abrasions There was foul smelling discharge from the private part of the girl Vulva Smear was collected and it was sent later for chemical analysis The complainant went to the police station and lodged the complaint (Ex P 1), which was received by the p S I (P W 12) He registered a case for offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and later seized petticoat and frock of P W 2 as evidence he enquired with PW. 2 on the morning of 7-3-1992 and with the permission of the doctor, took P W 2 to show the place of incident A mahazar was conducted there in the presence of the witnesses P Ws 8 and 9 The gunny bag, on which P W 2 had been allegedly made to lie down before sexual assault by the respondent, was seized Statements of certain witnesses were recorded by the PSI and further investigation was handed over to the CPI (P W. 13) The respondent was absconding he was arrested on 9-5-1992 After further investigation a charge-sheet was placed against the accused

(3.) THE respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried The prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses and closed its case P W 2 is the victim of the alleged sexual assault, and PWs. 1 and 3 are her parents P W 4 is her aunt, being the sister of P W. 1 P W 5, lady medical officer and P W 6, medical officer examined P W 2 on 6-3-1992 and gave treatment P Ws 10 and 12 are police officers P W 7 was the head Master of the school where the child was studying and he has given a certificate regarding P W 2 attending the school on 5-3-1992 and not attending the school on 6-3-1992 onwards for some time PW 8 is a panch for spot mahazar and PW 9 is a panch for recovery of undergarments of the respondent After the case of the prosecution was closed, the respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Cr P C to explain the circumstances arising out of the evidence He denied the allegations of the prosecution witnesses Though he did not choose to examine any witness, he filed a wntten statement The gist of his contention may be briefly stated as under