CHINNELLI Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment in S.C.No.2 of 2013 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, wherein the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 (2) (v) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) This appeal is filed contending that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and vitiated the material irregularity. The trial Court believed the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and also went wrong in not giving clear finding with regard to cell phone-M.O.3 and Bicycle-M.O.4, whether they belong to the accused. Though there are number of contradictions in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the trial Court did not answer the same. The trial Court erred in not giving any finding as to the version of Pws.1 and 2 that after the alleged incident of rape, blood was oozing out of the private parts of Pw.2-victim as Pw.2 is the mother of two children. The alleged victim has not raised any hues and cries which is not answered by the trial Court and the trial Court ought to have held that Pws.1 and 2 conspired to avoid repayment of Rs.20,000.00 borrowed from the accused. The judgment of the trial Court is based on the assumptions and presumptions and there is no evidence on record. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, prayed the Court to set aside the impugned judgment by allowing the appeal.

(3.) Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.