Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 887 (AP)

Gummala Ramamurthy v. State Of A. P.

2004-08-24

P.S.NARAYANA

body2004
( 1 ) THIS appeal is field as against the judgment dated 22. 11. 1999 in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1999 on the file of II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal. ( 2 ) THE accused was charged with the offence as specified hereunder: firstly: That you on 20. 04. 1998 committed house trespass by entering into with intent to commit rape on Krishna Kumari thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 448 of IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly: That you on 20. 04. 1998 committed criminal intimidation by threatening Krishna Kumari with injury to her person with intent to cause alarm to the said Krishna Kumari committed rape on her and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC and within my cognizance. Thirdly: That your on 20. 04. 1998 committed rape on Krishna Kumari thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 376 of the I. P. C. , and within my cognizance. ( 3 ) THE version of the prosecution is that P. W. 1 is having two sons and one daughter who are all below 10 years of age. The accused is the neighbour of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 and his wife P. W. 3 used to attend their agricultural coolie work. On 20. 04. 1998, they left for collie work in the early hours by keeping their minor daughter P. W. 2 at home along with their son. When the son went out to play, the accused criminally trespassed into the house of P. W. 1 and the accused caught hold of the victim girl and forcibly took her into the house under threat and raped her barbarously. Due to the unbearable pain and oozing of blood from her vegina, the victim raised hue and cries. On hearing hue and cries of the victim-girl, P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and P. W. 10 came there. P. W. 10 removed the clothes of P. W. 2 and gave her bath and washed the blood stains on her vegina. Thereafter, P. W. 1 lodged a complaint with the police. The victim girl was sent to the hospital for examination. On 24. 04. 1998, the accused was arrested by the police and he was sent for medical examination about his potentiality test. Thereafter, P. W. 1 lodged a complaint with the police. The victim girl was sent to the hospital for examination. On 24. 04. 1998, the accused was arrested by the police and he was sent for medical examination about his potentiality test. Injuries were found on the private parts such as anus and vegina, and the doctor opined that there was rape committed on the victim girl. ( 4 ) THE learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mulug had committed the case to court of Sessions which was made over to the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal. The learned Judge, after framing the charges under Sections 448, 506 and 376 IPC, read over and explained the same to the accused and the accused denied the charges, and then, the learned Judge proceeded with trial. ( 5 ) THE learned Judge recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 10 and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 12, and ultimately, the learned Judge found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 448, 506 and 376 IPC and taking into consideration, that the child was aged about 6 years and was raped, the accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years for offence under Section 376 IPC and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused was also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 448 IPC, and also to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 506 IPC. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed. ( 6 ) P. W. 1-FATHER of the victim girl deposed about the alleged offence and there were disputes between the accused and P. W. 1 and no doubt, it is not a ground of attack. But this witness specifically denied that this case was foisted due to enmity. ( 7 ) AS far as the incident is concerned, P. W. 2 deposed as follows:q: With Whom you were playing on that day? ans: On that day, I was paying with Madhu at that time. The accused took me inside of the house and threw me this side or that side (Atu etu nookindad ). Q: What had happened to you? ans: On that day, I was paying with Madhu at that time. The accused took me inside of the house and threw me this side or that side (Atu etu nookindad ). Q: What had happened to you? ans: I suffered a scratch on my back. I suffered bleeding. Q: What had happened further? ans: I suffered bleeding on my thighs. Sharada took me and got bath. Q: Did you go to Police Station? ans: Yes. I went to Police Station and police examined me. Q: Who took you to the hospital? ans: My parents. Q: Doctor examined you? ans: Yes. The evidence of P. W. 2 in detail had been appreciated by the learned Judge at paragraph 10 and reasons in detail had been recorded. ( 8 ) P. W. 3 is the mother of the victim girl and she also deposed that her son came and informed that the accused had spoiled her daughter. ( 9 ) P. WS. 4 and 5 are the brothers of the victim girl. But they could not depose anything about the incident and these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution. ( 10 ) P. W. 10 had deposed that about 1 years ago at about 10 a. m. her parents went to work in the fields, so also the neighbours and her friend Rajyam came to her house at that time. She deposed that both of them were playing at their house and at that time, she heard some cries from the house of Krishna Kumari (P. W. 2) and at that time, herself and Rajyam went to the house of Krishna Kumari and found the accused getting up over the body of Krishna Kumari and on seeing them, he started running away. She deposed that blood was oozing in between the thighs and Krishna Kumari, they have taken Krishnakumari and gave her bath washed her and cleaned her clothes. The evidence of P. W. 10 was discussed in detail by the learned Judge at paragraph 11. ( 11 ) P. W. 6-DOCTOR had examined the victim girl and found injuries on the body. She deposed that she also examined the private parts and found the following injuries:i) Laceration about 1. 5 cm length and 1 mm. Deep over the left side of the anus at 1 O clock position. No active bleeding. ( 11 ) P. W. 6-DOCTOR had examined the victim girl and found injuries on the body. She deposed that she also examined the private parts and found the following injuries:i) Laceration about 1. 5 cm length and 1 mm. Deep over the left side of the anus at 1 O clock position. No active bleeding. ii) A laceration about 1 cm length and 1 mm. Deep at 7 O clock position of anus. No active bleeding. iii) Small abrasion about 2 mm. Inner side of the left libiaminora and lebia misora normal. Hymen intact. Thus, in view of the clear evidence of these witnesses, the whole evidence available on record, P. Ws. 1 to 10 had been discussed at length and also Ex. P1 report given by P. W. 1 and Exs. P2 and P3-statement of P. Ws. 4 and 5, who were declared hostile, Ex. P. 4 medical certificate, Ex. P. 5-First Information Report, Ex. P. 6-Final opinion, Ex. P. 7 signature of P. W. 8 on panchanama, Ex. P. 8-rough sketch, Ex. P. 9 Panchanama, Ex. P. 10 age certificate, Ex. P. 11 potentiality certificate and Ex. P. 12 First Information Report also had been discussed in detail, and ultimately, findings at length had been recorded, on appreciation of evidence. ( 12 ) ON a careful scrutiny of the findings recorded and also the evidence available on record, this Court does not see any compelling reason to record different findings and hence, the said findings are hereby confirmed. ( 13 ) IT is brought to the notice of this Court that the accused is aged about more than 61 years and he is not healthy. Taking into consideration the age of the accused and the fact that he had undergone imprisonment for more than six years and also taking into the consideration the over all facts and circumstances, the conviction no doubt as such is hereby confirmed. ( 14 ) IN the result, the conviction imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1999 against the appellant-accused on 22. 11. 1999 is confirmed. So far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is modified as follows: (i) The sentence of imprisonment under Section 376 IPC is reduced to six years from ten years R. I. So far as imposition of fine of Rs. 5000. 11. 1999 is confirmed. So far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is modified as follows: (i) The sentence of imprisonment under Section 376 IPC is reduced to six years from ten years R. I. So far as imposition of fine of Rs. 5000. 00 in default, to undergo S. I. for six months is concerned, it is hereby set aside; (ii) The sentence of imprisonment under Section 448 IPC is reduced to six months from one year S. I. ; (iii) The sentence of imprisonment of six months S. I. under Section 506 IPC is confirmed. (iv) All the above sentences to run concurrently. It is however brought to the notice of this Court that the accused already had served the above modified sentences. If the accused had already served the above modified sentences imposed by this Court, he shall be set at liberty forthwith after computing the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, in accordance with law. Except modifying the sentence as referred to supra, the Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed.