REVELLA SIVAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/accused, Ravella Sivaiah, aggrieved by the Judgment made in S.C. No. 217/98 dated 8-9-1998 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet had preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

(2.) Submissions of Sri Ball Reddv , Sri Bali Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant/accused maintained that this is a case of rape on a married woman and both the prosecutrix and the appellant/accused are of almost same age and there appears to be no resistance as per medical evidence and hence consent-can be inferred. The learned Counsel also maintained that except the testimony of PW-1 there is no corroboration. The evidence of PW-2 does not help the prosecution in any way and PW-3 was declared hostile and as per Ex.P-1 the age of PW-1 was 22 years at the relevant point of time and the age of the appellant/accused was 23 years. The learned Counsel also pointed out that there are no injuries on the prosecutrix which would be suggestive of consent. The learned Counsel also had thoroughly taken this Court through the evidence available on record and explained the inherent improbabilities in the prosecution version. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on a passage in Medical Jurisprudence by Modi and also on a decision of the Apex Court in Pratap Mishra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 1307 , (1977 Cri LJ 817). Submissions of the Additional Public Prosecutor,

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the very conduct of PW-1 weeping and though PW-3 was declared hostile she also deposing about the weeping of PW-1 and the evidence of PW-6 also to the effect that the prosecutrix was weeping, would definitely negate the theory of consent propounded by the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant/ accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further continued that the evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by PW-2 upto some extent and further the post incident events and medical evidence would clearly establish the guilt of the appellant/accused. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge and also placed reliance on State of Rajasthan v. N. K. (The accused), AIR 2000 SC 1812 , (2000 Cri LJ 2205) and would contend that by the mere absence of injuries, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix is a consenting party.