Guntuboyina Gangulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh

The sole accused was found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 376 of the Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, by Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam.

On appeal also, the learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, confirmed the same, believing the evidence of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 mainly. Questioning the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, the present criminal revision case is preferred.

The case of the prosecution is that on 7-11-1987 in the evening at about dusk time, while P.W. 1 (married lady) was returning to her parents house through Barikabanda alone, the accused came, stopped her, put a piece of cloth in her mouth, carried her to the bushes nearby, fell her down on the ground, caught hold of her legs and hands and forcibly had sexual intercourse, even though she is resisting. P.W. 2, who is the cousin of P.W. 1, happened to go that way in search of cattle observed the same. Then the accused ran away. P.W. 1 gave a report in Rajam Police Station and the same is registered as Crime No. 87 of 1987. Subsequently, the investigating officer investigated into the crime. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined in all P.Ws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P1 to P10 and M.Os. 1 to 4. On behalf of the defence Exs. D1 to D5 and M.Os. 5 to 7 were marked.

The main question that falls for consideration is whether the evidence of P.W. 1, who is the victim, can be accepted.

P.W. 1 is a married lady. P.W. 1''s evidence shows that even prior to the marriage, accused was making gestures and after the marriage, this incident took place. P.W. 2 stated that he saw the accused on that day while she was being raped by the accused. P.W. 3 is the father of the victim. He stated that on his coming to know about it from its daughter, he went to the Rajam Police Station and reported the same to the police. It is not in dispute that the victim gave a report to the police alleging that she was raped by the accused. The medical evidence and the wound certificate, Ex. P3, shows that she was in menstrual period. Whether P.W. 1 was in menstrual period or not is not known to the accused and the report shows that it is very difficult to find out the traces of spermatozoa on her private parts. So the injuries that have been found suggest that it is not a case of consent and the act was done against her will. The evidence available on record and the medical evidence show that, the injuries on the victim establish that the victim resisted the act. In the evidence itself, P.W. 1 stated that he was making gestures even before her marriage. When that is so, even after the marriage, he has not lost his temptation to enjoy her at any time.

The first contention of the appellant is that there was delay in giving complaint. It must be remembered that in case of married ladies, in particular that too young ladies who were married very recently, it is very difficult for them to come out with a statement that the lady was raped as it has got an impact on the marital life of the victim concerned. Before giving a report in the case of rape, they will think twice to give a report and be subjected themselves to the cross-examination by the defence counsel. The consent of the family and the relationship with the husband should also have to be looked into in that connection. So the time that has been consumed by them in giving a report by itself in a rape case is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. In a case where the physical assault, offences against property, etc. are there, a prompt lodging of FIR is required and essential. But, in case of a rape that prompt lodging of FIR cannot be expected as the honour and respect of the lady is involved and it will have bearing on her future life. So, mere giving FIR with some delay by itself is not a ground to brush aside the case of prosecutrix.

It is for this reason, the general trend of the law that has been laid down by the Supreme Court and other Courts is that the substantial evidence of the victim is sufficient to base a conviction. Even, if there is any discrepancy with regard to the medical evidence, still weight has to be given to the oral testimony of the victim. There is no particular reason for a lady to sacrifice her life for the sake of somebody and to involve a person falsely in a case, alleging that he is the responsible person for committing the rape. A lady may go to the extent of saying that her modesty has been outraged but no respected lady, except a lady leading a prostitutional life, falsely come out with a case that she was raped, unless there are strong compelling causes to foist a false case. P.W. 2 corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 and I do not find any infirmity in accepting the evidence of P.W. 2. Similarly, the evidence of P.W. 3, who is the father of the victim, can be taken as circumstance because immediately after commission of the offence, she reported to him about the act. Since the witnesses in this case are not accustomed to court proceedings or subjected themselves to cross-examination, the minor contradictions or omissions should not be taken note of and no weight should be given, when there is substantial evidence pointing out the guilt of the accused.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accused used to make gestures earlier and contended that the act is not against the will of P.W. 1. If there is consent, no injuries would have caused and the bangles would not have broken. The indication of broken bangles and also the injuries on the hands itself suggests the resistance by her. When a young able bodied man aged about 26 years caught hold of a lady aged about 20 years, who is in helpless position, it is natural for her to surrender.

Generally, and the medical evidence in this case supports the view that during menstrual period, it is very difficult to find out the traces of spermatozoa on the private parts of the victim. Moreover, mere penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.

The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a judgment in Krishan Lal Vs. State of Haryana, . It is a case where rape has been committed and the Court found on reappreciation of evidence, its strengths and weaknesses with a view to sit in judgment over the holdings of the High Court in affirmance of those of the trial Court. It was held that

"In rape cases, Courts must bear in mind human psychology and behavioural probability when assessing the testimonial potency of the victim''s (prosecutrix) version. The inherent bashfulness, the innocent naivete and the feminine tendency to conceal the outrage of masculine sexual aggression are factors which are relevant to improbabilise the hypothesis of false implication. The injury on the person of the victim, especially her private parts, has corroborative value. Her complaint to her parents and the presence of blood on her clothes are also testimony which warrants credence. To forsake these vital considerations and go by obsolescent demands for substantial corroboration is to sacrifice commonsense in favour of an artificial concotion called ''Judicial'' probability."

The facts of this case are different to that of the case cited above and the inference of consent cannot be drawn as there are inflicted injuries on the hands of the victim.

The factum that she was not responding to the gestures made earlier to the commission of offence and the fact that there are injuries, clearly established that the act was done against her will.

The last submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused was falsely implicated in the rape case so that he may be dismissed from the service, at the instance of some others who are enimically disposed of towards the accused. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no substance in the said contention for the reason that no married lady will come out with an allegation that she was raped and will falsely implicate others in the case at the cost of her honour, dignity and the value of her marital life. At the most, if such a contention is taken into consideration, she would have foisted a false case against the accused alleging that her modesty has been outraged by him, but not with an allegation of rape.

The mere technicalities in conducting the investigation by the investigating officers and if there are any lapses in doing so, much weight should not be given to them especially in rape cases.

The evidence available on record and the medical evidence clinchingly support that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The appreciation of the evidence by the Court below and the concurrent findings by both the Courts below are perfectly justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court under revision. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.