THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1558 OF 2004 ORDER: This criminal revision petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner – Accused Shaik Chand Basha against the judgment of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.A.No.494 of 2002 dated 09.09.2004, under which the conviction and judgment passed against the petitioner-accused in S.C.No.182 of 2002 dated 03.12.2002 by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, was confirmed. The sole accused stands convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC on the allegation having committed rape on P.W.1, a minor deaf and dumb girl on 12.09.2001. 2. Heard. 3. According to the prosecution case on 12.09.2001, the victim girl who is examined as P.W.1 was alone in the house at Pedakurapadu in Guntur District. By that time the accused went to her house, as he was a close relative and used to visit her house regularly, closed the doors and committed rape on her. One Shaik Mahaboob bee and Pathan Hameerulla Khan saw the accused going away from the house of P.W.1. P.W.1 later informed the incident to her parents, P.Ws.2 and 3 etc., and a complaint was given, a case in Cr.No.71 of 2001 was registered and investigated. Charge sheet was filed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. According to the prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the material averments of the prosecution case. Ex.B1 a portion in 162 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 is marked. 5. On the basis of material on record, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo seven years imprisonment, on appeal the same was confirmed. 6. Now, the learned Senior Counsel Sri Balreddy, appearing for the petitioner-accused contends that there is absolutely no evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, that appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below is perverse, on such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 7. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether there are any grounds to allow the revision? As already referred, according to the prosecution case, while P.W.1 a deaf and dumb girl aged about 16 years was alone in the house, the accused entered the house and committed rape. While he was going away after the incident, the neighbours saw. This circumstance of neighbours noticing the accused is not of much consequence. Even according to the prosecution case, the accused is a regular visitor to the house of P.W.1, as he was a close relative of P.W.1. As per the prosecution case, after the incident P.W.1 informed her parents, P.Ws.2 and 3 about the incident when they came home from the fields. Thereafter, a complaint was given. But these two witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3 parents of P.W.1 turned hostile. 9. The most important material required to be seen is definitely medical evidence. In this case, P.W.4 the Medical Officer has stated that she examined P.W.1 on 14.09.2001, i.e., after two days of the alleged incident and found no external injuries over any part of the body. There were old hymenal tears. On the basis of chemical analysis report, she opined that there was no evidence of recent intercourse. In cross-examination, she has stated that she examined P.W.1 and there were no external injuries and she has clarified that ‘recent’ means six weeks, i.e., according to her for the past six weeks there was no cohabitation by P.W.1 and her evidence revealed that P.W.1 was habituated to sex. Thus, the medical evidence would not reveal that there is sexual intercourse, that too, forcible sexual intercourse. The evidence of P.W.1 is that at the time of incident, she received injuries, scratches on her face, thighs and on back, but the medical evidence did not reveal any injuries. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that there is no necessity of medical evidence, in case the evidence of the prosecutrix is acceptable. In support of her contention, she relied on a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in WAHID KHAN v. STATE OF M.P.[1], that was a case where the accused was caught red handed by a Sub-Inspector of Police. In that case, the medical officer was not even examined. Still there is a reference to medical evidence saying that at the time of medical examination of prosecutrix, her medical history was recorded, marked as Ex.P9, which categorically records the manner in which the appellant had committed rape on her. Here, there is no such instance. In paragraph 22 of the above judgment, it is observed that “Thus, in a case of rape, testimony of a prosecutrix stands at par with that of an injured witness. It is really not necessary to insist for corroboration if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be credible.” In para 23 of the judgment, it is further observed that “However, in the case in hand, even without the examination of doctor, the evidence of prosecutrix stands fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 – B.B.Subba Rao, Sub.Inspector of the Police Station who had virtually caught the appellant red-handed. Thus, even if doctor had not been examined it would not throw or completely discard the prosecution story. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is fully trustworthy and there is no reason to doubt genuineness thereof.” 11. Now, it has to be seen that whether the evidence of prosecutrix in this case is sufficient to inspire confidence, in view of hostile medical evidence as well as hostile evidence of her own parents. P.W.1 is deaf and dumb girl. She was examined through an interpreter and she has stated that on the date of incident, the accused came to her house at evening time and committed intercourse with her, that he offered money also and he committed the same against her will and by force. Her bangles were broken. The accused took some of the broken bangles and kept them in his pocket, which she has identified. At the time of offence, she received injuries on her face, thighs and on back. She informed her mother about the incident. 12. No doubt, there is no substantial cross-examination of this witness, according to her chief examination, the incident has taken place during evening time, whereas in cross-examination, she has stated that the incident has taken place at 11.00 o’clock. 13. Her specific evidence is that she received injuries at the time of incident on her face, thighs and back and medical evidence does not reveal anything like that and as already referred, the medical evidence do not even reveal of her having sexual intercourse in the recent past. After her examination with he help of interpreter, the presiding officer tested the efficacy of the procedure of recording of her evidence through an interpreter and recorded that on putting questions, the witness by gestures, narrated the incident. It is not clear as to how the presiding officer could understood the gestures with regard to a thing like rape as the witness is a deaf and dumb girl. It is not clear as to how she could have referred to the accused initially to fix him as the person that has committed the offence, when her mother P.W.3 denies of her being informed about the incident by P.W.1 is doubtful. When her evidence with regard to suffering of external injuries is not acceptable in view of the medical evidence, it is difficult to believe her evidence with regard to the actual offence of rape also. Added to this, the medical evidence completely rules out the theory of rape and it further says that the victim is habituated to sex. In these circumstances, it can not be held that the evidence of P.W.1 inspires confidence to convict the accused. I hold that the appreciation of evidence by Courts below is perverse. It is not a case for confirming the conviction. 14. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in S.C.No.182 of 2002 by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, and confirmed in Crl.A.No.494 of 2002 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, is hereby set aside. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 24th June 2010, Rns [1] 2009 AIR SCW 7410