THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Revision Case No.1665 of 2005 Date: 19.10.2011 Between: Marapaka Ramesh ..... Appellant/accused. AND The State of A.P. rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Revision Case No.1665 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The case came up for hearing on 18-10-2011. There was no representation on that day. The case was adjourned to next day i.e., today “for dismissal”. Even today, there is no representation for the revision petitioner. Hence this revision is disposed of without hearing the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 376 IPC and under Section 323 IPC. As many as nine witnesses including P.W.1, prosecutorix were examined before the trial Court. Although P.W.1 deposed that the accused committed rape on her and also beat her, on an overall examination of the case, the learned trial Judge held that the offence under Section 323 IPC was not made out and that the offence under Section 376 IPC was also not made out. The learned trial Judge, however, found that the case was made out under Section 376 read with 511 IPC, i.e., attempted rape. The accused consequently was convicted for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.500/- with appropriate default sentence. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal considered that there were no merits in the appeal preferred by the accused and dismissed the appeal. The accused consequently preferred the present revision. 3. It is settled law that the solitary testimony of the prosecutorix is sufficient to convict an accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC, so long as the evidence of the prosecutorix is found to be trustworthy. Indeed, P.W.3 was a witness for the incident who corroborated the case of the prosecution. P.W.2, husband of the prosecutorix was also an eyewitness for the incident proper. 4. Where the evidence of the prosecutorix is corroborated by the independent evidence of P.W.3 and the evidence of the husband of the prosecutorix (P.W.2), I am in agreement with the finding of the trial Court that the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 376 read with 511 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court were perfectly justified in recording a conviction against the accused. There are no merits in this revision. This revision consequently is dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Date:19.10.2011. mrb