BOYA MASTRI MADDAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner, who is the accused in S.C.No. 381 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, tried for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 (2) (f) 1PC in respect of committing rape over a young girl of ten years on 20-7-1997 at about 12.30 p.m. The plea raised by the accused is one of innocence. After the trial, the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, recorded the finding of guilt in S.C.No. 381 of 1998 and awarded the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and also imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner carried the matter in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1999 before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool. Aggrieved by the same, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the accused in this revision.

(2.) It is mainly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that there is a delay in giving report to the police, which resulted in distorted version being given. It is also contended that the identity of person was not noticed by the Medical Officer at the time of examination. Hence, the medical examination is doubtful. It is further contended that the neighbours have not supported the version and hence it cannot be believed. It is also contended that there is no corroboration forthcoming with regard to the prosecution version.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor contends that both the courts below have considered the delay aspect as well as the non-recording of identifying features by the doctor and gave concurrent finding and there is no need to interfere with the same.