PALAPARTHY VIJAYA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment in Sessions Case No. 196/1993 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, wherein the sole accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 366, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 506(2), IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the appeal, as per the case of the Prosecution, may be delineated as follows : That the accused was working as Junior Assistant in Government High School, Visakhapatnam, that the victim-Kundarapu Sivalakshmi, who was examined in this case as P.W. 1, was a resident of Ramachandra-puram village, that on 30-4-1993 at about 6-30 a.m., P.W. 1 and her father-P.W. 3, started from their house to go to Employment Exchange at Visakhapatnam to get the name of P.W. 1 registered therein, that at that time the accused approached them and told P.W. 3 that he would get the said work done as he knew all the persons working in the Employment Exchange, that due to faith in the accused, P.W. 3 sent P.W. 1 to Visakhapatnam along with the accused, that accordingly both the accused and P.W. 1 proceeded to Visakhapatnam by bus, that after getting down from the bus the accused informed P.W. 1 that her photographs were necessary for registration of her name in the Employment Exchange, that the accused took P.W. 1 to a Photo Studio, that thereafter they went to the Employment Exchange, that the accused informed P.W. 1 that there was heavy rush in the Employment Exchange, and as such he took P.W. 1 to a hotel and they had Tiffin in the hotel, that when they were going to the Employment Exchange after taking Tiffin, P.W. 6-Bandaru Mutyalanaidu saw them going together near the Employment Exchange, that the accused informed P.W. 6 that after registration of the name of P.W. 1 in the Employment Exchange he would send her back to Ramachandra-puram, that after going to the Employment Exchange the accused told P.W. 1 that there was heavy rush in the Employment Exchange and left her there and returned at about 5.00 p.m., and got her name registered in the Employment Exchange, that thereafter the accused took P.W. 1 to his house stating that there would be no buses available from Visakhapatnam to Chodavaram after 5.00 p.m., that P.W. 1 slept in the house of the accused, that during the midnight the accused woke her up, threatened her at the point of knife and had intercourse with her forcibly and obtained a letter from her to the effect that she would marry him, that he also threatened that if she revealed the incident to anybody, he would kill her, that the accused forcibly removed her clothes from her body and took nude photographs of her upper portion of the body with a camera, that he again threatened her that he would kill her and throw her body into the sea if she informed the incident to anybody, that on the next day of incident at about 8.00 a.m., she returned to her house, that P.W. 3 asked her as to why she did not return on the previous night, but she did not reveal the incident to her father due to fear of the accused and to save her family's honour, that on 11-6-1993 P.W. 2-K. Atchayyamma, the elder sister of P.W. 1, received a cover by post which contained a nude photograph of P.W. 1 and a letter in the handwriting of P.W. 1 expressing her intention to marry the accused, that she felt very bad as the accused was of the age of her father, and proceeded to Ramachandra-puram and informed about the same, to her father, that then P.W. 1 informed about the entire incident to them, that in order to save the honour of their family, they hesitated to reveal the incident to police or to elders, that ten days thereafter the accused started to show the nude photograph of P.W. 1 and the letter alleged to have been written by P.W. 1 to the villagers of Ramachandra-puram including P.W. 2, that as the accused imputed unchastity to P.W. 1 and degraded the honour of the family, P.W. 1 scribed a report on 23-6-1993 and gave it to the Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, that basing on the said report, the police registered a case in Crime No. 278/1993 under Section 376, IPC and issued copies of the FIR to all concerned, that thereafter the Inspector of Police took up investigation and examined all the witnesses, that on 24-6-1993 at about 6-30 p.m., the Inspector of Police arrested the accused at Visakhapatnam in the presence of mediators, that the accused led the police and the mediators to his house from where the police seized two copies of the nude photographs of the victim girl along with a negative, that on 30-6-1993 the Inspector of Police sent P.W. 1 for medical examination, that on the same day the Doctor examined P.W. 1 and issued a wound certificate Ex. P4 stating that the Hymen of P.W. 1 was not intact and old tears were there, and opined that the possibility of P.W. 1 having had sexual intercourse could not be ruled out, that on 26-7-1993, the Inspector of Police obtained the date of birth certificate of P.W. 1 from the Head Master of Mandal Praja Parishad Elementary School at Ramachandrapuram, that P.W. 1 was also examined by the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Andhra Medical College, Visakha-patnam for determining the age of the deceased, and that after completion of investigation charge-sheet was laid before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam under Sections 366, 376, 342 and 506(2), IPC.

(3.) The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Visakha-patnam, as the case is exclusively triable by Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both parties regarding the charges, framed charges under Sections 366, 342, 376 and 506(2), IPC against the accused. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty.