VUNNAM LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NARASARAOPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the convicted accused against the conviction and sentence in S.C. No. 433/89 on the file of the Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. The appellant-accused was tried for an offence u/S. 376, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 12-5-88 at about 4 p.m. he raped P.W. 2 Gurram Murthamma, a girl aged about 10 years when she was in her Pillipesara crop land of her village. The court found the accused guilty of the offence u/S. 376 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default to suffer S.I. for 30 days. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence he filed the present appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows : P.W. 2 G. Murthamma is the daughter of P.W. 1. On the fateful day i.e. on 12-5-88 P.W. 2 was sent to the fields to watch the crop of Pillipesara. While she was in the Pillipesara crop, the accused V. Lakshminarayana came to that place and committed rape on the girl. After raping her the accused left the place. P.W. 3 and Venkayamma who came to the fields to answer calls of nature found P.W. 2 weeping and they also saw the accused going away from the fields. They went and reported to P.W. 1 that they saw P.W. 2 weeping at the fields. Then P.W. 1 along with P.W. 3 and Venkayamma went to the field and found P.W. 2 weeping and she was lying on the cot. Her clothes were bloodstained. P.W. 2 informed them that the accused raped her. Then P.W. 1 took P.W. 2 to the house and from there went to the Police Station and gave Ex. P-1 report to the Police at Narasaraopet. The medical examination revealed that the girl was forcibly raped. After investigation a charge sheet was filed and the accused was found guilty of an offence u/S. 376, IPC and he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned supra.

(3.) In this appeal Sri Anjireddy appearing on behalf of the appellant raised a very forceful plea to the effect that on the date of the offence the accused is a juvenile. Hence he should have been proceeded against under the Juvenile Justice Act, 53/86. The ordinary criminal court had no jurisdiction to try him and convict him in accordance with the normal procedure prescribed under the Criminal P.C. Only the authorities prescribed under Act 53/86 should have dealt with the matter. He contends that the convictions and sentences are vitiated. This argument is based on the following facts. According to the Xerox copy of the date of birth extract produced before the court at the time of S. 313, Cr.P.C. examination the accused was born on 2-12-72. On the date of offence i.e. on 12-5-88 he is below 16 years of age. U/S. 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 'Juvenile' means a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years. Hence the accused comes within the meaning of 'delinquent juvenile' as defined u/S. 2(e). Mr. Anjireddy contends that in view of the tender age of the accused u/S. 7(2) where no Board or Juvenile Court has been constituted for any area, the powers conferred on the Board or the Juvenile court by or under this Act shall be exercised in that area only by (a) the District Magistrate, (b) the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and (c) any Metropolitan Magistrate of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class as the case may be. The ordinary criminal courts have no jurisdiction. He relies upon certain provisions of the Act in support of this argument and also places reliance upon a few decisions. As regards the merits he contends that the Doctor did not find any external injuries on the girl. Hence it cannot be said with certainty that the girl has been raped in the field. This is a case which has been foisted due to factious politics. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 should not have been believed.