G SIVA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-accused preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum- VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, on 22-10-2001, in Sessions Case No. 244 of 1999.

(2.) Sri G. Purushotham Rao, Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out that as per the version of the prosecution, P.W. 1 was aged only about 14 years at the time of incident, and the medical evidence would clearly go to show that there were no signs of rape at all as against P. W. 1, and this aspect was not appreciated in a proper perspective by the learned Judge. The learned Counsel also would submit that the version of the prosecution that the minor girl was forcibly taken away, and that she was married and that subsequent thereto, the accused had committed rape on her, even as deposed by P.W. 1, definitely cannot be believed, in view of the inherent infirmities in the version of the prosecution. The learned Counsel would submit that, none concerned with the alleged series of incidents had been examined, except P.W. 1, P.W. 2 mother of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, a close relative of P.Ws. 1 and 2. The learned Counsel would submit that in the absence of any material to show that P.W. 1 was forcibly taken away, the offence under Section 366 IPC had not been made out and the exaggerated version of P.W. 1 in relation to commission of offence of rape also cannot be believed, especially, in the light of the medical evidence. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence available on record and would contend that the findings recorded by the learned Judge definitely cannot be sustained.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit thatthe evidence of P.W. 1 in this regard would be more than sufficient and she had categorically deposed about the incident and though she is a child witness, she is sufficiently grown up since on the date of incident she was aged about 14 years, on the date of examination she was aged about 16 years and hence, her evidence can be definitely relied upon and thus, the prosecution had established the case beyond all reasonable doubt.