Kallem Shankar Reddy vs State of A.P.

B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.—The sole accused in S. C. No. 36 of 2001, who has been convicted for the offence u/s 376, IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer SI for two months, is the appellant in this appeal.

The appellant was put on trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda for the offence u/s 376, IPC. The accusation levelled against him is that -he raped PW-1 Pailla Padma on 23-6-99 at 3 p.m. in the thatched hut of Balanarsi Reddy.

The prosecution case in brief is :

PW-1 Pailla Padma is wife of PW-2 Pailla Atchi Reddy. They used to reside in a thatched house put up in their agriculture field. They had a son aged three years by the date of the incident. On 23-6-99 they along with their child went to Naibai village to attend the marriage of their relation. After attending the marriage PW-1 along with her child left the marriage venue for watering the fields. At about 3 p.m. she along with her child reached the agriculture well of Balanarsi Reddy. The appellant/accused came across her and when she questioned for his conduct, he replied that her saree fascinated him and so stating dragged him into a thatched hut of Balanarsi Reddy, fell her down, removed her clothes and ravished her. The accused/appellant after getting his lust satisfied warned her not to reveal the incident to her husband and violation of which would lead to dire consequences. PW-1 ran to the field of Mohan Reddy where PW-3 Muthayala Narsamma and one Andalu happened to be present. She told them of the incident and thereupon PW-3 and Andalu took PW-1 to the marriage venue and informed her husband (PW-2). Thereafter, PWs-1, 2 and 3 returned to the field of Balanarsi Reddy and observed the place of occurrence and went to Ramannapet P. S. where PW-1 presented Ex. P-l report. PW-8 G. Madhusudhan Rao, SI of Police received Ex. P. 1 report, registered a case in Cr. No. 61 of 1999 u/s 376 IPC and issued Ex.P.8 FIR. He examined PW-1 and recorded her statement and seized her clothes-MOs. 1 to 3 (petticoat, saree and jacket) in the presence of PW-4 and another under the cover of Ex. P.2 panchanama. He referred PW-1 to the Government Hospital for medical examination. PW-7 Dr. G. Kavitha medically examined PW-1 on 24-6-99, collected vaginal smears and sent them to FSL. On receipt of Ex. P. 5 FSL report, she issued a final opinion stating "an occurrence of recent sexual intercourse cannot be denied". PW-9 took up investigation on 24-6-99 proceeded to the scene of offence, examined PW-2 and PW-3 and recorded their statements. He observed the scene and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex. P.9 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex. P. 10 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. On the same day he arrested the accused and seized MO.4 (lungi) and MO.5 (underwear) under the cover of Ex. P. 4 panchanama in the presence of PW-6 Mohd. Jaffar and sent him for potency test. PW-5 Dr. R. Radhakrishna medically examined the appellant/accused and issued Ex. P.3 certificate opining that "there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of doing sexual act". Act completing investigation a charge sheet came to be presented before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C. No. 107 of 2000 and committed the case to the Court of Session as the offence u/s 376, IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, took the case on file as S.C. No. 36 of 2001 and made over the same to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda for disposal according to law. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge heard the prosecution and the accused and framed a charge u/s 376, IPC. He read over and explained the charge to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused/appellant for the offence u/s 376, IPC, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 9 and marked Exs. P-l to P.10 and MOs. 1 to 5. The defence of the accused is that one Madhusudhan Reddy who is the brother of PW-2 is instrumental in foisting the case with a view to grab his land. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, found the accused/appellant guilty for the offence u/s 376, IPC and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer SI for two months. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant contends that the absence of injuries on the person of PW-1 falsifies the version of the victim that accused/appellant dragged her into the thatched hut of Balanarsi Reddy, and fell her down and ravished her. He further submits that the circumstances of the case probablises that PW-1 was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse and therefore the accused/appellant could not be found guilty for the offence u/s 376, IPC. It is also contended by him that the evidence of PW-1 consists of embellishments and exaggeration, which create serious, doubts on her testimony.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that PW-1 is the victim and her evidence is fully corroborated by PW-3 who immediately took PW-1 to her husband, who was then present at the marriage venue, and thereafter to the police station. It is further submitted by him that the incident occurred at about 3 p.m. and the report came to be presented before the police at 6.30 p.m. The distance between police station and the place of occurrence is about four kilometers and the time gap is so narrow to put in any distorted version of the incident. He further contends that the immediate conduct of PW-1 rushing to the field of Mohan Reddy and complaining to PW-3 and Andalamma rules out her being a consenting party to the sexual act.

PW-1 is a married women and she is mother of a child who was then aged 3 years. On the date of the incident PW-1 and her husband-PW-2 and along with the child attended the marriage of their relation in Naibai village. At about 3 p.m. PW-1 along with the child left the venue for watering the field whereas her husband stayed back at the marriage venue. It is the evidence of PW-1 that while she was on the way to the field and on reaching the thatched hut of Balanarsi Reddy, the accused came opposite to her, dragged her into the hut, pulled her down and ravished her. According to PW-1, as soon as the accused left the scene after getting his lust satisfied, she ran to the field of Mohan Reddy where PW-3 and another were chitchatting and she informed them of the incident and thereupon they took her to the marriage venue where her husband (PW-2) was present. PWs-1, 2 along with others went to the police station and presented report at 6.30 p.m. There is consistency in the evidence of PW-1 and there is no reason for her to foist a case against the appellant/accused.

The approach required to be adopted by the Courts in rape cases has to be different. The cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity. Courts have to show greater responsibility when trying the accused on charge of rape. In such cases, the broader probabilities are required to be examined and the Courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies, which are not of substantial character. The evidence is required to be appreciated having regard to the background of the entire case and not in isolation. The ground realities are to be kept in view vide the decision of Supreme Court in Visveswaran Vs. State Rep. by S.D.M.,

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused contends that the absence of the injuries on the person of PW-1 falsifies her theory that she was dragged into the thatched hut of Balanarsi Reddy and ravished her. His argument is that if the version of PW-1 is true she should definitely sustain injuries in the process of resistance. It is apposite to note that the trial Court observed the physical features of PW-1 and commented that she was very weak to offer any resistance. It is useful to refer the relevant portion of the impugned judgment and it is thus :

"16. The facts of the case on hand are entirely on a different footing because, the evidence of PW-1 in the cross-examination in crystal clear terms is, there was no chance for her to ran away from the hands of the accused. When she tried to prevent the accused from removing her clothes, accused hold her by his legs firmly. This PW-1 is a lean woman as observed and noted by this Court after recording her evidence. It is also significant to see that the evidence of PW-7 Medical officer shows though normally injuries will be found at least on the private parts in a case of rape she has categorically stated that the presence of injuries is not, a must in all cases to come to a conclusion that there was rape by use of force. That apart, PW-1 immediately after the offence of rape on her, informed to PW-3 and Andalu and within 31/2 hours from the time of offence, she was in the Police Station and her vaginal slides were collected on the next day early morning. The evidence of PW-3 shows, while herself and Andalu were chit chating, PW-1 came running by weeping and informed about accused ravishing her. If PW-1 was a consenting party for the sexual intercourse within the accused, certainly she would not have gone to PW-3 and another at Mohan Reddy''s agricultural well and inform them. It is not as if PW-3 and another reached the place of offence and saw committing of rape and then victim informing them that she has been raped by the accused, so as to give an impression that she was a consenting party."

The learned trial Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons in rejecting the plea of the appellant/accused that the absence of injuries on her person probabilizes of her being a consenting party. I do not see any ground to differ with the findings recorded by the trial Court. PW-7 medically examined PW-1, collected her vaginal smears and sent them to FSL. The Investigating Officer also collected her petty coat (MO.1) of the victim and underwear (MO.5) of the accused/appellant and sent them along with other material objects to FSL. Human semen and spermatozoa are detected on the petty coat (M.O.1) and the underwear (MO.5). Ex. P.5 is the FSL report. The medical evidence brought on record fully corroborates the testimony of PW-1. The trial Court appreciated the evidence brought on record on right perspective and found the accused/appellant guilty for the offence u/s 376, IPC. No valid reasons are made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Judge.

Coming to the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the accused is aged about 28 years and he is only earning member in the family. Keeping this aspect in view, I feel that a sentence of imprisonment of seven years while maintaining fine imposed by the trial Court would meet the ends of justice. But for the reduction of sentence from ten years to seven years this Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.