THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1314 of 2004 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 19.07.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2004 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy district. 2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, P.W.2, the victim, is daughter of P.W.1. On 11.8.2001, P.W.1 and his wife went for canvassing grampanchayat elections in which wife of P.W.1 was contesting for the post of Ward Member, and at about 9.00 PM, when they were not in the house, P.W.2 was alone in the house and her infant brother was also sleeping. At that time, A.1 jumped into the house by scaling over wall, threatened P.W.2 with dire consequences and raped her. While leaving, A.1 threatened her not to reveal the incident to anyone. P.W.2 felt giddiness and slept by the side of her infant brother. Her parents came in the night, had their dinner and slept. Next day morning, they noticed bite marks on the cheeks of P.W.2 and questioned her. On that, P.W.2 revealed about the incident to her parents. Then, P.W.1 went and questioned A.1. A.2 to A.5, who are relatives of A.1, went upon the house of P.W.1 and beat him with hands. P.W.1 approached the P.W.4- village elder and complained about the incident, and P.W.4 advised to wait till polling was over and promised to do justice, but, later, elders expressed their inability to intervene as the accused refused to attend the panchayat. Hence, P.W.1 lodged the complaint. 3. After committal, the case was numbered as Sessions Case No.929 of 2002 and made over to the file of the III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy. 4. The trial Court framed charges -for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. against A.1; and for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 452 I.P.C. against A.2 to A.5. When the charges were read over and explained to them in telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. D.W.1 was examined and D.Ws.1 to 4 were got marked, on behalf of the accused. 6. The trial Court, accepting the evidence of P.W.2, found A.1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C., accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, while acquitting A.2 to A.5 of the charges levelled against them. On appeal by A.1, the appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present revision case is preferred by petitioner/A.1. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the judgments of the courts below is correct, legal and proper ? 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A.1 contended that except the solitary interested testimony of P.W.2, there is no other evidence; that, in the first instance, when P.W.1 reported about the incident to P.W.4-village elder, he did not complain about the accused committing rape on P.W.2; that, there were no external or internal injuries found on the private parts of P.W.2; that the medical evidence falsifies the case of P.W.2; that, because there were bitter enmity between the accused and P.W.1, the false case is foisted against the accused to take revenge, and therefore, it is unsafe to place implicit reliance on the solitary testimony of P.W.2. Hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/A.1. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.2 is very clear that she was subjected to rape and there is no other reason for her to foist a false of this nature against the accused; that, considering the evidence on record, both the courts below rightly found the petitioner/A.1 guilty and none of the findings is shown to be incorrect, and hence, she prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 10. The entire case rests upon the solitary testimony of P.W.2. There is no other evidence to substantiate that P.W.2 was subjected to rape. When a case rests upon solitary testimony of a witness, that evidence must be true, trustworthy and unimpeachable. After scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence of the solitary witness, if it is found to be true and trustworthy, there is no legal bar to bas a conviction on it. In nutshell, the evidence of solitary witness must be placed in the category of ‘wholly reliable’. If the evidence of a witness is found to be neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, then it requires corroboration. 11. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that at about 9.30 PM on the fateful day, while she was present in the house and cutting vegetables, A.1 entered into the house, caught hold of her blouse from back side and dragged her into a room; when she tried to raise alarm, A.1 threatened that he would kill her if she did so; A.1 bite her on cheeks and other parts and raped her; that, on the next day, her father found bite marks on the cheeks and questioned her; on that, she revealed about the incident to her parents; thereafter, her parents went and informed about the incident to P.W.4, who is Sarpanch. 12. P.W.4, though stated in his chief-examination that on 12.8.2001, P.W.1 came to his house and informed that the accused raped his daughter P.W.2, in cross- examination, he admitted that P.W.1 informed him that A.1 trespassed into his house and committed theft but did not allege that A.1 raped P.W.2. So, in the earliest opportunity, when P.W.1 did not allege that A.1 committed rape on his daughter, his evidence has to be scrutinized very cautiously and carefully before accepting the same. 13. P.W.10 is the Doctor, who examined P.W.2 on 18.8.2001 at about 2.00 PM and found bite marks over right cheek and right breast, and healed nail scratch marks on neck and chest. He also found that there were no tears or injuries on her body. Though he collected smear from private parts of P.W.2, no report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Expert is filed. P.W.10 did not give approximate age of the injuries. In the absence of tears or injuries on the private parts of the body of P.W.2, who was aged about 15 years at the time of the alleged incident, it suggests that no rape was committed. Therefore, the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular testimony of P.W.2. 14. According to P.W.2, she was cutting vegetables at about 9.30 PM. She simply stated that A.1 committed rape on her. She did not accompany her father to elders. Prior to the incident, she did not know A.1 and she did not give name of A.1 to her parents. Further, admittedly, wife of P.W.1 contested for grampanchayat elections. Police visited the village one day prior to the polling and remained there on the polling day i.e. on 14.8.2001. Wife of P.W.1 lost the election and one Kamalamma was declared elected. It is not in dispute that A.1 supported the said Kamalamma. Similarly, A.1 is related to Kamalamma. Therefore, there is enmity between P.W.1 and A.1 at the relevant point of time of the alleged incident. 15. If really the incident of this nature had taken place, certainly P.W.1 would have lodged the complaint when police came to the village on election duty on 13.8.2001. Polling had taken place on 14.8.2001. On that day also, P.W.1 would have lodged complaint to police. There was a delay of about one week between the date of the alleged incident and the date of lodging Ex.P1-complaint. No doubt, in a case of this nature, the victim or her parents are not supposed to rush to the police to lodge a complaint when the honour of the family is at stake. But, at the same time, when there is enmity for the prosecution witnesses against the accused, the delay would go to the root of the case and the evidence of prosecution witnesses is to be assessed and evaluated cautiously and carefully. In the circumstances, the prosecution has to explain the delay in lodging the complaint. But, the delay has not been properly explained. There is no medical evidence to show that P.W.2 was subjected to rape. At the earliest opportunity, P.W.1 did not complain that A.1 committed rape on his daughter. On the other hand, in the earliest opportunity, it was brought to the notice of P.W.4-village elder that the accused committed theft of articles in his house. Except stating that, A.1 committed rape on her, P.W.2 has not given any other details or particulars with regard to committing of rape. Similarly, when P.W.6-Doctor examined A.1 on 20.8.2001, he did not find injuries on his private parts. In such circumstances, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the solitary testimony of P.W.2. These aspects have not been considered by the trial court as well as the appellate court, and they came to wrong conclusions. Therefore, the findings of the courts below are not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/A.1 by the courts below are set aside. A.1 is found not guilty of the charge punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted of the said charge. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by A.1 shall be returned to him. ------------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 24.06.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1314 of 2004 24.06.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1314 of 2004 Date: 24.06.2010 Between: Pandi Mahender, s/o. Mallaiah …Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent