IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1675 OF 2003 Between: Katikireddi Gangaraju ..... Petitioner/Accused (Appellant) AND The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. through Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/Complainant The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1675 OF 2003 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 30.09.2003, in Crl.A.No.205 of 2002, on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, in confirming the conviction of Accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), but reducing sentence from Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years to five years as recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Razole, in Sessions Case No.320 of 2001, vide judgment, dated 26.08.2002. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, may be stated as follows: About four months prior to lodging of Ex.P1-Report, dated 23.07.1999, one day when P.W.1-victim girl was alone present in the house, Accused No.1 took her to his cattle shed and made to exchange the garlands and induced her to believe that their marriage has taken place. Then, they both had a sexual intercourse and they continued the sexual intercourse whenever they got a chance. Two months thereafter, P.W.1 missed her monthly periods and the same was reported to Accused No.1. Thereupon, all the accused supplied some pills to P.W.1 for consumption so as to avoid the pregnancy and also requested her not to disclose the incident to anybody. While the parents of P.W.1 noticed that P.W.1 was taking some pills, they questioned her. Then she reported the entire incident to her parents. Then the matter was referred to the Panchayat. On two occasions, two Panchayats were held. In the second Panchayat, Accused No.1 refused to marry her as promised by him. Therefore, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1-complaint on 23.07.1999. The police registered the case and investigated into it. The police observed the scene of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch. P.W.1 was referred to Government Hospital, Razole, for medical examination. Thereafter, she was sent to Government Hospital, Kakinada, for determination of her age. On 26.07.1999 at about 4.00 p.m., the police arrested Accused No.3 at Tatipaka center and sent him to Court for judicial remand. Whereas, the other accused surrendered themselves before Court and they were released on bail by District Court on 19.08.1999. Accused No.1 was sent for medical examination for potency test. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against all the accused. 3. When the charges under Sections 376 and 493 I.P.C. against Accused No.1 and 315 I.P.C. against all the accused were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Exs.D1 to D7. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that P.W.1 was a minor, that she was subjected to rape and became pregnant, that the pregnancy was caused by Accused No.1 alone and none else, that as P.W.1 was a minor girl, Accused No.1 had a sexual intercourse with her consent does not arise and accordingly, Accused No.1 was convicted and sentenced as stated above while acquitting Accused Nos.2 to 5 of the offences with which they were charged. On appeal, while confirming the conviction, the sentence was reduced from seven years to five years while maintaining fine. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of the two Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that the solitary testimony of P.W.1 cannot be put in the category of wholly reliable; that the prosecution failed to establish that Accused No.1 alone was responsible for causing pregnancy to P.W.1; that the recitals in Ex.P1- complaint would go to show that Accused No.1 allegedly had a sexual intercourse about four months prior to the giving of Ex.P1-report, but at that time, P.W.1 was pregnant of six months; that therefore, the pregnancy is not shown to have been caused by Accused No.1 alone, and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with in view of the fact that the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record; that P.W.1 has no grouse or enmity against Accused No.1 to foist a false case of this nature affecting her character; that her evidence is fully in support of prosecution evidence; that P.W.1 was minor girl i.e., less than 15 years of age on the date of commission of offence, and hence, she prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be incorrect, illegal, or improper, ordinarily this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial Court or to reappreciate the evidence sitting as if in an Appeal. To test whether the findings are correct or not, it is necessary to refer to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 11. P.W.1 is the victim girl in this case. She has categorically stated that about four months prior to lodging of Ex.P1- complaint, when P.W.1 was present alone in her house, Accused No.1 came there and took her to his cattle shed and made her believe that he would marry her and made to exchange the garlands and induced her to believe that their marriage has taken place. Then, P.W.1 gave her consent to have a sexual intercourse with Accused No.1. Thereafter, whenever there was chance, they used to meet together to have a sexual intercourse. Some time later, when P.W.1 missed her monthly periods, she informed the same to Accused No.1. On that, Accused No.1 along with the other accused gave some pills to her so as to terminate her pregnancy. While P.W.1 was taking pills, her parents observed it and on questioning the same, P.W.1 reported the entire incident to her parents, P.Ws.2 and 3. Then, they raised dispute before P.Ws.4 to 7, who are elders of the village, but the accused did not attend the Panchayat held in the first instance. 12. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would go to show that all the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and offered Rs.25,000/- for termination of her pregnancy and to forget Accused No.1 for ever, for which the parents of P.W.1 did not agree. Therefore, P.Ws.2 and 3 raised a second Panchayat with the same elders. In the second Panchayat, the accused abused P.W.1 and her family members and the accused refused to take P.W.1 in marriage with Accused No.1. 13. Section 376 I.P.C. reads as follows: “Punishment for rape: (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.” 14. The question of consent for sexual intercourse does not arise in case when the girl is less than 16 years. Now the question is whether Accused No.1 caused pregnancy to P.W.1 or not? 15. The entire case rests upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1. When the evidence rests upon solitary testimony, it must be unimpeachable, true and trustworthy. Considering the nature of offence, it will be held in secrecy. There may not be any eye witness to the incident. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 alone is sufficient to base a conviction, provided her evidence was put in the category of wholly reliable. After lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P.W.1 as to why she has to implicate Accused No.1 alone falsely leaving the real person who allegedly caused the pregnancy. 16. It is not in dispute that P.W.9, the doctor who examined P.W.1 after lodging of Ex.P1-complaint, gave opinion that P.W.1 was having six months pregnancy. Now the question is whether who caused that pregnancy? According to the evidence of P.W.1, Accused No.1 alone caused the pregnancy. Though it is suggested that P.W.1 was having illicit contacts with several persons, but the same is not substantiated with any other evidence. There is no prior enmity between Accused No.1 and P.Ws.1 to 3. Therefore, in such circumstances, P.Ws.2 and 3 would not venture to raise a dispute before the elders stating that Accused No.1 alone caused pregnancy to P.W.1 because of their sexual intercourse. There must be some bitter enmity for P.W.1 to foist a false case against Accused No.1. Such evidence is lacking. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 on this aspect. 17. Further, the parents of P.W.1 raised two Panchayats before P.Ws.4 to 7. They are totally independent witnesses. They have also no grouse or enmity against Accused No.1 so as to implicate him falsely leaving the real assailants. Their evidence would clearly go to show that they held the Panchayat as P.W.1 was subjected to sexual intercourse by Accused No.1 and he caused the pregnancy to P.W.1. Though Accused No.1 did not attend the first Panchayat, but in the second Panchayat, all the accused refused to perform the marriage of Accused No.1 with P.W.1. Further, immediately after the first Panchayat, all the accused went to the house of P.Ws.2 and 3 and offered an amount of Rs.25,000/- for the purpose of termination of pregnancy of P.W.1 and also to forget Accused No.1 for ever. So, these circumstances would clearly go to infer that the sexual assault on P.W.1 was committed by Accused No.1 alone and none else. 18. Coming to the evidence of the age of P.W.1, both the Courts below placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.11, who was the then Head Master of the M.P.P. Elementary School, Pedapatnamlanka, wherein P.W.1 studied. As per Ex.P7, entry in Page No.28 Sl.No.1474 of Register of Admissions of M.P.P. Elementary School, Pedapatnamlanka, shows that the date of birth of P.W.1 is 02.01.1987. P.W.9 has given the Age Certificate of P.W.1, dated 26.07.1999, which is marked as Ex.P3, showing the age of P.W.1 as 15 years. Similarly, the Study Certificate, dated 21.06.1999, issued by P.W.11, which is marked as Ex.P6, would go to show that P.W.1 was minor as on the date of commission of offence i.e., less than 16 years of age. Similarly, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would go to show that P.W.1 was minor. So, all these circumstances coupled with the evidence of P.W.11 would clearly go to show that P.W.1 was minor aged less than 16 years of age prior to date of the incident. Therefore, there is ample evidence which would establish that P.W.1 was minor by the date of the incident. 19. Though the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that there was some discrepancy that Accused No.1 allegedly had a sexual intercourse with P.W.1 about four months prior to the giving of Ex.P1-report, at the same time P.W.1 was pregnant of six months according to P.W.10. That discrepancy is not serious discrepancy to believe the prosecution case, because it is mentioned in Ex.P1 that four months prior to lodging Ex.P1- complaint, P.W.1 had a sexual intercourse with Accused No.1 on the premise that he would marry her. Therefore, that discrepancy would not go to the root of the prosecution case. 20. None of the findings is shown to be incorrect or illegal. The findings are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 30.09.2003, in Crl.A.No.205 of 2002, on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 29th December, 2009 KL