THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.R.C.NO.635 OF 2001 O R D E R: 1) This criminal revision case by the petitioner-A2 under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C., 1973, is directed against the judgment, dated 29.09.1999 passed in Crl.Appeal No.102 of 1999 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in confirming the judgment in S.C.No.469 of 1998, dated 22.02.1999, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bapatla, whereunder the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to underto Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months of the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C., and further convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Inprisonment for six months of the offence punishable under Section 341 I.P.C. 2) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present revision case are as follows: PW-1 is resident of Nidubrolu Village and she was frequently visiting her neighbours house, namely, Challapalli Chalamaiah, for watching Television. She developed closeness with his son Challapalli Suvarna Raju-A1, against whom, charge sheet is filed. A-1 pursued PW-1 to go to Ponnur on 01.02.1997 for witnessing the picture in a theatre. There after, A1-Suvarnaraju took PW-1 to Patchalatadiparru Village and left her at Don Boscoh School, promissing her to return within a few minutes after taking meals. Fifteen minutes later, A-2 Perikala Sekhar Babu, who is the maternal uncle of A-1 came to the School and took PW-1 to his house, stating that A-1-Suvarna Raju asked him to bring there. When PW-1 went inside the house to see whether A1-Suvarna Raju was there or not, A-2 bolted the doors from inside, pushed her and she fell down. The accused picked up a towel nearby and gagged her mouth to prevent her from raising cries. The accused fell on PW-1 and committed rape. On the next day, A-2 took PW-1 to Guntur, to her sister's house and stayed there till 7.00 p.m. At about 8.00 p.m., A-2 and PW-1 came to the bus stand. The accused instructed the Conductor of the bus to drop PW- 1 at Mamillapalli Cross Road. After getting down, she went to her relatives house at Moparru, Mamillapalli village. On the next day, i.e., on 05.02.1997, PW-1 went to her house and informed about the incident to her father-PW2 and from there she went to the police station and lodged a complaint with the police. PW-7-Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case against A-1 & A-2, in Cr.No.12 of 1997. She was referred to C.A.S.Government Hospital, Tenali, for determination of the age and also for medical examination. Similarly, A-2 was arrested by the police and they seized MO-2 from his possession. A-2 was examined by the Doctor and the material objects have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet. 3) When the charges under Sections 376 & 341 I.P.C., framed against the accused were read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4) To substantiate the case against the accused, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 , besides case properties Mos.1 and 2. On behalf of the defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 5) The evidence of PW-1 was taken in camera. The trial court after accepting the evidence of PW-1 found A-2 guilty and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, A-2 presented the appeal before III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against A-2. Hence, this revision. 6) Now the point that arises for determination is whether the findings of both the courts below are legal, correct and proper? 7)The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2 contended that the Doctor, who examined PW-1 with regard to her age is not examined; that there was abnormal delay in lodging the complaint; that a false case is foisted against the accused; that as PW-1 has taken bath after the incident and changed the clothes, the question of finding any semen on her clothes does not arise and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused. 8) On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that there was no animosity for PW-1 to foist a false case of this nature against the accused; that the delay cannot be said to be fatal, that as the age of the victim girl is not in dispute, examination of the Doctor is not necessary and hence, she prays to dismiss the criminal revision case. 9 ) There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are truncated one. Unless the findings are not based upon the evidence or in-admissible evidence was taken into consideration or legally admissible evidence was discarded or perverse findings were given or miscarriage of justice was caused, the revisional powers shall not be exercised. So, unless the judgment of both the courts below are perverse, illegal or incorrect, normally, this court cannot sit over as if in an appeal against the order of conviction or acquittal. 10) The entire case rests upon the evidene of PW-1, who is none other than the victim girl. On 06.02.1997, PW-1 was examined by the Medical Officer-PW-5. Except abrasion on the right knee of PW-1, she did not find any external injuries. PW-5 stated that hymen of PW-1 was ruptured and observed blood stains all over the petty coat and collected swab from the posterior vaginal fornies, two glass slides with dried vaginal smere and found that PW-1 changed her clothes, except petty coat. She sent those items to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Vijayawada, for examination. On chemical examination, presence of blood and semen on petty coat and semen on the vaginal swab were found. Ex.P-5 is the opinion of the Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, regarding the age of the victim girl, wherein it is clearly stated that she ws aged about 14 years. The evidence of PW.5 remained un-challenged. Similarly, the evidene of PW-5 with regard to the age of the victim girl as spoken to by her is also not denied or disputed by the accused. Therefore, from the evidence placed on record, it was established beyond doubt that the victim girl was aged about 14 years at the time of the incident. The medical evidence clearly goes to show that sexual intercourse has occurred. 11) Now it has to be seen whether the accused has committed sexual intercourse on PW-1. The entire case rests upon the evidence of PW-1, because the incident took place in the house of A-2, where the scope or possibility of anybody seeing the incident does not arise. Her evidence is very clear that she was taken by A.1-Suvarna Raju to Ponnur, for witnessing a picture and there after, he persuaded her to go to Patchalatadiparru and asked her to wait near Don Boscoh School, stating that they would go to her grand-mother's house to take a meal. She was waiting near the school till the evening. In the evening, A-2 came there, stating that A-1- Suvarnaraju asked him to bring her to his house. As it was late in the night, A-2 took PW-1 to his house and informed her that A1-Suvarna Raju was present inside the houe. When she went inside the house, the accused came behind and bolted the doors from inside and he pushed her. He also picked up a towel and gagged her mouth and committed rape. A-2 caught hold of her hands and pushed her near the cot and laid on her. The incident took place in the night time. She also stated that the accused removed her clothes, made her nacked, fell on her and had sexual intercourse. A-2 pressed her breast and bite her cheeks. There after, the accused committed rape on her and threatened her to kill with a knife. Some time there after, A-2 opened the door and taken her to her sister's house at Guntur. There after, the accused also took her to the temple and informed her about his willingness to marry her. When she refused, she was again taken to her sister's house and later to the bus-stand. The accused got boarded her in a bus at Mamillapalli Cross Road and paid the bus fare. She got down the bus, went to the house of her relation-PW-3 and informed about the incident to PW-3. There after, PW-1 came to her house and informed the same to her parents. On 05.02.1997, PW-1 went to the police station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint. PW-7- Sub-Inspector of Police, Tenali Town Police Station registered the case in Cr.No.12 of 1997. The police recovered M.O-1-petty coat. A- 2 is none other than the brother of one PW3-Chalamaiah. She admitted that she struggled with A-2, but still there were no injuries. It is suggested to her that there was enmity between PW-2 and A-2, but she denied the same. There is absolutely no reason for PW-1 to foist a false case of this nature against A-2. She is an un-married girl aged about 14 years and is going to be married in a couple of years later. In such circumstances, unless rape is committed, she would not lodge a false complaint against A-2 stating that she was subjected to rape. After lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to dis-credit the testimony of PW-1. 12) No doubt, there has been a delay of four days in lodging a complaint. In a cae of this nature, the parents of the victim girl may be reluctant to lodge a complaint, in view of the fact that it will affect the future marriage prospects of PW-1. Therefore, the delay by itself cannot be a ground to dis-credit the testimony of PW-1. 13) As there was rupture to the hymen of PW-1, PW-5-Doctor has catagorically stated that rape was committed on PW-1. She catagorically stated that rape was committed during night time. There was no scope for any other person to commit rape, because, it is A-2 who took PW-1 to his house from the School and bolted the door. No doubt, after the incident, PW-1 has taken bath, but she did not change her petty coat and she might not have washed her private parts. Therefore, PW-5-Doctor is the best person to speak whether the possibility of semen to be present in the private parts of her body. Therefore, in such circumstances, the finding of semen on the vaginal swab even after taking bath can be possible, if PW-1 did not wash her private parts properly. 14) The evidence of PW-3 to whom the incident was narrated by PW-1 did not support the case of the prosecution. No doubt, PW-3 is closely related to PW-1, but she is not an eye witness to the inident. For the reasons best known to PW-3, she did not support the case of the prosecution. On that ground, it cannot be said that PW-1 is an untruthful witness. 15) PW -2 who is the father of the victim girl deposed that by the time he returned home from the fields, his daughter was absent. He send his brother in law to various places and later came to know that A-1-Suvarnaraju took PW-1 to the picture. When PW-2 enquired about PW-1 with the father of A-1, he did not accept the same. Later, PW-2 along with her sisters went to the house of PW-3 at Moparru. There, they found PW-1 and took her to the police station. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with the evidence of PW-5-Doctor would clearly go to show that PW-1 was subjected to rape. Because of the rupture of hymen and finding of semen on her petty coat and private parts, the evidence of PW-1 is very clear that it is A-2 who committed rape on her. The trial court as well as the appellate court rightly placed implicit reliance on the evidence of PW-1. 16) None of the findings are shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. Both the courts court below after considering the evidence placed on record have rightly found the petitioner/A-2 guilty. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgments of both the courts below. 17) The criminal revision case is, therefore, dismissed, confirming the judgment, dt.29.09.1999 in Crl.A.102 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. _____________ K.C.BHANU J., Dt.05.08.2009 tjs