TOTA TIRUPATHAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against is the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool dated 30-12-1993 rendered in SC No.70 of 1993 under which the appellant accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000.00, in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) The facts relevant to the appeal may be staled briefly as follows: The Victim, S. Chennamma (PW1) is aged about 40 years and has two sons. The eldest son was living in a different village away from her and her second son was looking after their agriculture. On the night of 3-2-1990 she was sleeping in her house all alone with her younger son, S. Ravi (PW7) was in the field. According to PW1, while she was sleeping in her house alone, the accused-appellant went to her house and called her by saying "amma, amma" (mother, mother). Presuming that her son, Ravi, had returned from the field and was calling her, she opened the door. Suddenly, the appellant entered into her house and caught told of her neck and pushed her down, due to which she fell down on the ground. The appellant then caught hold of her neck with one hand and lifted her saree with the other hand and raped her. She struggled but the accused threatened her with dire consequences if she leaked out the matter of rape. Due to which she kept quit to save her life in the hands of the accused. Thereafter, the accused went away. According to her, on the following day, she informed about the incident to her son, PW7 and Sayamma (PW2). She also informed her brother-in-law, PW3, S. China Anjiah, about the incident. On the second day, she went to the police station, Bijinapalley and submitted a complaint Ex.P1 on which PW10, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Bijinapally registered a case in Crime No.18 of 1990 under Section 376 of IPC and issued FIR Ex.P6 and he informed the Inspector of Police, Nagarkarnool on V.H.F. set and later the Inspector of Police, (PW11) look up investigation. During investigation, he examined PWs.l, 2 and 7 and he also seized one saree of PW1 in the presence of panch witnesses PWs.8 and 9. However, PWs.8 and 9 did not support the prosecution case during the trial. He sent the victim to the Government Hospital, Mahaboobnagar for examination. The Doctor, PW5, examined PW1 and found no injuries and no marks of recent sexual intercourse. The Inspector of Police, PW11, visited the scene of offence on the same day and he sent the langa and saree of the victim to the Chemical Examiner through Court and obtained report Ex.P7 from the Chemical Examiner. With this material, the charge-sheet was filed.

(3.) As seen above, the prosecution seeks to rely on the evidence of the victim, PW1, the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 7 that soon after the incident she informed about it to these witnesses. The prosecution also relies on the evidence of PW6 who examined the appellant and certified about his potency. Thus, PWs.l to 11 were examined on behalf of the prosecution and Exs. P l to P8 and MOs.l and 2 were marked. On behalf of defence, no evidence was adduced. However, Ex. Dl, stated to be contradiction in the statement of PW3 with her earlier statement to the police, was marked.