KOMMIREDDY RAJU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.1 of 1992 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasapur in West Godavari District. He was put up for trial for the charges under Sections 450,376 and 4171.P.C. By the judgment, dated 25-6-1993, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the appellant-accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 450 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him for the said offences. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found not guilty of the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 417 I.P.C. and he was acquitted of the said charge. The appellant-accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period often years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 376, IPC and he was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 450 I.P.C. He ordered that both sentences run concurrently. The accused has preferred this appeal challenging the said judgment.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as revealed from the evidence on record, is as follows: The appellant-accused Kommireddy Raju and P.W.1 Chinthapalli Masenamma, the victim woman belong to kapu community and they were the residents of the same locality in Achanata village. On 6-8-1991, P.W.1presented a private complaint in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palacole alleging that on 23-11-1990 at 12 noon, while she was alone in her house, the accused trespassed into the house, bolted the door from inside and asked P.W.1 to come for sexual intercourse and as she refused, the accused gagged her mouth with towel and pushed her on a cot and raped her against her will and by force and while P.W.1 was weeping, P.W.2 came and knocked the door and as the door was opened, P.W.2 questioned the accused while he was inside the house. P.W.1 informed P.W.2 that the accused had forcibly spoiled her life and when P.W.2 questioned the accused, the accused promised to marry the victim girl. Believing the said promise, the victim and P.W.2 kept quiet without informing the mother of the victim and thereafter, the accused visited the house of the victim now and then and used to have sexual intercourse with her promising that he would marry her soon. On one occasion, P.W.3 also saw the accused going to the house of P.W.1 and having sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, P.W.1 became pregnant, when questioned by her mother, P.W.1 narrated the incident to her. Thereafter, when questioned, the accused promised to marry the victim girl, but kept out from his promise and a caste panchayat was raised before the caste elders before whom the accused and his elders agreed to marry P.W.1, but subsequently failed to marry her. Thereafter, P.W.1 preferred the complaint before the Court. The learned Magistrate forwarded that complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the S.H.O. Achanta Police Station for investigation and report. P..W.11, the S.I. of Police, Achanta received the said complaint (Ex.P-1) on 10-8-1991 and registered the same as Cr.No.55/91 under Section 376 I.P.C. and issued the FIR Ex.P-3 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and recorded their statements. He also examined the scene of offence. The caste elders P.Ws.5 to 10 also handed over to P.W.1l the letter Ex.P-2 which was said to have been signed by the accused and his brothers. After completing the investigation, P.W.11 laid the charge-sheet against the accused alleging that he trespassed into the house of P.W.1 on 23-11-1990 and raped her forcibly without her consent and he continued to have sexual intercourse with her promising her to marry her and subsequently, failed to keep up the said promise, and thus, committed offences punishable under Sections 450, 376 and 417 IPC. (ii) When questioned with regard to the charges framed against him, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, (iii) To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.l to 11 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-3 Exs.D-1 and D-2 are the contradictions in the statements of P.Ws.9 and 10 respectively, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, the accused stated that it is a false case and that he has been implicated falsely. The accused did not chose to examine any defence witnesses on his behalf. (iv) On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge held that charges for the offences under Sections 450 and 376 I.P.C. only have been established and therefore, convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced him as stated earlier. Challenging the said verdict, the accused has come up with this appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor. The learned Counsel for the appellant took me through the entire evidence on record and also the impugned judgment.