JANGA SARAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.1143 of 2002 preferred these two appeals challenging the judgment of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dated 24-11-2004 convicting them for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.') and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Since both the appeals are arising out of the very same judgment, though through different counsel, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: Duvvaka Shivaraju-P.W.1 is the resident of Nookapalli village and lives by means of beedi folding and her husband is staying at Mumbai by doing coolie. On 31-1-2001 at about 7.00 p.m. she returned from Hyderabad, alighted the bus at Nookapalli bus stand and while she was proceeding towards Nookapalli on foot, Janga Saraiah-A-1 and Janga Sammaiah-A-2, who are also staying at Nookapalli village, followed her. On the way, A-1 suddenly lifted P.W.1, took her to nearby chilli fields of Raillachandraiah and threw her in the chilli field. A-2 put the cloth into her mouth making her not to raise alarms. Later, both the accused forcibly raped the P.W.1 one after another. They also beat the victim and threatened her not to raise alarms and caused her bleeding injuries. After committing rape, they fled away from the scene. The victim, after reaching her house, sent a word through her son to P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the sister and brother-in-law of her husband. On their arrival, she informed the matter and all of them went to the police station and lodged Ex.P-1 complaint. On the basis of Ex.P-1, police registered the crime and sent P.W.1 for treatment and medical examination. Panchanama of the scene of offence was conducted by the police under the cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas and took up the investigation. After completion of investigation, police laid the charge sheet for the above offence.

(3.) In order to prove the case of the prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. The learned Sessions Judge after evolving(?) the oral and documentary evidence, found both the accused guilty for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Hence, the appeal.