IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND, NINE Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Appeal No.747 of 2005 Between: Deerangula Kistappa … Appellant And The State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Appeal No.747 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.03.2005 in SC No.537 of 2004 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadiri, wherein, the appellant/accused was found guilty of the offences under Sections 324 and 376 IPC and was convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.300/- for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The accused and the victim woman-PW.1 are residents of Patnam village. PW.2 is the daughter of PW.1. On 14.11.2003 in the afternoon PW.1 along with her daughter PW.2 went to Soranikuntavanka in the outskirts of the village, for collecting firewood. At about 2.30 p.m. while PWs.1 and 2 were collecting firewood, accused went there and took PW.1 to nearby bushes and forcibly committed rape on her and when PW.1 resisted the accused, he abused and beat her with the sickle on the legs, hands and private parts and caused simple injuries. PW.2 witnessed the incident. As the husband of PW.1 was not in the village, PW.1 did not give complaint to the police immediately. On 16.11.203 after return of PW.1’s husband, PW.1 informed him of the incident and PWs.1 and 2 and husband of PW.1 went to Patnam PS and gave complaint Ex.P.1. PW.8-Assistant Sub Inspector registered FIR Ex.P.6 in Cr.No.54 of 2003. PW.7- Inspector of Police took up investigation, examined the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch Ex.P.5 and seized Mos.1 to 3 cloths of PW.1 under panchanama Ex.P.4 and arrested the accused on 30.11.2003. After receiving potency certificate Ex.P.2 issued by PW.5 and the medical report regarding medical examination of the victim- PW.1 under Ex.P.3 from PW.6 Medical Officer, PW.7 filed charge sheet. 4. The accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty before the trial Court for the charges framed under Sections 324 and 376 IPC. In support of their case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and Mos.1 to 3. Accused examined one P. Gangireddi as DW.1, but did not mark any documentary evidence. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge held that the accused committed rape on PW.1 and also caused simple injuries by beating PW.1 with reverse portion of the sickle and accordingly, found him guilty of the offences under Sections 324 and 376 IPC and convicted him for the same and imposed sentence as stated above. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused would contend that except self-serving testimony of PW.1 and interested testimony of PW.2, there is no other evidence to corroborate the version of the prosecution and even the medical evidence on record does not also establish the offence of rape and the trial Court erred in basing conviction on the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 and the same is not corroborated by the medical evidence. He would further submit that the FSL report, which is said to have been admittedly received by PW.7 is not filed in to Court for no reason and hence, there is nothing to connect the accused with the alleged offence of rape, especially when the medical evidence of PW.6 and wound certificate Ex.P.3 would only show the existence of some simple injuries, but do not establish the occurrence of rape. He would further contend that there was delay of more than two days in giving the complaint and the same is also not duly explained. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand would contend that the oral testimony of PW.1 is duly corroborated by the eyewitness PW.2 is sufficient to base conviction and no further corroboration by way of medical evidence is required. He further submits that even if the ingredients of rape under Section 376 IPC are not established, still the evidence on record would make out the offence under section 354 IPC. 8. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on the afternoon of 14.11.2003 at about 2.30 p.m. near Soranikunta vanka in the outskirts of Patnam village while PW.1 and her daughter PW.2 went there to collect firewood. Accused and PW.1 belong to the same village and therefore they are not strangers to each other. Thus there is no dispute regarding the identity of the accused. The complaint was given on 16.11.2003. In the complaint itself, it is stated that PW.1’s husband went to Obulreddipalle on labour work and he returned to the village only on the afternoon of 16.11.2003 and thereafter, PW.1 and her husband came to the police station and gave complaint. The same reason was reiterated by PW.1 in her evidence also. Having regard to the nature of the offence alleged, it is only just and natural on the part of PW.1 in waiting till her husband returned to the village before she went to the police station and gave complaint regarding the same. It cannot for a moment be expected that in the absence of her husband PW.1 would rush to the police station to lodge a complaint on a sensitive matter like present offence. It is not as though for the first time in the evidence such an explanation is sought to be given to get over the delay in giving the complaint. Even at the earliest point of time, it was mentioned in the complaint Ex.P.1 itself that being a lady and also being afraid, PW.1 could not go to the police station in the absence of her husband. She had to wait till her husband returned on 16.11.2003 and inform him about the incident and thereafter with his assistance, she went to the police station and gave Ex.P.1 complaint. Her conduct in the circumstances perfectly matches with the natural course of human conduct of any victim lady placed in the position of PW.1 and hence, it cannot be said that there was any abnormal or unexplained delay in giving complaint. The trial Court has rightly rejected the plea of the accused that the complaint was belated and so merits no consideration. In a catena of decisions, it is held that the delay of two days in giving the complaint pertaining to the offence of rape, especially, when such delay is duly explained even at the earliest point of time, is not at all fatal for the prosecution case. 9. In order to prove the occurrence, the prosecution relies upon the testimony of PW.1-victim woman and PW.2 daughter of PW.1, who is stated to be eyewitness to the occurrence, besides medical evidence. PW.1 testified that on that day, herself and her daughter PW.2 went to Soranikuntavanka for collecting firewood and the accused came there and caught hold of her hand and asked her to come aside and when she resisted, accused beat PW.1 with reverse portion of the sickle and caused injuries on the elbow, left knee and also on her private parts. She further testified that the accused threw her down and committed rape on her. It is also in her evidence that her daughter PW.2 witnessed the incident. The testimony of PW.1 is consistent with the averments in the complaint given at the earliest point of time. No material contradictions or omissions are also elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 in order to discredit her evidence to the extent of accused coming to the scene of offence and causing sexual assault on PW.1. PW.2 daughter of PW.1, who is aged nine years, corroborated the testimony of PW.1 by deposing that on that day, she accompanied her mother PW.1 for collecting firewood to Soranikuntavanka and while PW.1 was collecting firewood, PW.2 was playing around and at that time, accused came and caught hold of her mother and when PW.1 resisted, the accused snatched the sickle from the hands of her mother and beat her with reverse portion of the sickle on the left hand, left knee and also on the private parts of the body and dragged her mother and threw her down on the floor. The name of PW.2 is mentioned even in Ex.P.1 as a witness to the incident. PW.2 was aged 9 years by the date of occurrence, and was studying 5th class. Before recording her evidence, the trial Court preliminarily examined her and recorded satisfaction that the child witness is competent to give evidence. There is absolutely no reason as to why PW.2 a child aged 9 years should depose falsely regarding witnessing of incident like the present one. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court while accepting the testimony of PW.2, rejected the contention of the accused that PW.2 who was a student, could have gone to the school and, therefore, there was no occasion for her to witness the incident and observed that the date of incident i.e., 14.11.2003 was a Sunday and a public holiday, though, in fact it was only Friday and a working day. There is nothing on record to show that 14.11.2003 was Sunday or Friday. It is quite possible that even if it is not Sunday, still, it was a holiday, being children’s day. However, in the absence of any evidence either way, one cannot go by presumption. The specific case of the prosecution from the beginning is, on that day PW.2 accompanied PW.1 for collection of firewood and therefore, PW.2 happened to witness the occurrence. The testimony of PW.2 is also not discredited in any manner to show that there was no occasion for her to be present at that time and witness the occurrence. When that is so, her evidence is entitled to be given due weight and credence, especially, being a child she had no necessity to depose against the accused. The testimony of PW.2 cannot be brushed aside on the ground of interestedness. When once, it is accepted that PW.2 and her mother PW.1 went for collection of firewood on the afternoon, she had every reason and occasion to witness the occurrence and therefore, she is a natural witness to the incident. It is well settled that the testimony of a witness who is related, cannot be rejected on the ground of relationship alone. The only word of caution is that the testimony of such witness needs a little more of careful scrutiny. It is highly improbable and hard to believe that PW.1 would press into service her own daughter PW.2 who is a young girl, aged 9 years, to depose regarding an offence like the present one, if really PW.2 was not present at the time of occurrence and had not witnessed the occurrence. The trial Court was justified in placing reliance on the testimony of PW.2 by way of corroboration to the version of PW.1. PW.2’s evidence would, however, establish the factum of accused coming to the scene of offence and catching hold of PW.1 and PW.1’s resistance and the accused causing injuries on the person of PW.1 with the reverse portion of the sickle and nothing more. 10. The medical evidence on record to say the least is however scanty. PW.1 was examined by the Medical Officer PW.6 on 17.11.2003 about three days after the occurrence. PW.6 issued would certificate Ex.P.3 and also deposed before the Court to the effect that on such medical examination, she found the following injuries. 1. A mild incisional injury over the apex of the labia majora of 1 x ¼ cm bleeding injury; 2. A mild abrasion over left knee; 3. A mild abrasion over the elbow; 4. A swelling on the left dorsum of the hand. PW.6 did not find any external injuries over the breast, lips, nor any teeth bite marks over the body. She also found on local examination that labiamajora was normal, labiaminora was normal and clitoris was normal and no injuries over perineal region. PW.6 collected vaginal swabs and smear for sending the same to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. In Ex.P.3 PW.6 gave opinion that the victim woman had intercourse, based on the biological and serological report and clinical findings. She also stated that the age of the victim is 28 – 30 years. In the cross-examination PW.6 stated that the injuries 1 to 4 are superficial injuries. She further stated that the said injuries were fresh and injury No.1 is possible by self-infliction with the aid of nails and the injuries 2 to 4 are possible by rubbing with stones. She further stated that the injuries 2 to 4 are more probable by self-infliction in the absence of injuries on the breast, lips or on other parts of the body. She did not find any stains of semen on the private parts of PW.1. According to her, it was very difficult to say when the intercourse occurred in the case of a married woman and whether it was fresh or old. It is to be noted that PW.1 is a married woman and she was subjected to medical examination about three days after the occurrence by which time there is every possibility of PW.1 having wash and change of clothes. Absence of any semen on the private parts of PW.1 or any foreign material on the clothes of PW.1 is therefore not of much consequence. But, however, the testimony of PW.6 that the injuries 1 to 4 are superficial in nature and they are possible by self-infliction or by coming into contact with stones, coupled with the absence of any injuries on the private part of PW.1 and absence of any marks of struggle at the scene of offence as admitted by PW.7, throws any amount of doubt over alleged forcible sexual assault on PW.1 in spite of her resistance. PW.6 found labiamajora, labia minora and clitoris to be normal, without any injuries on the private parts which rules out forcible sexual assault and the absence of hymen with presence of old tears accords with the normal condition of a married woman with experience of sexual intercourse. PW.7 Inspector of Police, who inspected the scene of offence, did not find any marks of violence at the scene of offence and did not find any bloodstains or any bundle of firewood. He did not prepare any mahazar for the observation of the scene of offence, though he says that he found firewood, which was cut at the scene of offence. He admits that he has not mentioned the same even in Part-II CD. He also did not find sickle at the scene of offence. The above evidence of PW.7 would show that there was absolutely no incriminating material or features found at the scene of offence suggesting forcible sexual assault in spite of resistance. 11. According to PW.7 he seized MOs. 1 to 3 petty coat, saree and blouse of PW.1 under a mahazar Ex.P.4 in the presence of PWs.3 and 4. PWs.3 and 4 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution regarding the alleged seizure of MOs.1 to 3 in their presence. That apart, PW.7 himself admits that he did not try to send MOs.1 to 3 to the doctor for examination. According to PW.1, she wiped the oozing blood from the wounds with her petty coat but still PW.7 has not sent MOs.1 to 3 for medical examination to find the instances of any bloodstains or seminal stains on the said clothes of PW.1, which are material objects and the failure of PW.7 to do so is certainly fatal for the prosecution, as it resulted in failure to collect the necessary evidence to link the accused with the offence of rape. PW.7 deposed in the chief examination that Mos.1 to 3 were sent to RFSL, Tirupati for clinical examination on 18.12.2003 and after receipt of FSL report, he filed charge sheet. PW.6 Medical Officer also deposed that she collected cervical swabs and smear for sending the same to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. There is nothing on record to show that MOs.1 to 3 seized by PW.7 or cervical swabs collected by PW.6 were sent to FSL or any report was received from RFSL. No such report is also produced before the Court. In Ex.P.3 PW.6 stated that based on biological and serological report and clinical findings, PW.1 had intercourse. The said biological and serological reports are not placed before the Court. Even otherwise, what all the opinion expressed by PW.6 is that the victim lady had intercourse. PW.6 could not however say the age of the said intercourse as to whether it was recent or old one and according to her, it was very difficult to say, as PW.1 was married woman with children. No doubt, the evidence of PW.5 coupled with the potency certificate Ex.P.2 issued by him show that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was not capable of performing sex act. There is, however, no corresponding evidence to show that the accused did, in fact, commit the said act against PW.1, that too by force. The medical evidence on record does not, therefore, establish the prosecution version that PW.1 was subjected to forcible sexual assault at the hands of accused. In other words the evidence on record does not establish the ingredients of the alleged offence of rape against the accused. 12. It is no doubt true in a catena of decisions, it is held that the sole testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to base a conviction without any further corroboration, provided, her testimony is found to be truthful and reliable and free from any infirmities. No doubt, PW.1 testified that the accused committed the offence of rape against her. The testimony of PW.2 would also corroborate the testimony of PW.1 to the extent of accused coming to the scene of offence and catching hold of PW.1 and asking to come aside and PW.1 resisting the same and accused causing injuries on the person of PW.1 with the rear portion of the sickle. The medical evidence on record also corroborates the prosecution version to the extent of PW.1 sustaining simple injuries on her person. The medical evidence does not, however, establish that the accused committed rape on PW.1. The certificate Ex.P.3 issued by PW.6 is completely silent about the occurrence of any rape on PW.1. It is not the case where there was no further evidence except the testimony of PW.1. But it is a case where the prosecution seeks to rely upon the medical evidence as well, but when once medical evidence is found to be scanty and not establishing the alleged offence of rape at all, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of PW.1 alone and base a conviction thereon for the offence of rape. 13. The absence of any injuries on the private parts of PW.1 and absence of any marks of resistance or struggle at the scene of offence and the absence of any semen or spermatozoa on the private parts of PW.1 or on her clothes MOs.1 to 3 and the non-production of FSL reports and the medical evidence on record not suggesting the occurrence of rape at all, it is considered that it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW.1 to draw a conclusion about the commission of the offence of rape against her. 14. The evidence on record would however establish that the accused by catching hold of hand of PW.1 and dragging her aside and throwing her down with a view to satisfy his lust, committed offence of outraging her modesty i.e., offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. The accused is, therefore, found guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC instead of offence under Section 376 IPC and he is accordingly convicted for the same under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence under Section 354 IPC. The conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, to under go imprisonment for one week as recorded by the trial Court are however retained. 15. In the result, subject to modification of the conviction and sentence as stated above, the criminal appeal is dismissed. 16. The trial Court shall issue necessary warrant for apprehension of the accused for serving remaining part of the sentence. The fine amount, if any, already paid by the accused towards conviction of the offence under section 376 IPC shall be adjusted towards the fine now imposed for the offence under Section 354 IPC. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 22.10.2009 bss