HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.194 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner- accused No.1 against the judgment, dated 17.12.2004, rendered by the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in Crl.A.No.35 of 2003. 2. The petitioner-accused No.1 and accused No.2 were prosecuted in S.C.No.65 of 2002 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad, for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 7 were marked. On behalf of defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge having assessed the entire evidence, convicted accused No.1 and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 376 IPC, while acquitting accused No.2 of the said offence, by judgment dated 16.07.2003. Questioning the same, accused No.1 filed Crl.A.No.35 of 2003 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad, and after re-appreciating both the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against accused No.1 for the offence under Section 376 IPC, by judgment dated 17.12.2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused No.1 preferred this revision. 3. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 19.04.2001 when P.W.1 victim girl went to her agricultural field in search of a cow and to get fodder and while she was returning home, near a rivulet the accused laid her on ground and A.2 caught hold of hands and shut her mouth, A.1 committed rape on her and later A.2 also committed rape on her. Besides that, A.2 inserted his finger into the vagina of P.W.1. When P.W.1 tried to commit suicide, P.W.3 came there and rescued her. Subsequently, P.W.1 informed the incident to her parents and later a report was given to the police. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-A.1 contended that Ex.P.1 complaint was lodged by P.W.1 victim girl against both the accused with specific allegations that they committed rape on her, whereas she has deposed before the Court that the petitioner-A.1 alone committed rape on her and A.2 inserted his finger into her vagina. He further contended that there is no eye witness to the incident except the statement of P.W.1 and even as per her version, there is no corroborative evidence adduced by the prosecution. 6. This Court perused the record and also the evidence adduced by the prosecution, more particularly the evidence of P.W.1 victim girl. The victim girl even though stated in Ex.P.1 complaint that the petitioner-A.1 and A.2 committed rape on her, she has not stated about the same before the Court as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-A.1. It is the case of the prosecution that A.1 and A.2 committed rape on the victim girl against her will. The evidence of P.W.6 doctor, who examined the victim girl, is that the vagina of the victim girl admits two fingers, whereas in cross examination she has stated that admission of two fingers into the vagina of victim girl itself is not an indication to say that the victim girl is habituated to sexual intercourse. But, the same was not contradicted by the petitioner herein. In any event, taking into consideration Ex.P.1 complaint and the evidence of P.W.1, they are totally contradicting with each other. In such a situation, placing reliance on the evidence of the victim girl alone is highly unsafe to convict the petitioner-A.1 under Section 376 IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the findings of the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court are liable to be interfered with. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner-A.1 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in S.C.No.65 of 2002, by judgment dated 16.07.2003, as confirmed by the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in Crl.A.No.35 of 2003, by judgment dated 10.12.2003, are hereby set aside. The petitioner-accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offence. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 27th January, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.194 of 2005 (Allowed) 27th January, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.194 of 2005 Dated: 27.01.2011 BETWEEN: Ramai Ramulu … Petitioner/ Accused AND State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: