P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) CHINNAKONDU Kondaiah, the sole accused in Sessions Case no. 50 of 1995 on the file of Assistant sessions Judge, Rayachoty is the appellant. The appellant-accused was convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayachoty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. ( 2 ) FACTS in brief, are as follows: the date of incident is 1-8-1993 at about 11. 45 a. m. It is stated that the appellant-accused committed rape on p. Adilakshumamma (PW2), who was the daughter of P. Pullaiah (PW1) in the fields of Palam Burujupalli near Maddela Chenu mango Garden on the aforesaid date and time. The de facto-complainant Pullaiah (PW1) and the accused are residents of palam Burujupalli, Hamlet of B. Yerragudi village and P. W. 2 Adilakshumamma is the daughter of PW1 aged about 15 years. The accused is the brother of PW1 by courtesy. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 1-8-1993 in the morning at 11. 45 a. m. , while adilakshumamma was returning to her house from the field after giving food to her father and when she reached Maddela chenu Mango Garden on the out skirts of palam Burujupalli, the accused suddenly came from his garden, stopped her and insisted her to come aside to have sexual intercourse, for which it is stated that she had refused stating that she is his daughter by courtesy. Then, the accused lifted her forcibly, carried to behind Gunnagi small bushes, made her laid down and came upon her body after lifting langa and thus, had forcible sexual intercourse with her. P. W. 2 raised cries and then the accused left the said place. P. W. 2 then proceeded to her house and informed about the same to her mother P. W. 3. On the same day at about 6. 00 or 7. 00 p. m. , P. W. I father of P. W. 2 had taken his daughter to the Police Station. P. W. I gave Ex. P. W. 2 then proceeded to her house and informed about the same to her mother P. W. 3. On the same day at about 6. 00 or 7. 00 p. m. , P. W. I father of P. W. 2 had taken his daughter to the Police Station. P. W. I gave Ex. P-1-report to P. W. 8, Sub-Inspector of Police, Lakkireddipalli Police station and the same was registered as crime No. 24 of 1993 under Section 376 read with Section 511 of I. P. C. Ex. P-7 is the original F. I. R. sent to the Court on the same day. P. W. 8 examined P. Ws. l and 2 and recorded their statements. At 10. 15 p. m. P. W. 8 seized M. O. I petticoat and M. O. 2 langa from PW. 2 under the cover of mediator panchanama Ex. P. 2 and at 10. 30 p. m. , he sent P. W. 2 to a Government Hospital with a requisition for her examination. P. W. 8 Sub-Inspector of Police visited Palam burujupalli at 12 midnight and recorded statement of P. W. 3-mother of P. W. 2 and visited the scene of offence on the next day i. e. , 2-9-1993 at 6. 30 a. m. along with p. W. 1 and prepared Ex. P-8-rough sketch of the scene of offence and also prepared observation Mahazar-Ex. P-3. On 2-8-1993 at 9. 00 a,m. , P. W. 6-Medical Officer, government Hospital examined P. W. 2 and issued wound certificate Ex. P-4. P. W. 6 received Ex. P-5 Forensic Science Laboratory report from Hyderabad. Basing on the report given by the radiologist, P. W. 6 came to the conclusion that the girl is aged about 14 to 17 years. On 26-2-1994 at about 8. 00 a. m. P. W. 9- Circle Inspector of Police, lakkireddipalli received a copy of express f. I. R. and he had taken up investigation and he examined P. Ws. l to 3 and recorded their statements. The accused was arrested on 22-8-1993 by P. W. 8. After completing the investigation, P. W. 9-Circle Inspector of police filed the charge-sheet. ( 3 ) THE prosecution had examined p. Ws. l to 9 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-8 and MOs. 1 and 2 to prove the guilt of the accused. P. W. 4 was declared hostile. On behalf of the defence D. Ws. After completing the investigation, P. W. 9-Circle Inspector of police filed the charge-sheet. ( 3 ) THE prosecution had examined p. Ws. l to 9 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-8 and MOs. 1 and 2 to prove the guilt of the accused. P. W. 4 was declared hostile. On behalf of the defence D. Ws. l and 2 were examined. The learned Assistant sessions Judge, Rayachoty on appreciation of the evidence available on record, had arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted him under Section 376 I. P. C. ( 4 ) SRI Kodanda Rami Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out that it is highly doubtful whether the act of sexual intercourse, in fact, was completed, which would amount to rape or only an attempt was committed by the accused. The learned Counsel in this regard had drawn the attention of this Court to the earliest version in the First Information Report, where it was stated that only an attempt was made and nothing beyond. The learned counsel also pointed out that incident had happened on 1-8-1993 and it is stated by prosecution that P. Ws. l and 2 had lodged the complaint on the same day, but, it is surprising that P. W. 9-Circle Inspector of police had received the express F. I. R. on 26-2-1994 and this inordinate delay in the dispatch of the copy of express F. I. R. may have to be viewed with suspicion. The learned Counsel also pointed out that Ex. P2-the seizure of M. Os. l and 2 had not been proved since P. W. 4 was declared hostile, and the accused was also not examined and the evidence of D. W. I would go to show that there is some enemity and some grievance, and this aspect also may have to be taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence. The learned Counsel also pointed out certain portions of the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and also would submit that even the medical evidence does not clearly support the version of the prosecution and hence, the appellant-accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. The learned Counsel also pointed out certain portions of the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and also would submit that even the medical evidence does not clearly support the version of the prosecution and hence, the appellant-accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. In the alternative the learned Counsel would submit that at any rate at best this may be a case of attempt and not a completed offence falling under Section 376 I. P. C. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Additional public Prosecutor would submit that the age of the victim girl at the relevant time was about 15 years and the evidence of p. W. 2 is clear and categorical that at the earliest point of time she had not disclosed on the aspect of the total completion of the offence, being afraid of that she may not get any marriage alliance, since she was an unmarried girl. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that the evidence of P. W. 2-the young girl is clear, categorical and inspiring, and as far as the chain of events are concerned, the evidence of P. Ws. l and 3 will support the same, and the medical evidence also had supported the version of the prosecution relating to sexual intercourse. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that as far as the delay in receiving the express FIR by PW9 is concerned, in view of the delay in receipt of the medical opinion, inasmuch as initially in the light of the FIR that there was only an attempt and not the completed offence of rape, this delay had occurred and nothing else, but, as far as the lodging of the report is concerned, it is prompt since the same was made on the same day, and hence, on that ground the well considered judgment cannot be reversed. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel and also perused the evidence available on record. ( 7 ) THE story of the prosecution is that the de facto-complamant (PW1)-P. Pullaiah and the accused are the residents of Palam burujupalli Village and Adilakshumamma (PW2)-the victim girl is a minor aged about 15 years. Accused is the brother of PW1 by courtesy. On 1-8-1993 at about 11. ( 7 ) THE story of the prosecution is that the de facto-complamant (PW1)-P. Pullaiah and the accused are the residents of Palam burujupalli Village and Adilakshumamma (PW2)-the victim girl is a minor aged about 15 years. Accused is the brother of PW1 by courtesy. On 1-8-1993 at about 11. 45 a. m. while Adilakshumamma was returning to her house from field after giving food to her father, when she reached Maddela chenu Mango Garden on the outskirts of palam Burujupalli, the accused came suddenly from the garden, stopped her and insisted her to come aside for having sexual intercourse and though she refused stating that she is his daughter by courtesy, the accused lifted her forcibly, carried to behind the Gunnagi small bushes, made her laid down, came upon her body, lifted langa and had sexual intercourse forcibly. ( 8 ) APART from the evidence of P. W. 2-the victim girl, the evidence of P. Ws. l, 3, 6, 8 and P. W. 9 also is available on record. P. W. I deposed that he is a resident of palam Burujupalli and he lives by cultivation and P. W. 2 is his daughter and he knows the accused who is also resident of the same village and the offence had taken place about three years ago and on the said date in the early morning, he had taken three workers from his village to their land to sow groundnut seeds and at about 10. 00 a. m. , his daughter Adilakshumamma brought meals to them and after some time, pw2 left the field and at about 3. 00 a. m. , his daughter Adilakshumamma brought meals to them and after some time, pw2 left the field and at about 3. 00 p. m. , when he had gone to their house after completion of the agricultural work, PW2 and PW3-the wife of PW1, reported him that while PW2 was going on the way, and when she reached the Maddela Chenu mango Garden, the accused approached her and asked her to come behind the bushes of some trees and then PW2 questioned the behaviour of the accused, but, the accused without hearing her words, she was taken behind the bushes and the accused lifted her forcibly, carried behind the bushes, made her laid down her, he came upon her body and lifted langa and in spite of her protest for the act of the accused, he had sexual intercourse forcibly, and that subsequent thereto, the accused left the scene after completing the offence and on the same day at about 6. 00 or 7. 00 p. m. , P. W1 has taken his daughter to Lakkireddy Palli Police Station and reported the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police and Ex. P. l is the said report. He further deposed that police examined pw2 and recorded her statement also and subsequent thereto, the Sub-Inspector of Police referred PW2 to Government hospital, Rayachoty for medical checkup and later, she was referred to Government headquarters Hospital, at Cuddapah for further checkup and he also deposed that pw2 is an unmarried girl even by the time her evidence was recorded. In the cross-examination it was elicited that P. W. 1 and p. W. 5 Nagamuni were convicted in a criminal Case i. e. , C. C. No. 27 of 1994 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate s Court, lakkireddipalli, filed by the wife of the accused and the wife of the accused filed the above said case against them, alleging that they set fire to the fencing of the accused. This was elicited most probably to establish enemity between the families. ( 9 ) THE evidence of PW2 is clear and categorical and she had narrated all the details. PW2 deposed that PW1 is her father and she knows the accused and the offence had taken place about 3 years ago at about noon time near Maddela Chenu mango Garden. This was elicited most probably to establish enemity between the families. ( 9 ) THE evidence of PW2 is clear and categorical and she had narrated all the details. PW2 deposed that PW1 is her father and she knows the accused and the offence had taken place about 3 years ago at about noon time near Maddela Chenu mango Garden. She deposed that on that day in the morning, her father PW1 had taken three coolies to Reddimanu Chenu to sow ground nut seeds in the field and the distance between her house, and that the said Reddimanu Chenu is about one mile and it is situated on the eastern side of their village, and that by noon time, she brought meals to her father and three coolies at reddimanu Chenu and after completion of meals, when she was coming back from the field to her house and by the time she reached the place called Maddela Chenu mavidithota, the accused came from mango garden in the path way and he called her to come behind the bushes and when she refused bluntly and chastised him for his behaviour by saying that she is daughter to him by courtesy, and, in spite of her protest, the accused took her behind the bushes, made her laid down and came upon her body, lifted her langa and then, accused had a sexual intercourse forcibly by inserting his penis into her vagina and committed rape. She further deposed that after completing the offence of rape, the accused left her at the spot and went away, and at the time of the offence she raised cries, but in vain, and immediately, she rushed to her house and narrated to her mother (PW3) what actually had happened. She also deposed that PW. 1 her father came at 3. 00 p. m. , and then, herself (PW2), and her mother had narrated what had happened and her father gave police complaint and she was also examined by the police. She deposed that M. O1 is the petty coat and m. O2 is langa and police seized them when ex. Pl-report was given. She also deposed that on the next day morning, she was referred to Rayachoti Government Hospital and from there, she was referred to government Head Quarters Hospital, cuddapah. She deposed that M. O1 is the petty coat and m. O2 is langa and police seized them when ex. Pl-report was given. She also deposed that on the next day morning, she was referred to Rayachoti Government Hospital and from there, she was referred to government Head Quarters Hospital, cuddapah. It is also pertinent to note that PW2 deposed in the beginning that she could not state the fact to her father that the accused committed rape on her due to fear that she may not get her marriage celebrated with anybody and she also deposed that she was an unmarried, as it was known to every body in the village about the offence and no body come forward to marry her. This witness was cross- examined at length. No doubt, certain questions were put to her so as to elicit that there was no necessity to pass through this way. But she had explained the same in clear and categorical terms. It was also suggested that they are nothing to do with Reddimanu Chenu. She had denied the same and deposed that when the accused asked her to come behind the bushes, she understood the purpose for which he was calling her, and the distance between their village and the scene of offence is, about half a mile. She also deposed-that she did not make cries, when the accused carried her on his shoulders and took away to the bushes, but she raised cries when the accused made her laid down on the ground and, in spite of her cries, the accused did not try to skulk away from the spot, but he committed rape on her. She also deposed that she had stated to the police that accused made her laid down on the ground and came upon her and lifted her langa and when he made attempt to commit rape on her and when she raised cries, the accused left the spot. She further deposed that she stated before the police that from the time when she was made laid down on the ground she raised cries. Several questions were put to this witness which are suggestive of fact as though she is a consulting party to the act of sexual intercourse. She further deposed that she stated before the police that from the time when she was made laid down on the ground she raised cries. Several questions were put to this witness which are suggestive of fact as though she is a consulting party to the act of sexual intercourse. She also deposed that she stated timings at which the offence took place and she also deposed that after reaching the house, they did not go to their field where her father was there to report the matter to him and the same was reported in the evening. Certain questions were put to elicit misunderstandings between the families. ( 10 ) THE evidence of PW3-the mother of PW2 and the wife of PW1 is to the effect that immediately after the incident, PW1 reported the incident to her and in turn, after the return of her husband, PW3 had reported the same to PW1 and PW1 in turn had taken PW2 to the Police Station and a complaint was lodged. ( 11 ) P. W. 4 was declared hostile. P. W. 4 deposed that the signature shown to him is his signature and in his presence, the Lakkireddipalli police never seized anything. P. W. 4 deposed that when he was going by the side of the Police station, one Head Constable called him to the station and asked him to sign and therefore, he signed and hence, he does not know the contents of Ex. P-2-panchanama. This witness was cross-examined by the prosecution and it was suggested that m. Os. l and 2 were seized in his presence only by the police. ( 12 ) P. W. 5 deposed about the scene of offence and also Ex. P-3 panchanama and signing the same. ( 13 ) THE evidence of P. W. 6 is crucial. P. W. 6 deposed that she is working as medical Officer in Government Hospital, rayachoti and that on 2. 8. 1993 at 9. 00 a. m. she examined PW2 and found the following injuries:"abrasion over the back 2 cm x 1 cm oblique skin deep discolouration present. Internal examination: External gentilla normal. Hymon congested not intact. Multiple fresh small lacerations present vagina admitting 2 fingers. Vagina smear taken for semon analysis. Analysis report contains semon and spermatozoa present given by Director, Forensic Science laboratory, Hyderabad. Radiological age about 14 to 17 years given by dr. Internal examination: External gentilla normal. Hymon congested not intact. Multiple fresh small lacerations present vagina admitting 2 fingers. Vagina smear taken for semon analysis. Analysis report contains semon and spermatozoa present given by Director, Forensic Science laboratory, Hyderabad. Radiological age about 14 to 17 years given by dr. Kumarswamy, Radilogist. " she was also of the opinion that the victim girl had undergone sexual intercourse and vagina smear contains semon and spermatozoa present and the time of the injury is 12 to 24 hours prior to her examination. The victim girl aged about 14 to 17 years. She deposed that Ex. P-4-wound certificate was issued by her. She also deposed that one woman constable brought P. W. 2 to hospital and Ex. P-5 is the f. S. L. report received by her. She further deposed that as per Ex. P-5, Semon and spermatozoa are detected on Items 2 and 3 and blood is not detected on Items 1 to 3, and Semon detected on Items 2 and 3 is human but blood group was not detected. No doubt in the cross-examination, she deposed that in case of Virgin lady only one finger will admit into her vagina, and she again says that sometimes in some cases two fingers may be admitted easily and it depends on the physical features of the person. Several of the questions are of general nature, which would be put to the medical officer in cross-examination. " ( 14 ) P. W. 7-PROPERTY clerk in Munsif magistrate s Court, Lakkireddipalli deposed that on 6. 9. 1993 his predecessor received property from Lakkireddypalli in crime No. 24 of 1993 and he received M. Os. l and 2 and on the same day, his predecessor also received some property in Crime No. 24 of 1993 viz. , one sealed small rectangle object and the same was sent for chemical analysis. P. W. 7 also deposed relating to ex. P-6. ( 15 ) P. W. 8 was the Sub-Inspector of Police at the relevant point of time to whom the written complaint was presented and by whom Crime No. 24 of 1993 was registered under Sections 376 read with 511 IPC. He deposed that Ex. P-7 is the original FIR sent to Court. P-6. ( 15 ) P. W. 8 was the Sub-Inspector of Police at the relevant point of time to whom the written complaint was presented and by whom Crime No. 24 of 1993 was registered under Sections 376 read with 511 IPC. He deposed that Ex. P-7 is the original FIR sent to Court. This witness deposed that on the same day, he examined p. Ws 1 and 2 and recorded their statements in the Police Station itself and he seized m. Os. l and 2 from the victim girl-P. W. 2 under the cover of Ex. P-2-Mahazar and at about 10. 30 p. m. , and he sent P. W. 2 to government Hospital along with PC No. 391 with requisition for her examination and that he visited the village at 12 midnight and he secured PW3, recorded her statement and halted in the village due to late night, and on the next day, he visited the scene of offence along with P. W. 1, p. Raja, P. W. 5. This witness also had deposed about the particulars of scene of offence. He deposed that he prepared ex. P-8-the rough sketch and the observation mahazar Ex. P-3. He also deposed about the arrest of the accused and his remand. This witness was also cross-examined at length and the contradictions elicited, were put to him in the course of cross-examination. ( 16 ) P. W. 9 is a Circle Inspector and he deposed that he received a copy of express, FIR from S. H. O. , Lakkireddipalli police Station and he had taken up the investigation and he visited the scene of offence and examined P. Ws. 1 to 3, in the light of the certificate issued by the medical Officer, and recorded their statements. He also deposed that P. W. 2 stated before him that the accused committed rape on her, and mat he also examined polipalli Sreeramulu and some of the villagers and verified investigation of P. W. 8 and found the same on correct lines, and that after receiving relevant certificate, he filed the charge-sheet. This witness was also cross-examined at length. ( 17 ) AS against this evidence, the evidence of D. Ws. l and 2 is also available on record. This witness was also cross-examined at length. ( 17 ) AS against this evidence, the evidence of D. Ws. l and 2 is also available on record. D. W. I was examined to show that all is not well with these families and d. W. 2 was examined to show that P. W. I is not having any land within the vicinity of his land with a view to contradict the story of the prosecution. ( 18 ) THE learned Assistant Sessions judge, Rayachoty recorded reasons in detail and arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish the charge under Section 376 IPC as against the appellant-accused. It is no doubt true that except the solitary testimony of P. W. 2, there is no other eye-witness to the incident as such. P. Ws. 1 and 3 speak of the subsequent chain of events only and what had been stated by P. W. 2 to these witnesses. The counsel for the appellant made a serious attempt to show that in the light of what had been stated in Ex. P-1 at the earliest point of time that only an attempt was made and there was no completed act of sexual intercourse as such. The ingredients of section 376 IPC are not satisfied and at the best, it may be a case of Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC and nothing more. It is just a case of attempt to commit rape and definitely not a completed offence falling under Section 376 IPC. ( 19 ) P. W. 2 is a girl of 15 years old and she is an unmarried girl. Even in the report given by PW1, it was stated that the accused tried to rape her, but it was also stated that his daughter did not say whether raped or not. PW2 had given clear explanation why she had stated so at the earliest point of time to her parents. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the evidence of PW2 is well supported even by the evidence of PW6. In alternative, as per several questions posed to PW2 and certain suggestions made, it is clear that the defence intended to make out a case of consent. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the evidence of PW2 is well supported even by the evidence of PW6. In alternative, as per several questions posed to PW2 and certain suggestions made, it is clear that the defence intended to make out a case of consent. It is pertinent to note that the age of the girl at the relevant point of time was about 15 years and in my considered opinion, this evidence of PW2 elicited in cross-examination is not of any help to the defence of the appellant-accused. In Nawabkhan v. State, 1990 Crl. LJ 1179, it was held that: "where the prosecution had established the fact of sexual intercourse -absence of physical injuries does not warrant consent on her part. " hence, in my considered opinion, the mere fact that at the earliest point of time only an allegation of attempt had been specified, definitely cannot inure to the benefit of appellant-accused in the light of the clear overwhelming evidence placed by the prosecution on record. ( 20 ) I had given my anxious consideration to the evidence available on record. It is no doubt true that P. W. 4 was declared hostile. The evidence of D. Ws. l and 2 also may not help much and at the best, this evidence was let into show the enmity between the parties families and the probably that the offence could not have happened. When the evidence of the victim-girl-prosecutrix is convincing and trustworthy, well corroborated by the subsequent chain of events and also the medical evidence, definitely it cannot be said that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had committed any error in arriving at the conclusion and recording the finding of the guilt against the appellant-accused. ( 21 ) THE date of offence is 1. 8. 1993 and it is also brought to my notice that the appellant-accused is an agriculturist having minor children and also aged parents dependant on him. ( 22 ) TAKING all the facts and circumstances into consideration, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years imposed by the learned Assistant sessions Judge, Rayachoty in Sessions Case no. 50 of 1995 dated 6. 8. 1997 is hereby modified to rigorous imprisonment of five years and as far as imposition of fine, in default, for rigorous imprisonment of one month, is hereby confirmed. 50 of 1995 dated 6. 8. 1997 is hereby modified to rigorous imprisonment of five years and as far as imposition of fine, in default, for rigorous imprisonment of one month, is hereby confirmed. ( 23 ) SUBJECT to the above modification of the sentence, the criminal appeal shall stand dismissed. Bail bonds are hereby cancelled and the accused shall serve the rest of the sentence.