KALLEM SHANKAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in S.C. No.36 of 2001, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, is the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) The appellant was put on trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda for the offence under Section 376 IPC. The accusation levelled against him is that he raped P.W.I Pailla Pamda on 23.6.1999 at 3. p.m., in the thatched hut of Balanarsi Reddy.

(3.) The prosecution case in brief is : P.W.I Pailla Padma is wife of P.W.2 Pailla Atchi Reddy. They used to reside in a thatched house put up in their agriculture field. They had a son aged three years by the date of the incident. On 23.6.1999 they along with their child went to Naibai Village to attend the marriage of their relation. After attending the marriage P.W.I along with her child left the marriage venue for watering the fields. At about 3 p.m., she along with her child reached the agriculture well of Balanarsi Reddy. The appellant/ accused came across her and when she questioned for his conduct, he replied that her saree fascinated him and so stating dragged him into a thatched hut of Balanarsi Reddy, fell her down, removed her clothes and ravished her. The accused/appellant after getting his lust satisfied warned her not to reveal the incident to her husband and violation of which would lead to dire consequences. P.W.I ran to the field of Mohan Reddy where P.W.3 Muthyala Narsamma and one Andalu happened to be present. She told them of the incident and thereupon P.W.3 and Andalu took P.W.1 to the marriage venue and informed her husband (P.W.2). Thereafter, P.Ws.l, 2 and 3 returned to the field of Balanarsi Reddy and observed the place of occurrence and went to Ramannapet P.S where P.W. 1 presented Ex.P.l report. P.W.8 G.Madhusudhan Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, received Ex.P.l report, registered a case in Cr.No.61 of 1999 under Section 376 IPC and issued Ex.P.8 FIR. He examined P.W.1 and recorded her statement and seized her clothes-MOs.l to 3 (petticoat, saree and jacket) in the presence of P.W.4 and another under the cover of Ex.P.2 panchanama. He referred P.W.I to the Government Hospital for medical examination. P.W.7 Dr. G.Kavitha medically examined P.W.I on 24.6.1999, collected vaginal smears and sent them to FSL. On receipt of Ex. P. 5 FSL report, she issued a final opinion stating "an occurrence of recent sexual intercourse cannot be denied". P.W.9 took up investigation on 24.6.1999 proceeded to the scene of offence, examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 and recorded their statements. He observed the scene and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.9 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P.10 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. On the same day he arrested the accused and seized MO.4 (lungi) and MO5 (underwear) under the cover of Ex.P.4 panchanama in the presence of P.W.6 Mohd Jaffar and sent him for potency test. P.W.5 Dr.R.Radhakrishna medically examined the appellant/accused and issued Ex.P.3 certificate opining that "there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of doing sexual act." After completing investigation a charge-sheet came to be presented before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C. No. 107 of 2000 and committed the case to the Court of Session as the offence under Section 376 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, took the case on file as S.C. No.36 of 2001 and made over the same to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda for disposal according to law. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge heard the prosecution and the accused and framed a charge under Section 376 IPC. He read over and explained the charge to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC, the prosecution examined P.Ws.l to 9 and marked Exs.P.l to P.1 and Mos.l to 5. The defence of the accused is that one Madhusudhan Reddy who is the brother of P.W.2 is instrumental in foisting the case with a view to grab his land. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, found the accused/appellant guilty for the offence under Section 376 IPC and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused/ appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal.