Nalla Rambabu vs State of Andhra Pradesh

This revision is filed against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge, W.G. District, Eluru dated 20-9-1990 in Crl. Appeal No. 68/90 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence u/s 376, I.P.C.

The accused is a young man of 24 years and a resident of Cheekateegalapalem of Vinukonda taluk in Guntur District. He is eking out his livelihood as a hawker on the railway platform at Nidadavole. The victim P.W. 1 who is aged about 10 years is a resident of Samistigudem and studying V class at Atlapadu in an Elementary School. The charge against petitioner is that on 22-9-1988 at about 8.00 a.m. while P.W. 1 was going to her school as usual from Samistragudem to atlapadu on the canal bund, the petitioner accosted her on the way and took her away forcibly to the nearby sugarcane field and committed rape on her against her will.

In the trial court, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 for proving the same offence and identity. On considering the evidence on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused as mentioned above. Aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, he preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. That appeal was dismissed confirming the Judgment of the trial court. Assailing that appellate judgment, this revision is preferred.

Sri P. Raghava Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contends that - the medical evidence does not support the commission of rape that there is no proper identification of the person who committed rape on the victim; and that there is delay in lodging the first information report. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence on record clinchingly proves the guilt of the petitioner-accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner are justifiable and can be maintained.

Coming to the first contention, it can safely be stated that it is without substance. P.W. 7, the Woman Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Nidavavolu deposed that she examined P.W. 1 at 4.00 p.m. on the very next day of offence. She noticed tore of perineum about 1/2" size in the middle, hymen was ruptured and vagina was painful on touch. She also noticed swelling of libia majora. Sri Raghavareddy submits that the medical officer P.W. 9 who examined the petitioner-accused did not notice any injury on the person of petitioner and therefore he is not the person who committed the offence. I am unable to agree. P.W. 7 who examined the victim girl noticed that the hymen of victim was ruptured and bleeding was present from the vagina mucous membrane suggesting that the accused committed sexual assault on P.W. 1 the victim. P.W. 7 further noticed that the vagina of victim was painful on touch. The injuries noticed on the person of the victim denote that the victim sustained those injuries on account of the offence committed by the petitioner. In my view, the offence u/s 376, I.P.C. particularly on a young girl aged 10 years is a heinous one. The contention that no spermatozoa was found on the person of the victim is not a ground for disbelieving the medical evidence. Mere penetration is sufficient to constitute an offence u/s 376, I.P.C. The act of penetration and injuries on the person of victim noticed by P.W. 7 is sufficient to base a conviction. Complete intercourse is also not necessary to constitute an offence u/s 376, I.P.C. I have no hesitation to hold that the medical evidence supports the prosecution case.

The second contention as noticed above is that the accused was not properly identified. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 discloses that the accused was properly identified by all the material witnesses of prosecution. P.W. 1 is the victim, P.W. 2 is father of P.W. 1 P.W. 3 is a relation of P.W. 1, P.W. 4 is a resident of the same village and P.W. 5 is the Sarpanch of the village P.W. 1 deposed that on the date of (occurrence) at 8.00 a.m. when she was going to her school at Atlapadu from Samistrigudem, the accused who was near the sugarcane field of one Maddukuri Brahman offered a piece of sugarcane. She refused that offer. Then he closed her mouth, carried her on his shoulders to the sugarcane field, removed her clothes and committed rape on her, and went away. After wearing her clothes she came to the canal bund. At that time P.W. 3 was walking on the canal bund. P.W. 1 informed the incident to P.W. 3. At that time P.W. 3 noticed the petitioner-accused running away from the scene. Another aspect regarding identity is that, on the very day of incident, P.W. 3 went to P.W. 2 and informed the incident. P.W. 3 along with P.W. 4 and others went in search of the petitioner, but in vain. On the next day P.Ws. 3 and 4 noticed the petitioner-accused on the Nidadavolu railway platform. They then brought him to the house of P.W. 1. The sarpanch of that village was also summoned to the house of P.W. 1. When the sarpanch questioned the accused (petitioner) he admitted the commission of the offence. P.W. 1 who was present there also identified the petitioner-accused as the culprit. Then P.W. 5 drafted Ex. P. 1 first information report and went to Samistragudem Police Station and handed over the same to the police. What more evidence is required to prove the identity of the culprit ? The victim herself, who had the bitter experience of the dastardly act committed by the petitioner-accused, and who had a closed look at the time of the incident, clearly stated before the witnesses that the petitioner is the person that committed rape on her. Her memory is still vivid when she identified the petitioner, as on the very next day he was caught by P.Ws. 3 and 4 and was brought to the village. The evidence on record clearly shows that the petitioner-accused is alone the person that committed the rape on the victim-girl, who is aged 10 years, mercilessly. So, the second contention fails.

Coming on to the third contention regarding delay in lodging FIR with the police, it must be noted that the victim-girl is very tender in age. She was in a shock. Immediately after P.W. 3 went and informed P.W. 2 and his wife (P.W. 2''s wife) about the incident, they might have consulted elders and other people in village and that will naturally result in some delay. Especially in cases like rape or outraging the modesty of a woman, the aggrieved or the injured person or her relations will naturally think twice before giving a complaint to the police. This will be much more so in villages because it involves the prestige and reputation of the family of the victim. The delay will be fatal in cases of murder and such sort of cases, but it will not be so in cases of this nature. The evidence on record shows that immediately on identifying the petitioner-accused as the culprit, they gave Ex. P. 1 report. In my view, the delay is not abnormal, taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case. From the above, this contention also fails and is rejected.

There is no motive to foist the case against the petitioner falsely. The petitioner belongs to Guntur and came down to work as Hawker on Nadadavolu railway station. He is almost a stranger to the village and also to the victim and her parents. As already noticed, P.W. had clearly identified the petitioner as the culprit as her memory is still vivid to remember the features of the petitioner who committed rape on her. She had an opportunity to see him when he offered sugarcane piece and also at subsequent stages i.e. during her struggle to wriggle out from the clutches of the petitioner and also on completion of the heinous act.

From the foregoing discussion, it can safely be concluded that the finding recorded by both courts below is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference in this revision. The revision fails.

Sri Raghavareddy learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused is a young man of 24 years and he has got a bright future and a lenient view may be taken by reducing the sentence.

I am not inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and reduce the sentence. This is a heinous crime committed on a young girl of ten years old on the broad day light at 8.00 a.m. It is a scale on the life of that girl. There are no special reasons to show any clemency. Therefore, the revision is dismissed, confirming the Judgment and conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the court below.

Revision dismissed.