STATE Vs. M BHUJANGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the Judgment dated 20th October, 1992 rendered in SC No.95 of 1990 on the file of Principal Asst. Sessions Judge, Warangal under which the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal may be stated briefly as follows: The victim PW2 M. Suvartha studied upto 7th class and discontinued her studies. A1 and A2 were her class-mates in the primary school. After discontinuing her studies, P W2 was working in a Creche attached to a school infront of the house of A1. On the date of incident i.e,, on 8-7-1988 at about 2 p.m. while the victim PW2 was passing infront of the house of Al, A1 and A2 caught hold of her, took her inside the house of A1 and both of them raped her. It appears that the victim PW2's brother PW1 was asked by his wife to get some fuel wood, he was told that his axe which he needed for cutting fuel wood was with A1, he then went to A1's house and found A1 standing at his house. PW1 asked Al about the axe who told him that it was with one Sugunamma. He (PW1) went to that person who told that the axe was not with her, PW1 then came to A1 again to enquire about the axe. According to him, A1 was standing infront of his house sweating and he gave evasive answers about the axe. In the meanwhile, A2 came out of the house of A1 and on seeing PW1, he ran away from mere, then PW1 got suspicion and entered the house of A1 and found that PW2 was lying on a cot and weeping. He found, both the accused had fled away. PW1 took PW2 to the house of PW3-Kalamma, on enquiry by her PW2 told that A1 and A2 had raped her. On the same day at about 9 p.m. PW1 took PW2 to the police station and gave report Ex.P1 on which the PW10 S.I. of Police, Parkal Police Station registered a case in Cr. No.170 of 1988 under Section 3 76(2)(g) IPC and issued FIR Ex.P9. He examined PWs 1 and 2, seized MO1 Langa (petty coat) and MO1 Jacket from the victim PW2 in the presence of panch witnesses. PW10 sent the victim girl to the Parkal for examination where she was examined by Dr. Indira who had given the report Ex.P5 and the final report Ex.P7 and she referred PW2 to the Radiologist PW9 who examined the victim girl for determination of age and gave certification Ex.P6. Ex.P5 and P7 were however proved by Dr. K. Ramaiah said to be acquainted with the signature of Dr. Indira who prepared those reports. PW11 there after took up investigation, prepared panchanama of scene of offence and arrested the accused on 10-7-1988 and seized MO3 Al's Lungi, MO4 drawer under a panchanama Ex.P3, he also seized cut drawer MO5 and Lungi MO6 from A2 under a panchanama Ex.P4. After receiving the medical reports and the Forensic Science Laboratory reports Exs.Pl 1 to P13, he filed charge-sheet.

(3.) Thus it is seen that PWs 1 to 11 have examined, Exs.P1 to P14 and MOs.1 to 6 have been marked on behalf of the prosecution. The accused have not chosen to adduce any defence evidence. Considering the material available on record, the learned Asst Sessions Judge held that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 376 IPC.