JUDGMENT This is an appeal from the judgment dated 25.7.2003 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapuram in Sessions Case No.171 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 376, 377, 342 and 506 (2) IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 376 IPC and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 506 (2) IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and the accused was held entitled to set off of the remand period if any already undergone under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Challenging the said order of the conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the Criminal Appeal. 2. I have heard Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is as follows:- The appellant-Chintneedi Suribabu is no other than the father of the victim girl P.W.2 is the younger sister of the victim girl. P.W.3 is the younger brother of the victim girl. The victim girl was examined as P.W.1 before the trial Court. The mother of P.W.1 (who was no more on the date when the incident was reported) was said to be a sickly woman and the appellant had been forcing P.W.1 to participate in sexual intercourse with him for which P.W.1 was refusing. On a particular day, the appellant prevailed over P.W.1 and had forcible sexual intercourse with her in his house in spite of her resistance. It is said that P.W.1 waskeptquiet dueto fear of her father, without disclosing anybody the sexual assault committed by him against her. It is said that since then the appellant has been resorting to commit the acts of the rape onP.W.1 all most regularly. Once the wife of the appellant saw the appellant committing rape on his daughter (P.W.1) questioned his behaviour and having failed to change the mind of the appellant, the mother of P.W.1 had undergone lot of mental agony disgusted with the attitude of the appellant and ultimately, died one year prior to the date on which the case was reported. Once the wife of the appellant saw the appellant committing rape on his daughter (P.W.1) questioned his behaviour and having failed to change the mind of the appellant, the mother of P.W.1 had undergone lot of mental agony disgusted with the attitude of the appellant and ultimately, died one year prior to the date on which the case was reported. According to the prosecution, P.Ws.2 and 3 were also the children of the appellant who have been witnessing the appellant committing rape on P.W.1 at their house. But being afraid of their father, they did not tell anybody. It is said that the appellant prevented P.W.1 from going out side under the apprehension that she might disclose his acts of sexual assault to the neighbours, and she was confined by the appellant in his house only for the purpose of cooking. 4. Because of the continuous sexual assault committed by the appellant, P.W.1 became pregnant on four occasions. The appellant took P.W.1 to the Government Hospital, Peddapuram and got the pregnancy terminated by making false representations to the Doctors. It is further alleged that thinking that conception of P.W.1 as hurdle for sexual intercourse the appellant got arranged a loop facility (coppertty) as contraceptive, and because of the said device, P.W.1 became sick days prior to the date when the case was reported. The appellant tried to have sexual intercourse with P.W.1even though she was sick and when she protested, the appellant fisted on her nose and attempted to catch hold her while in drunken state. It is said that P.W.1 somehow escaped from his house and went to the house of Pilli Booramma (P.W.5) which is situated on the tank bund and stayed at her house till 24.10.2010 due to fear of her father. On that day, P.W.5 told P.W.1 to leave her house because of the apprehension of the father of P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 directly approached a village elder of Pilli Appa Rao (P.WA) and informed him the entire episode consisting of series of brutal sexual assaults committed by her father. P.WA sentP.W.1 to the Village Administrative Officer of Marripudi Village, who recorded the statement of P.W.1 and reported the matter in Rangampet Police Station on 24.12.2000. 5. Thereafter, P.W.1 directly approached a village elder of Pilli Appa Rao (P.WA) and informed him the entire episode consisting of series of brutal sexual assaults committed by her father. P.WA sentP.W.1 to the Village Administrative Officer of Marripudi Village, who recorded the statement of P.W.1 and reported the matter in Rangampet Police Station on 24.12.2000. 5. On receiving the said report forwarded by the Village Administrative Officer, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rangampeta Police Station registered a case in Crime No.96 of 2000 under Section 376,377,342,506 (2) IPC. He investigated into the offence and on completing the investigation filed charge sheet. After the case was committed to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapuram, he framed charges under Sections 376, 377, 342 and 506 (2) IPC and read over and explained the said charges to the appellant for which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examinedP.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. No witness was examined on defense side and no material object was marked. 7. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on consideration of the entire evidence on record, while acquitting the appellant for the offence under Sections 377 and 342 IPC, convicted him for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 (2) IPC. He imposed rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC and imposed punishment of two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(2) IPC directing substantive sentences to run concurrently. The evidence relied upon by the trial Court to record conviction against the appellant for the offence under Section 376 and 506 (2) IPC is that of P.W.I, the victim girl. P.W.2 the younger sister of P.W.1. P.W.3, the younger brother of P.W.1. P.W.4, who took P.W.I to the house of Village Administrative Officer, when she approached her informing about the atrocity committed by her father, Pilli Booramma (P.W.5) a neighbour, P.W.10Badugu Seshu, the grand mother of P.W.1 and the medical evidence forthcoming on record. 8. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there are some people in Marripudi Village indulging the activity of manufacturing illicit arrack, they bore grudge against the appellant and they got filed the case against him. 8. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there are some people in Marripudi Village indulging the activity of manufacturing illicit arrack, they bore grudge against the appellant and they got filed the case against him. He would further submit that P.W.I admitted in her evidence that she had friendship and illicit intimacy with one Veera Babu and wanted to marry him but the appellant did not accept the said proposal. The learned counsel would try to convince that because of the said fact P.W.1 developed grouse against her father and became instrumental in the hands of opponents of her father and gave false report against him. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 and also some independent witnesses referred above had categorically spoken to the heinous acts of sexual assault persistently committed by the appellant against his own daughter (P.W.I), unless the appellant committed the said heinous offence, P.Ws.1 to 3 would never come forward to impute such wiled acts against their own father, and, therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court shall be confirmed. 10. P.W.1 the victim girl had categorically spoken to the incident wherein the appellant committed sexual intercourse on her in spite of her offering resistance for the first time, and, the fact that thereafter, continuing his heinous acts repeatedly. Shealso spoke about her becoming pregnant for four times and the appellant getting it terminated and also fixing of a device known as coppertty to avoid such pregnancy and all the other facts which were referred above while narrating the prosecution story. P.Ws.2 and 3 also specifically stated about their witnessing the appellant committing rape on P.W.1 on some occasions in their house and P.W.1 not informing anybody due to fear of her father. P.W.4 deposed about P.W.1 informing about the atrocious acts of rape persistently committed by the appellant on her, and his taking P.W.1 to the Village Administrative Officer for preparing the report basing on the statement of P.W.1, and, thereafter, taking P.W.1 along with him to the Police Station and lodging the report with the police. P.W.4 deposed about P.W.1 informing about the atrocious acts of rape persistently committed by the appellant on her, and his taking P.W.1 to the Village Administrative Officer for preparing the report basing on the statement of P.W.1, and, thereafter, taking P.W.1 along with him to the Police Station and lodging the report with the police. P .W.5 an inhabitant of the same village deposed about P.W.1 coming to her telling about her father beating her and further P.W.1 informing her about the appellant committing forcible sexual intercourse on her and persistently the expiry of her mother because of the said reason. P.W.10 is the grand mother of P.W.1 and mother-in-law of the appellant. She stated in her deposition about her daughter (the mother of P.W.1) informing her about the appellant committing rape on P.W.1 and she also stated that due to the said conduct of the appellant, her daughter expired. 11. Insofar as the medical evidence is concerned, Dr.P.Appa Rao, who examined the appellant, opined that the accused is capable of committing sexual intercourse.P.W.8-Dr.P.5arswathi, who examined P.W.1 stated in her evidence that the hyman of P.W.1 was not intact, it was not possible to certify whether P.W.1 had undergone abortions previously, but according to P.W.8. P.W.1 was habituated sexual intercourse. She also noticed the traces of putting a device known as intraulence coppertty insitiv to P.W.1. 12. On a careful analysis of the entire evidence and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that the evidence forthcoming in this case more particularly that of P.Ws.1 to 3 is of highly reliable character and accepted can be in toto with out any hesitation. The contention urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that as the appellant refused to perform the marriage of P.W.1 with her lover, she developed grouse against her father and became instrumental in hands of his enemies in the village and resorted to give a false report against him has no foundation at all. In no circumstances, the children namely; P.Ws.1 to 3, who are depending on their natural father and having lost their mother, would resort to making such a wiled allegations against him. In no circumstances, the children namely; P.Ws.1 to 3, who are depending on their natural father and having lost their mother, would resort to making such a wiled allegations against him. Absolutely, I see no circumstances to doubt the veracity of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in this case and the learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 (2) IPC. 13. On the aforesaid analysis and reasoning, I confirm the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant, and, accordingly, dismiss the criminal appeal. There is no appeal by the state.