LINGAM GOVINDARAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision case is directed against the judgment dated 8-3-1996 of the learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Crl. Appeal No.83 of 1992 on his file, wherein he had confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused in S.C.No.24 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. The revision petitioner/accused No. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.200.00 and in default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 366 of 1PC and the revision petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.200.00 and in default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 376 of IPC.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are as under: The complainant-PWl, Sri Simhadri Annajirao is a resident of Srikakulam. PW2, Simhadri Ramanamma is his eldest daughter. She is aged more than 18 years. The revision pelitioner Lingam Govindarao is also a resident of Fazulbegpet, Srikakulam. Lingam Kamalamma (A2) is (he mother of A1. PWs. 1 and 2 and the accused belong to different communities. PW2 and Al are unmarried. They fell in love with each other. On 5-5-1991 at 8 p.m. the revision petitioner and PW2 left the village and they went to Vishakhapatnam and stayed in the township near the Steel Plant. They resided in a house under construction along with other workers for about one and a half months and during that period they lived as wife and husband. PW2 had sexual intercourse on the promise of the accused that he will marry her. A2 the mother of A1 went there and took away A1. Thereafter PW2 wrote a letter to her father PW1 and he went along with PW3 and brought her to his house and thereafter he preferred the complaint, Ex.Pl, to the police on 23-7-1991. PWS registered Ex.Pl as Crime No.83/91 under Sections 366 and 109 of I.P.C. and issued the F.I.R The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 5 and marked Exs.Pl to P3. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the revision petitioner and his mother (A2). The plea of the accused is one of denial. The prosecution examined PWs.l to 5 and marked Exs.Pl to P3. On a consideration of the evidence on record the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found Al guilty of the offences under Sections 366, 376 and 420 of I.P.C. and convicted him for the said offences and sentenced him as stated supra The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found A2, mother of Al, not guilty for the offences under Section 420, read with 109 IPC and acquitted her of the said charge. Aggrieved of it A1 preferred the appeal in Crl. Appeal No.83/92. The learned Sessions Judge on re-appraisal of the evidence on record, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on Al for the offences under Section 366 and 376 of IPC, but acquitted him of the offence under Section 420 IPC. The accused has come up with this revision challenging the said order of the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is absent and there is no representation on behalf Of the revision petitioner. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor took me through the entire evidence on record including the impugned judgment.