AMARLAPUDI VEERAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Accused 1,2 and 4 in Sessions Case No.284 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandigama, are the appellants. The first appellant/A1 was tried for the offence punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), and A2 to A7 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. On an analysis of the entire evidence let in by the prosecution, while holding that A3 and A5 to A7 are not guilty of the above offence, however, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found A1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Similarly, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found A2 and A4 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge further directed that out of the fine amount of Rs.2,000.00 to be paid by Al, an amount of Rs.1,000.00 shall be paid to P.W.1, towards compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The substance of the charges framed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge against the accused is as follows: "Firstly that Al on or about 23rd day of January, 1999 at mid night, at his house situated at Vellanki, caught hold of P.W.1, Gundra Kumari, when she came out of the house and went towards hayrick for urinals, and gagged her mouth with cloth and committed rape on her against her will and consent and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Secondly, that A2 to A7 at Penugachiprolu village, deceived Gundra Kumari, Gundra Venkataratnam and Gundra Ramulamma committed criminal breach of agreement in performing the marriage of A1 with P.W.I Gundra Kumari and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC."

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows. P.W.1 is the victim and her mother is P.W.2. Al, A4 and A6 are the sons of A2 and A3, and A5 and A7 are the daughters-in-law of A2 and A3, and they are all living jointly. P.W.1 used to go to the house of the accused situated at Vellanki village for doing coolie work. While so, on 23/1/1999, P.W.1 went to the house of the accused to collect the balance coolie amount and A2 told her that he will pay the same on the next day. Therefore, P.W.1 stayed in the house of the accused for that day, and at about 12 to 12.30 in the mid night when P.W.1 came out of the house for urinals, A1 came behind her with a towel and tied her hands with the said towel. When she tried to raise alarm, A1 put his bauian into her mouth and committed rape. Immediately thereafter P.W.1 informed about the same to A2 to A7. Pursuant to which, they promised to perform her marriage with A1. Thereafter, they took P.W.1 to her parents and informed about the incident to them and requested them not to disclose the said incident to anybody. Subsequently, when A2 to A7 intended to perform the marriage of A1 with another girl, P.Ws.1 and 2 raised a dispute before one P.Prabhakar Rao, a practicing advocate. As the mediation was not fruitful, P.Ws.l and 2 lodged a report with the police. As the police failed to initiate any action, P.W.I filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First class, Jaggaiahpet, and the same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On receipt of the said report, the subinspector of police registered the same as case in Crime No.59 of 1999 on 02.07.1999 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 420 IPC and issued express FIR to all the concerned. On 04.08.1999 P.W.9 examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and 7 and recorded their statements. Later he visited the scene of offence, i.e, the house of A1 and prepared Ex.P8 rough sketch. P.W.9 later visited the house of P.W.1 and prepared another rough sketch, Ex.P9. Thereafter, P.W.1 was sent to the Government hospital, Jaggaiahpet for medical examination. The Civil Surgeon, who was examined as P.W.8, examined P.W.1 on 5/8/1999 and issued Ex.P6 certificate opining that P.W.1 lost her virginity, but she is not habituated to sexual intercourse. On 6/8/1999 A1 was arrested and produced before the court and was remanded to judicial custody. On a requisition, the medical officer, P.W.6, examined A1 on 08.11.1999 and issued Ex.P5 potency certificate opining that he is capable of performing the sexual act. After completion of investigation, P.W.10 laid charge sheet against the accused.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.Pl to P9. As stated supra, the Court below found Al guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and A2 and A4 of the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Appeal is preferred. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.