JANGA VENKATESWARLU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Janga Venkateswarlu, accused in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1996 on the file of Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, had preferred the present criminal appeal, as against the judgment made in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1996, dated 14-07-1997.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that on 09-06-1992 at 09.00 hours, the complainant-victim-Vuyyala Saraswathi lodged a complaint stating that on 08-06-1992 when she was sleeping in the front of the yard along with her minor son on one cot, and her brother-in-law's daughter Vijaya Laxmi in another cot, and her husband was out of station, on that day, the accused came in the mid-night, woke her up, gagged her mouth, threatened to kill if she raised voice, taken her to the backside of the house and committed rape on her and fled away, and then she informed the same to her father-in-law and it was also stated that Vijaya Laxmi who was sleeping by her side informed that she woke up and witnessed the accused taking her and with fear, she pretended as if she was sleeping. Basing on the same, Police of Penuballi registered a case in Crime No. 40 of 1992, under Sections 376 IPC and 3(1)(x)(xi) and (xiii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Act") and after completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against the accused. Prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and Exs. P-1 to P-7 were marked. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge, found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, and acquitted of the said charge, but found him guilty for the offence under Section 376 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

(3.) Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing appellant-accused would submit that the special Court would not get jurisdiction to try the case at all unless an order of committal is made, and there is no controversy that there is no such committal order in the present case and hence, the proceedings are vitiated and the appellant-accused is entitled for an acquittal and the appeal may have to be allowed on this ground alone. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on Vidyadharan, appellant v. State of Kerala, respondent, and also M.A. Kuttappan, appellant v. E. Krishnan Narayanar and another, respondent.