TONTA POCHAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/accused 1 to 3 had been charged with offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to undergo a further Rigorous Imprisonment of 6 months. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Medak in S.C.No.235/97 on appreciation of evidence of PW-1 to PW-18, Exs.P-1 to P-10, Exs.D-1 to D-11 and M.Os.1 to 5, arrived at a conclusion that the guilt of the appellants/accused had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the Criminal Appeal.

(2.) Sri J. Kanakaiah, the learned Counsel representing the appellants made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would submit that the husband of P.W.1 was involved in an incident relating to kidnapping and this appears to be the motive for the commission of the offence in question which cannot be believed since the appellants/accused would not have resorted to this method for the purpose of coercing the husband of PW-1 to have a settlement in relation to the kidnapping episode. The Counsel also would contend that except the evidence of PW-1 there is no other evidence available on record and PW-2, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 are all the close relatives of PW-1 and they are bent upon implicating the accused in view of the controversy between the accused on one hand and the husband of PW-1 on the other. The learned Counsel also further contended that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the same had not been explained properly. The learned Counsel would submit that at any rate in the light of the facts and circumstances the sentence imposed is highly excessive.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that this is a case of gang rape committed by A-1 to A-3 against a helpless woman. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would contend that it is a case where there is motive on the part of A-1 to A-3 to perpetrate this crime since they have a grouse against the husband of PW-1 and unfortunately PW-1 was made a scapegoat in connection with the said controversy. The learned Counsel would submit that even if the contradictions are taken into consideration these are not contradictions touching the substance of the prosecution version and hence the learned Judge arrived at the correct conclusion in recording clear findings ultimately holding the accused guilty of the offence charged with.