HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.758 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against judgment dated 4.8.2003 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupathi, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupathi against the revision petitioner-accused (for short ‘the accused’) for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376 read with 511 IPC and 324 IPC in S.C. No. 138 of 2000, dated 4.8.2000. According to the prosecution, Orusu Nagamani and Kotakonda Nagaratnamma, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and others are the residents of Nakkaladinna, Vaddipalli and they went to Tirupathi for labour work. While so on 15.8.1999, at about 7.00 a.m., when they were waiting at four pillars mandapam at the end of Gandhi Road, Tirupathi, the accused approached them (P.Ws. 1 and 2) and three others and called two of them for coolie work at Bairagipatteda, Tirupathi, as construction work was going on there, but, they stated that they all would work collectively, but not individually, for which, the accused agreed. Then, he took all of them to the Railway gate on Rayalacheruvu Road, Tirupathi and after reaching Bairagipatteda Arch, there the accused stated that if one among the ladies would sit upon his cycle, he was able to take at least one woman quickly and accordingly, he took P.W.2 on his cycle and after dropping her, he came back and had taken P.W.1 for the purpose of reaching their destination but on the way, he took P.W.1 into thorny bushes and attempted to rape her and when she raised cries, he gagged her mouth with a towel and committed rape on her. Thereafter, she came back and joined the other ladies at Bairagipatteda Hospital and when they were going to M.R. Palli Police Station, K. Nagarathamma, P.W.2, who was taken earlier by the accused met them with bleeding injuries on her secret parts and told them that the accused took her into thorny bushes and attempted to commit rape on her by force and as she resisted the accused inflicted bleeding injury with an iron rod in her secret parts. Subsequently, the victim (P.W.1) lodged a report with the police, basing on which, the case was registered in Crime No. 131 of 99 and investigated into. On the completion of the investigation of the case, charge sheet was laid against the accused. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and on behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in, however Exs.D1 to D8 were marked whereas on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376 read with 511 of IPC and 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of paying it to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months under the 1st count and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of paying it to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months under the 2nd count and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under the third count and directed that all the sentences of imprisonment imposed against him should run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal preferred while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused and thereby, the present revision has been filed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused whereas there is no supportive medical evidence and the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly. It is the evidence of P.W.1, one of the victims, that about one year back at about 8.00 a.m., whereas herself and P.W.2, Nagarathnamma and some others were sitting near Nalugukalla Mandapam, the accused came and asked two of them to come for coolie work at M.R. Palli for which, they refused and stated that all of them would work at one place only and then the accused stated that all the five could accompany him. She further deposed that he took P.W.2 at first on his cycle when all the others were sitting at the junction near Rayalacheru Road and after one hour, the accused returned on his cycle and stated that the woman who accompanied him was attending to the work and again asked one of them to accompany him and then he took her on his cycle beyond M.R.Palli Police Station and attempted to rape her and when she raised cries, the accused gagged her mouth by putting a cloth and raped her and thereafter, he left her there and went away on his cycle and then she returned back to the place where they were sitting earlier and at that time, Vemula Nagarathna, Avula Varadhi and Avula Venkatalakshmi came there and then she narrated to them about what happened and thereafter all of them left for M.R. Palli Police Station and in the meanwhile, K. Nagarathnamma, P.W.2 returned with bleeding injuries below her abdomen and then they all went to the police station, where she reported the matter to the Sub-Inspector of Police, basing on which, the case was registered. P.W.2 deposed that the accused took her on his cycle to Rajiv Gandhi Nagar and asked her to go ahead informing that he would come behind her and when she was going in front of him, he pulled her pigtail and asked her to proceed together and when she refused and cried, the accused caught hold of her tightly, pulled her down and stabbed below her abdomen and caused bleeding injury and thereafter, he ran away and further then she went and met three other ladies who were standing at the road near the police station and told them about the incident and then they all went into the police station and thereafter she was sent to the Government Maternity Hospital, Tirupathi for medical examination where doctor sutured her wound and subsequently, the police seized her langa and saree, M.Os. 1 and 2 and she also identified the accused in a test identification parade conducted. P.W.3 was the doctor, who examined P.W.1 on 15.8.1999 at about 1.30 p.m. and who issued wound certificate, Ex.P2. She stated in her evidence that on the examination of P.W.1, she found no external or internal injuries on her body, but, however, preserved her swabs and smears and sent for chemical examination and on receiving report from chemical examiner, it was found that there was sexual intercourse. P.W.4 was another doctor, who examined P.W.2 and according to her, she found posterior vaginal wall tear on the right side and continued posterior lip of cervic and she also found bleeding through her vagina and she also found old blood clots removed from the vagina and fresh bleeding through the vagina. Further, she opined that the injury was simple in nature and it might have been caused within six hours prior to her examination and she issued Ex.P5, wound certificate to that effect. Therefore, on a perusal of the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the medical evidence on record, I am of the opinion that there was sexual assault on the victims, P.Ws. 1 and 2. The Courts below properly examined the evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts. However, with regards to the sentence, the revision petitioner has been wandering around the Courts since 2000, by reason of which, he must have lost good part of his valuable life. Definitely, he would have realised his folly and repented. On examining all the relevant circumstances, it is reasonable to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on the revision petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 376 read with 511 IPC to three years and two years, keeping the fine clause in tact, respectively with a direction to run the sentence concurrently. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 19.7.2011 pnb