BETHALA SAMAYYA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the conviction made for an offence punishable under Section 376(1) IPC and a sentence of 8 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused accosted the victim in a garden at 2.00 p.m. on 23.8.1989 and after dragging her to a place under a mango tree, raped her in the presence of the victims cousin sister, a child aged about 8 years. The medical evidence indicated that the victim was married woman, but there was evidence of rape. The main evidence given in the case is that of the prosecutrix who testified about the occurrence and informing the incident to her father-in-law since her husband was not well and reporting the matter to the Police. The child-witness when examined has also testified about the occurrence. There was a suggestion that there are altercations between the husband of the victim and the accused earlier and this case had been foisted against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the contention of the defence that the medical evidence did not corroborate the offence and held that the oral evidence of the prosecutrix and the child-witness was sufficient to convict the accused.

(3.) In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that the conviction cannot stand on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix and the child-witness, in as much as there were certain contradictions and the inherent improbability of the occurrence. It was submitted that since both of them state that the occurrence took place in the open place in the broad daylight very near the residential houses just 20 yards away, it is improbable that the accused could had even attempted to commit rape inasmuch as either the victim or the child could have shouted and obtained assistance. It was also pointed out that while the prosecutrix states that she was not wearing bangles though it was usual for her to near bangles, the child witness says that the victim was Wearing glass bangles which broke during the struggle and also injured her hands. It was pointed out that the Medical Report states that the only fresh injury on the prosecutrix was a fresh abrasion 1 cm x 11/2 cm in front of left elbow. The learned Counsel submitted that this might have been a case of consent which was converted into rape by the Prosecutrix on being afraid of the disclosure perhaps by the child-witness or it might have been due to the motive to implicate the accused in view of certain earlier admitted litigation between their families.