REEPIK RAVINDER Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the sole accused, who was convicted under S. 376, I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 10 are : P.W. 2, a minor girl of seven years, is the daughter of P.Ws. 1 and 3 while P.W. 4 is her maternal grandmother. They are all residents of Hanamkonda. On 6-5-1987, the date of offence7 P.W. 2 was sitting outside the house and taking food. At that time, the accused came there and called her stating that he would give her curry. He took her into his house. There he committed rape on her. Immediately after that P.W. 2 came back to her house and informed of the incident to her mother, P.W. 3, and grand-mother P.W. 4. P.Ws. 3 and 4 observed blood coming out of the vagina of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 though is a girl of 7 years, the Court below after putting some questions found her to be fit for examination. In her statement she narrated the whole incident. P.Ws. 3 and 4 corroborated the statement of P.W. 2 in all material particulars. It is further in the evidence of P.W. 3 that immediately after being informed of the incident, she sent for P.W. 1, who came and gave the report, Ex.P-1, to the police. Thereafter P.W. 10, the doctor, examined P.W. 2 and found : 1. Seminal stains present on the medial aspect of the right and left thigh, 2. Bloodstains present on the external genetalia, 3. Hymen torn irregularly, 4. Fresh tears present 5. Cervis is in tact." In the opinion of P.W. 10, evidence of rape is present in the victim. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 10 establishes the case of the prosecution that the accused had committed rape on P.W. 2. I am not, therefore, able to accept the submission of Mr. Krishna Rao that no offence is made out by the prosecution to warrant his conviction under S. 376, I.P.C. I accordingly confirm the conviction.

(3.) As regards the question of sending the accused to prison, Mr. Krishna Rao, the learned counsel submitted that the accused was about 15 years on the date of commission of the alleged offence and this is clear from the evidence of P.W. 12, the Doctor that examined the accused to determine his age. In view of his age, Mr. Krishna Rao, contended that the accused is to be sent to Borstal School and not at all to the prison.