UPPALA SRINIVAS Vs. STATE OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment, dated 16.07.2010, rendered in Sessions Case No.393 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant/accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and further, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that the victim (P.W.1) was aged more than 16 years on the date of alleged offence; that the appellant/accused is not responsible for the alleged sexual acts on P.W.1; that even as per the prosecution case and the evidence on record, the sexual acts were with the consent of P.W.1; that P.W.1 was above 16 years of age on the date of Ex.P.1-report; that P.W.6-the Doctor, who examined P.W.1, had admitted in his cross-examination that the age determination by the medical examination varies, one to two years on either side; that P.W.4, who is the mother of P.W.1, is an uneducated woman and could not give the correct age of her daughter P.W.1; that P.W.5-father of P.W.1, did not speak anything about the age of P.W.1; that though P.W.1 was studying 10th class as on the date of alleged offence, no school record was produced showing her age; that the prosecution failed to prove that P.W.1 was under 16 years of age as on the date of alleged offence; that P.W.1 and her sister- P.W.2 did not speak anything about the commission of alleged rape on P.W.1. Furthermore, the first instance of alleged rape on P.W.1 said to have been taken place in the month of June, 2008, however, report with the police was lodged on 06.12.2008 with a delay of six months; that under these circumstances, no offence is made out against the appellant/accused under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and ultimately, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offences.