KATTAMANCHI BUJJI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/sole accused in Sessions Case No.48 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor (hereinafter referred to, as 'the Special Judge').

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused is resident of Gandlapalle ST Colony village, Irala Mandal. The victim girl P.W.1 is daughter of L.W.10-Yanadhi Jyothi and one Perumalaiah. Husband of L.W.10-Jyothi discarded her husband and died. Later, she married L.W.11-Gajendra and they were blessed with a daughter and a son. About 15 days prior to the incident, L.Ws.8 and 9-parents of L.W.10-Jyothi took P.W.1 to Damalacheruvu Santhagate, Pakala mandal, and two days prior to 10/7/2015, they went to Talakona of Yerravaripalem mandal for labour work to cut mangoes, leaving P.W.1 with P.W.3. On the fateful day, the accused also attended labour work at mango garden of Damalacheruvu Saheb and returned Mango Nagar at about 7.30 PM, had liquor in Mango Nagar, purchased another nip and started proceeding towards Santhagate on foot. At about 8.00 PM, he reached Santhagate and found P.W.1 playing with other children. On seeking her, he had sexual feelings and induced her that her mother was calling her. Believing his words, P.W.1 boarded auto of P.W.5 along with the accused, who took her to High School gate, Damalacheruvu, alighted auto, paid amount to P.W.5 towards fare, purchased one biscuit packet in sundry shop and gave it to P.W.1, and proceeded towards Chittoor road side, on foot, catching hold of hand of P.W.1. After crossing the check post, the accused took her into Koneticheruru tank, got her consume liquor, and when she was under intoxication of alcohol, he lifted her to his waist, went into middle of the tank, laid her down, lifted her frock, removed his clothes and had forcible sexual intercourse lying on her. When P.W.1 raised hue and dry, he gagged her mouth and committed penetrative sexual assault. In the midnight, the accused dropped her at Santha gate and went away.

(3.) The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Ss. 376 (1) IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The accused was furnished with copies of documents. Charges for the offences under Ss. 376 (1) IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against him, and when the same were read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.