THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2433 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.5,000/-. Questioning the same, this appeal is filed. It is the prosecution case that on the night of 30.12.2000 when the victim girl – P.W.2 was alone in her house and was sleeping, the accused came to her by night 10.00 p.m. after opening back door of the house and woke her up and that when P.W.2 raised cries, the accused gagged her mouth with cloth and committed rape on her and that while going away the accused threatened P.W.2 with dire consequences in case she reports the matter to anybody. The plea of the accused is one of total denial and not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found the accused guilty of the charge. P.W.1 is father and P.W.3 is mother of P.W.2, who is the victim girl. As per Ex.P-5 - date of birth certificate issued by School Authorities, P.W.2 was aged thirteen years by the date of offence. As per Ex.P-6 – age certificate given by the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Kakatiya Medical College, Warrangal, P.W.2 was aged 14 to 16 years when she was examined by him on 20.01.2001. P.W.3 returned to the house on the next day of the offence. P.W.2 is stated to have informed the offence to her. P.W.1 returned to the house from cooli work at Karimnagar about ten days after the offence. P.Ws.2 and 3 are stated to have informed the offence to him. Subsequently, P.W.1 went to Ellanthakunta Police Station on 13.01.2001 and gave Ex.P-1 report to P.W.9, who was the then Sub-Inspector of Police of that Police Station. On the basis of Ex.P-1, P.W.9 issued Ex.P-7 – F.I.R. There is delay of fourteen days in giving report to the Police. P.W.9 says that the said delay was explained on the ground that P.W.1 was working as cooli at Karimnagar and used to visit his family at Repaka Village once in ten or fifteen days. P.W.4 is one of the villagers of Repaka. He says that when P.W.2 came to his house and informed him about the offence, they all went to Village elders who advised them to go to Police Station. P.W.8 is the then Inspector of Police, Vemulawada Circle, who was in-charge of Sircilla Circle also. He investigated into the offence and filed charge sheet in this case. The accused was arrested on 16.01.2001 and was sent for medical examination to P.W.7, who was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Civil Hospital. He gave Ex.P-4 certificate after examining the accused opining that there is no evidence of the accused being not capable of performing sexual intercourse. Surprisingly the prosecution did not examine the Doctor who examined P.W.2 and gave certificate giving opinion. There is no medical evidence in this case corroborating P.W.2’s evidence of committing rape on her. The lower Court observed that evidence of the victim itself is sufficient to convict the accused of the offence of rape. But, P.W.2 though deposed facts as per the prosecution case, in her examination in chief, gave a go bye to the said version in her cross examination, which was done about three months after her initial examination. It appears that the de facto complainant compromised the matter with the accused after P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined in chief. P.Ws.1 to 4 in their cross examination, which took place after three months of their examination in chief, also gave a go bye to their earlier versions. In any event, since it is evident that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 in their cross examination is not trustworthy because they were tampered with by the accused during the course of trial. At the same time, in the absence of corroboration of P.W.2’s version of rape by medical evidence, I am of the opinion that it is unsafe for the Court to rely upon uncorroborated evidence of P.W.2, who committed somersault in Court. This Court is of the opinion that finding of guilt recorded by the lower Court against the accused is unsustainable. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court against the accused/appellant and acquitted him. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 12th August, 2011 GHN