MAREPALLY VENKANNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is convicted for the offence under Sec. 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years vide judgment in SC No.384 of 2008 dtd. 2/4/2009 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Nalgonda.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant is the father of P.W.1 victim. P.W.1 stated that the appellant, six months prior to 31/12/2007 put his hands into her jacket and pressed her breasts and rubbed her body though PW.1 resisted. However, the same was not informed due to fear of family members. One week thereafter, when the mother-P.W.4 was not present in the house, the appellant again dragged her to room and forcibly committed rape on her. The appellant threatened her not to inform anyone. Again on 20/8/2007, during afternoon hours, the appellant again committed rape on her. The said act of rape and also pressing her breasts continued. On 31/12/2007, when PW.1 was preparing to go to school, the appellant held her hand and had sex forcibly. The said acts of the appellant were informed by P.W.1 to P.W.2, who is her friend. Thereafter, both P.Ws.1 and 2 met P.W.3 and informed that the appellant was harassing her sexually. P.W.3 advised that PW1 should inform TV 9 channel or lodge a complaint with the police. Accordingly, the victim girl P.W.1 lodged a complaint in the police station on 3/2/2008. After receiving the complaint, P.W.1 was sent for medical examination and the police, having concluded investigation, found that the appellant who is the father of P.W.1 had raped her several times. For which reason, the charge sheet was laid under Sec. 376 of IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the very narration of P.W.1 is highly improbable. Though the relatives and grand parents of P.W.1 were neighbors in the very same locality, there was never any complaint. Further, the most probable person to whom the complaint against the appellant would be made was her mother-P.W.4. However, no such complaint was made to her. P.W.4 during her examination before the Court stated that she did not know anything about such harassment and for the first time, she came to know that the appellant was committing rape on P.W.1 when she went to the police station after the complaint. Counsel further submits that the forensic report does not reveal that there were any semen spermatozoa that were detected on the vaginal smears. Ex.P3 final report which was given by P.W.6-Doctor also mentions that there was no semen and spermatozoa detected. However, observed that the rape cannot be ruled out.