Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs State Of A.P

Brief facts giving rise to both these appeals are that prosecutrix (PW1) used to attend cooking in her sister's (PW2) house in day time, as her sister was attending to agricultural operations. The accused used to visit the house of P.W 2 during day time between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon regularly while PW 1 was alone and persuaded her to have sexual intercourse by telling her that he would marry her. PW1 resisted for this for sometime but later on one day, the accused came to the house of PW2 in her absence, closed the doors and committed forcible sexual intercourse with PW1 against her will and consent. When she protested as to why he spoiled her life, accused promised that he would marry her. Subsequently, the process continued for some time. Accused used to come in the noon and had sexual intercourse with PW1. When she became pregnant she informed the accused and he gave tablets for abortion in order to get rid of pregnancy which did not work. Subsequently, PW1 insisted the accused to marry her. The accused informed PW1 that as his parents were not agreeing for the marriage, he would not marry her. PW1 brought this fact to the notice of her sister - PW2. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Panchayat. The accused accepted the guilt and promised to marry PW1 but subsequently, he absconded from the village. Since the persuasion could not fructify, PW1 lodged a report against the accused to police and, therefore, the police registered a case as per the prosecutrix report for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417.IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed a challan against the accused. The accused denied the charges. Prosecution in support of its case examined PW1 - Prosecutrix, PW2 -sister of Prosecutrix and other witnesses. Prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and PW9 - Smt. G. Pushpavalli -examined PW1. She found that PW1 was pregnant at the time of examination and the age of pregnancy is 20-22 weeks. She was also examined by Dr. Y.Jagannadha Rao - PW10 who was working as a Professor of Forensic Medicines. He confirmed about the pregnancy. He also examined the age of the prosecutrix and on the basis of X-Ray examination and other physical features opined that the age of PW1 was not less than 15 years and not more than 17 years at the time of examination.

Since the acquittal was being reversed and accused was found guilty the High Court deferred the imposition of sentence till the examination of the accused as to the quantum of sentence. The High Court, however, directed the learned Sessions Judge to summon the accused for examining about the quantum of sentence, therefore, record was sent back to the Sessions Judge for necessary evidence to be recorded for imposition of sentence. The Sessions Judge took up the matter and after recording necessary findings sent the record back to the High Court and the High Court by order dated 18.6.2004, on the basis of the evidence recorded by the Sessions Judge, convicted the accused - appellant under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one week. The accused was also convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1007 for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one week.

Being aggrieved against both the orders i.e. one dated 25.2.2004 whereby he was found guilty and the second dated 18.6.2004 whereby he was sentenced as aforesaid, the accused filed these two appeals. Hence both these appeals are now being disposed of by a common judgment.

In the present case in view of the facts as mentioned above we are satisfied that the consent which had been obtained by the accused was not a voluntary one which was given by her under misconception of fact that the accused would marry her but this is not a consent in law. This is more evident from the testimony of PW1 as well as PW6 who was functioning as Panchayat where the accused admitted that he had committed sexual intercourse and promised to marry her but he absconded despite the promise made before the Panchayat. That shows that the accused had no intention to marry her right from the beginning and committed sexual intercourse totally under the misconception of fact by prosecutrix that he would marry her. Therefore, we are satisfied that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is correct and no case is made out for our interference. The appeals are dismissed.