FAIZUDDIN MOHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge/ Medak at Sangareddy dated 29th July 1998 rendered in SC No.19 of 1996 convicting the appellant-accused for an offence under Section 376 IPC and under Section 3(l)(xii) read with Sec.3(2)(v) of SC and ST (PA) Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(2.) The facts relating to this appeal may be stated briefly: The accused has been working as a Forest Guard at Gummaddala village in Chennaram Mandal, Medak District. The complainant P. Narayana P.W.1 and his wife Pochamma and their daughter (victim) P.W.3 are the residents of that village. They belong to Scheduled Caste. P.W.3 was working as maid-servant in the house of the accused for eight months prior to the incident. Four months prior to the incident, the wife of the accused went to her parents house for delivery. According to P.W.3 she used to clean vessels and attend to other domestic work in the house of the accused and the accused used to pay Rs.50/- per month. After the wife of the accused went to other place for delivery, one day between 3 to 4 p.m. while she was attending to the work, the accused laid her on the cot and by force raped her. After opening the doors of the room she went to her mother P.W.2 and narrated the incident- Three days after the incident, P.W.1 enquired as to why she was not going to the work at the house of the accused, when P.W.3 declined to work at the house of the accused, her father P.W.1 beat her, then P.W.3's mother P.W.2 Pochamma intervened and narrated to P.W.1 the incident of rape on P.W.3 by the accused. According to the prosecution, four months after the incident, P.W.1 took P. W.3 victim girl to the police station and gave complaint Ex.P-1. This was on 4-1-1995 at about 9.15 a.m. P.W.6 the Sub-Inspector of Police registered case in Cr,No.2 of 1995 under Sections 342 and 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of SC and ST (PA) Act, 1989 and issued First Information Report Ex.P-4. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 and sent P.W.3 the victim girl to the Government Hospital for examination. Thereafter P.W.5 the Circle Inspector of Police took over the investigation and arrested the accused on 11-1-1995 at 10 a.m. at Narsaraopet. He gave requisition to Munsif Magistrate, Sangareddy at Medak for recording the statement of P.W.3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. who recorded the same under Ex.P-3. The successor of P.W.5 filed charge-sheet. The Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Narsaraopet examined P.W.3 on 6-1-1995 and issued medical certificate Ex.P-6.

(3.) It is seen from the record that P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.P-1 to P-6 have been marked on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the accused no evidence has been adduced but Ex.D-1 is marked as a contradiction in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2. On this evidence, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted the accused and sentenced as stated above.