THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.972 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet, Guntur District in S.C.No.275 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14 and M.Os.1 to 3. The trial court having analysed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Questioning the said judgment dated 30.11.2000, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.603 of 2000 and the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur by his judgment dated 18.06.2004 dismissed the said appeal. Hence this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.05.1998 at about 10.00 am the victim P.W.1 went to Murikivagu to wash the clothes and after washing the clothes when she was about to return home, the petitioner came there and asked her to satisfy his lust for money and while saying so he forcibly dragged her to the sand bed nearby the stream and committed rape on her inspite of her resistance. As her husband and father in law were out of station on that day and she waited for their return and on 11.05.1998 after their return she informed about the incident and on 12.05.1998 they went to the police station Muppala and presented Ex.P.1 report, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.36 of 1998 for the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC. During the course of investigating the wearing apparels of the victim were seized and the petitioner was arrested and he was sent to medical examination for the purpose of potency test. After completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 Sri Bali Reddy learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is abnormal delay of two days in giving report. According to him, the alleged offence took place on 10.05.1998 and the report was given on 12.05.1998. It is his further submission that there is no other evidence except the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix i.e. P.W.1. He further submitted that the evidence of the doctor who treated P.W.1 does not corroborate the case of the prosecution. He lastly contended that in view of the enmity between the petitioner and the father-in-law of the victim, this case was foisted against the petitioner. 4 This Court is unable to appreciate the said submissions. In offences against women particularly in an offence of this nature, time and again this court as well as the apex Court have held that the courts can base conviction on the basis of solitary testimony of the victim provided it is trust worthy. Similarly in cases of this nature, the delay cannot be said to be fatal. No woman who was raped would come forward and state to one and all about the alleged incident. The normal prudence would be to inform the same to the husband and other close relatives. Here in the case on hand as the husband of the victim who was examined as P.W.2 and the father-in-law were out of station, she could not inform about the alleged incident and the same was informed to them only on the night of 11.05.1998 after their return and thereafter they went to the police station on 12.05.1998 and lodged a report. Hence the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is abnormal delay in giving report to the police cannot be countenanced. 5 Coming to the other submission that except the solitary testimony of P.W.1 there is no other evidence, this court looked into the evidence of P.W.1, which reads as under: “I am a resident of Paludevarlapadu village. I live by doing cooli work. Devaraju is my husband. He is also resident of our village. The incident occurred about 3 years back. At about 10.00 am I went to the Vagu for washing my clothes. After washing the clothes I was about to turn back, at that time, the accused came from behind and caught hold of my hands. He dragged me to some distance, where there is sand. He made me fell down on the sand and committed rape on me (Manabhangam Chesinadu). I struggled with the accused to get myself relieved from him but I could not escape. Before dragging me the accused told me that if I come with him he would pay some amount. When I was struggling the accused dashed his head with my head. Immediately I got severe head ache and laying like that (Atlane Padipoyi Unnanu). The accused after committing rape on me, he threatened me that he would kill me there and away. I also came back to my house. On that day early morning my husband and my father-in-law David went to Guntur. They returned to the house on 11.05.1998 during night time. I narrated the incident to my husband and my father-in-law. We got prepared a report in our village and went to Muppalla P.S. and presented in there. I signed on the said report and Ex.P.1 is report. Police sent me to the Government Hospital. I have handed over my langa, a maroon colour jacket, inner langa and also voni (upper cloth) to the police in the police station itself. I can identify my clothes. I was sent to the Guntur Government Hospital, Guntur from the Government Hospital, Sattenapalli. M.Os. 1 to 3 are the clothes that were seized from me by the police. M.O.1 is the inner langa, M.O.2 is upper langa and M.O.3 is jacket. Cross-Examination by Sri D.M.R. for the accused: Generally all the villagers used to wash their clothes in the vagu. The witness adds that on the date of the incident by the time she went to the vagu all the villagers returned back from the vagu; there are agricultural lands near the vagu. AT the time of the incident no one is working in the fields near the vagu. When the accused made me fell down and committing the rape the accused was wearing lungi. We handed over M.Os.1 to 3 to the police without washing them after the incident. The accused lifted my both langas before committing the rape. The accused was on me while committing the rape. I raised cries and struggled with the accused while committing the rape. At the time of struggle with the accused, I sustained teeth bites by the accused on my both cheeks. The semen fell on my langa. Except on my langa there are no seminal stains on my body or the other wearing apparels. On the next day after the incident my husband and my father-in- law came to the house on the further next day morning. I went to P.S. along with my husband and my father-in-law. The distance between our village and police station is about 10 kilometres. We started at 4.00 A.M. and we reached at Muppalla P.S. at 7.00 A.M. My father-in-law is a retired police constable. It is incorrect to suggest that my father- in-law got prepared Ex.P.1 and took active part in getting the case registered. After giving Ex.P.1 report to police they did not come to our village after I returned from G.G.H, Guntur. I got written in Ex.P.1 that due to fear I did not reveal about the incident to my husband and elders. I stated in my statement that my husband and father-in-law returned from Guntur on the next day after the incident. We went to the Muppalla P.S. by walk. I know the act of rape (Manabhangam). I did not observe whether the accused was wearing any underwear at the time of the incident. It is not true to suggest that the accused did not commit any rape on me and that due to some family disputes between my father-in- law and accused family, we foisted this case against the accused. It is not true to suggest that the accused has nothing to do with this crime and that he is falsely implicated in this case. I handed over M.Os.1 to 3 to the police at Satenapalli Police Station.” 6 The said evidence, in my considered view, is unimpeachable. Of course, there may be some minor discrepancies. But in my considered view, they do not go to the root of the case. Similarly from the evidence of the medical evidence also, it cannot be said that the entire case of the prosecution is a falsity. The doctor who examined the victim has stated as follows: “I am working as In charge Professor in S.V. Medical College, Tirupathi in the department of Obst. and Gynaecology. Previously I worked as Professor in charge in the same department in Guntur Medical College, Guntur from 1983 to 31.7.2000. On 12.5.1998 at 5.30 PM I have examined P.W.1 who was produced before me by P.C.2912 accompanied by her husband Devaraju P.W.2 and on my examination reveals the following: There are no injuries over the body. External genitala no injuries, healthy. There are old terax on hymen. (old teras means it may be older than five days). Per secular examination: Cervix and Vagina healthy. Per vaginal examination: Uterus, Anti verted normal size, mobile, Fornsices free. Smear taken from posterior fornix; vaginal washings taken from chemical examination; Gynaecology History:- Menarche: 5 years back Marital life: One year back Menstrual History: 4/30 days, regular Last Menstrual period: 21.04.1998. Smear taken from posterior fornix and vaginal washing taking from the patient were sent to chemical examination. The opinion was reserved. Ex.P.7 is the certificate issued by me. The opinion from the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory from Vijayawada dated 30.06.1998. Ex.P.8 is the opinion sent by R.F.S.L. Vijayawada. Ex.P.9 is also the report received from R.F.S.L. Vijayawada. I gave my final opinion dated 27.07.1998 after recalling the opinion from R.F.S.L. Vijayawada. My final opinion is that a definite opinion cannot be given basing on the findings. Ex.P.10 is my opinion dated 27.07.1998. Cross – Examination by Sri D.M.R. for the accused:- If there is any struggle by the victim at the time of the rape the victim may sustain injuries on her backhand buttocks but it is depending upon the several factors like surface where the incident occurred and amount of struggle put by the victim and the strength of the accused and the strength of the victim. The stains of semen can be found even after many years even if clothes are preserved in the ordinary condition. If the semen is deposited in the vagina there is no possibility of the wetting of the clothes of the victim even after the sexual intercourse. Half an hour after the sexual intercourse we cannot find spermatozoa in the vagina.” 7 From the above evidence of the doctor, it cannot be said that there is no rape. What was suggested to the doctor during his cross examination is that if there is any struggle by the victim at the time of rape, there would be some bleeding injuries to the victim, but the doctor stated that it all depends upon several factors. The victim who was examined as P.W.1, in unequivocal terms, has stated that she was raped by the accused and hence nothing can be inferred from the evidence of the doctor as to whether rape has been committed or not. P.W.1 is a married woman habituated to have sexual intercourse and from the fact that there are no bodily injuries to the victim, it cannot be concluded that there is no act of rape on P.W.1. Hence, the said submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is rejected. 8 Even if it is presumed and as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is enmity between the petitioner and the father-in-law of P.W.1, it cannot be expected that because of the said enmity a false case had been foisted against the petitioner wherein the reputation of P.W.1 is involved. In my considered view, no husband or father-in-law would go to the extent of foisting a false case at the cost of the reputation of the wife or daughter-in-law. In those circumstances, this court is of the view that with regard to the incident though there is the evidence of P.W.1 alone, as it is unimpeachable and since the same is supported by P.W.5 and the Investigating Officer, this court sees no merits in this revision. 9 However, as the alleged offence took place on 10.05.1998 and as the petitioner is now aged about 30 years, this court is of the view that the said sentence of seven years imposed by the courts below can be reduced to four years. In so far as the fine amount is concerned, the same shall be maintained. 10 In the result, while maintaining the amount of fine, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is reduced to four years. With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, this revision is disposed of. The trial court is directed to take steps to take the petitioner into custody for serving the remaining period of sentence. ---------------- 21 .03.2011 Kvsn