MALLELA SREENU ALIAS SRINIVASA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There were two accused in SC No.500 of 1993, both have been convicted of offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. They have filed two separate appeals. Counsels have been heard and both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of charge-sheet against the accused are that, on 13-3-1992 one Dasari Jyothi, hereinafter referred as 'the victim' was alone in her house, her mother had gone for work in the cotton fields. Between 2.00 and 3.00 p.m. the victim went to give fodder to her buffalo in the open space behind her house. A1 and A2 were watching her from a nearby distance. The 1st accused came and gagged the mouth of the victim, then dragged her to nearby sheep shed belonging to one Amirneni Venkateswarlu. A1 and A2 then committed rape on her one after another. Both the accused thereafter threatened the victim with dare consequences, if she narrated the incident to anybody. The victim thereafter went to her friend Amirneni Parvathi and to her aunt Amirneni Lakshmi, informed them about the incident. Those ladies kept the victim with themselves till the arrival of the victim's mother from the fields. After her mother arrived the victim accompanied by her mother went to the police station at Prathipadu and filed a report at 23.30 hours on 13th March, 1992. Case was registered under Crime No. 10/92. Matter was investigated and the charge-sheet was filed as PRC 14/93 before 7th Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, who committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court, Guntur. Thereafter, the case was registered as SC 500/93 and was tried by Principal Assistant Sessions Judge. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. They denied the charges and were put to trial. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, 21 exhibits were exhibited and finally the accused were convicted. In order to appreciate the arguments made against the conviction scrutiny of evidence is necessary.

(3.) PW1 is the victim. She made her statement before the Court on 15th April, 1994. She stated that her age was 17 years. Her father was not living with the family and he had left them 10 or 12 years before. She had a brother. She knew the accused who belong to Gottipadu village i.e., the same village to which the witness belongs. She stated that the incident happened on 13th March, 1992. She was in her house and at about 3.00 or 3.30 p.m. she took fodder to the buffalo which was in the backyard. After putting the fodder before buffalo she turned back to return to her house and at that time A1 came and caught hold of her legs, A2 caught hold of her head and gagged her mouth with the 'Voni' which she was wearing. Then, she carried by accused persons to a sheep pen belonging to Amirneni Venkateswarlu. She was taken to a corner in the shed where A1 lifted her 'pavada' and committed rape on her. Accused No.1 according to the witness inserted his male organ into her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her. After A1 completed the act, A2 inserted his male organ into her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her. After completion of the sexual act, both of them threatened her that if she divulged the incident to anybody she will be killed. Then, both of them went away. Blood came out of her private parts, then she went to the house of her friend by name Parvathi. Her house is the third house from her house, she was not available there, then she went to the house of senior maternal aunt of Parvathi by name Lakshmi. Lakshmi's house is opposite to the house of Parvathi, both were present in that house. She was weeping when she went to that house. Both of them i.e., Parvathi and Lakshmi enquired from her as to why she was weeping and she narrated to them that A1 and A2 had committed rape on her. Lakshmi advised her to stay in her house till her mother returns from the field. At about 6.00 p.m. her mother returned. Lakshmi saw her and called her. The witness's mother came to the house of Lakshmi where the witness told her about the incident. Thereafter her mother attended to the house hold work and after finishing that she along with her mother went to the police station which is about two miles from the village. The witness further stated that they reached the police station at about 11.00 or 11.30 p.m. She got a report written by a person who was sitting outside the police station and gave the report to the SubInspector of Police. She further stated that she had studied upto 5th class. After she presented the report to the police she was sent to the hospital at Guntur. She was accompanied by police constable. She was in hospital for 5 days. The doctor took away her white jacket, navy blue printed langa and coffee colour voni. Another green colour langa was also taken from her by the doctor. The langa taken from her was stained with blood. The clothes which were taken from her by the doctor were the clothes she was wearing at the time of occurrence. She was examined by the police in the hospital after two or three days of the incident. On being cross-examined by Counsel for A1 the witness stated that her elder brother was about 22 years and she could not say how many years she was younger to his brother but maintained that she was 17 years. She had stopped her education 2 or 3 years back. Then she stated that she was younger than one and half years to his brother. She was married 11 months back. She stated that her husband cannot have sexual intercourse against her wishes. She stated that she had menstrual period a week prior to the date of incident. Usually she has bleeding for about 3 to 4 days. The clothes she was wearing on the day of occurrence were worn by her 3 or 4 days prior to the date of occurrence. She denied that stains on her langa were caused of the menses. The flooring of the shed in which she was raped was covered with small stones. There was no compound wall between the backyard of the witness's house and the sheep shed where the incident took place. There is a lane to the south of scene of occurrence which is a big lane. Persons would be always moving about in that lane. There is a lane on the eastern side of the scene of occurrence also. There are kirana shops in that lane. There would be about 25 or 30 persons at the shops always. The road on the souther side joins the road on the eastern side of the scene of occurrence. The distance between the scene of occurrence and southern road would be about 25 to 30 feet. The cattle shed and her house are visible from the road on the southern side. Usually she buffalos are taken to the fields for grazing in the morning at about 10.00a.m., and they would return by 5.00 p.m. Her she-buffalo was also being taken at 10.00 a.m., to the fields but on that day she did not take her buffalo for grazing. There was no particular reason for not taking the buffalo to the fields on that day. Her family owns lands. Girls of her age in the village usually work as labourers (coolies). She also go for such work. She further stated that she was not engaged on that day as a coolie. When she goes for work she would usually carry cotton bundles and during such manual work she was also being engaged for plucking cotton sumps in the fields. She denied that their family did not have a she-buffalo and that she was not at her house on the date of occurrence. Normally when her mother goes out for work she comes to her house for lunch but on that day she did not come for lunch, her mother told the witness to bring her lunch for construction site. Lunch is taken usually between 2.30 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. On that day, however, the witness did not take lunch to her mother because the incident had happened before she could go with lunch to her mother. She further stated that when A1 and A2 lift her and took her to the sheep shed. She was dropped down from a height of about 4 feet. She sustained injuries all over body. She sustained abrasions. She had shown those injuries to the doctor and the doctor had treated her injuries for five days. She struggled when she was being raped. She was stretching her legs while she was being raped. She raised cries also at the time of occurrence. She abused the accused but she did not bite anyone, the accused also did not bite her. Each of the accused had intercourse for about 10 to 20 seconds. When she has menses she uses old cotton saree pieces. On being crossexamined by Counsel for A2 it was tried to elicit information that there was some enmity between the witness's family and the family of accused No.2. A suggestion made in this connection was not accepted by the witness. It was also suggested that the complaint had been made at the instance of Lakshmi who was also enimical with A2, this suggestion was also not accepted. She identified the clothes and they were exhibited.