Telangana High Court
Dandla Ravi, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 28 September, 2022
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.919 OF 2011
JUDGEMENT:
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 09.08.2011, passed in S.C.No.206 of 2010 by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Siddipet, whereby, the Court below convicted the appellant/accused of the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days.
2. Heard the submissions learned counsel for the appellant/accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent/State and perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
On 07.09.2009 at about 07:30 PM, Mrs. Dandla Lakshmi (prosecutrix/victim) went to Rajagopalapet Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 report stating that on the same day at about 12:00 noon, she was draining the paddy in front of her house and guarding the same.
2 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 During that time, her husband, in-laws and niece went to Siddipet.
His neighbor Dandla Ravi (appellant/accused) called her to his house for lifting fertilizer basket. When she went to his house and asked for the basket, accused told her that there is no basket and firmly hugged her with an attempt to commit rape. When she shouted and tried to escape from him, accused relieved her. On the same day at about 03.00 pm, PW1 went to Gudem for collecting firewood. While she was collecting firewood, the accused went to her, slapped her, gave fist blows on her stomach, forcibly made her to fall down, slept on her and molested her. Though PW.1 informed the accused that she was pregnant, he did not heed to her. Thereafter, she informed the said incident to her husband and in-laws after they returned from Siddipet.
4. Basing on the report lodged by PW.1, PW.14-ASI of Police, Rajgopalpet Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.143 of 2009 for the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC, issued Ex.P13-FIR, recorded the statement of PW.1 and handed over the CD file to PW.15-Inspector of Police, Siddipet, for further investigation. PW.15 took up further investigation, visited the scene of offence, recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 4 and LWs 4, 5, 7, 8, referred PW1 to hospital for medical examination, recorded statements of PWs.5 to 7, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LWs.12 3 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 and 13, seized material objects, arrested the accused on 24.10.2009, recorded his confessional statement, sent him to Area Hospital, Siddipet, for potency test, collected FSL Report, Potency Test Report and after completion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Siddipet, against the appellant/accused of the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC.
5. Learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the appellant/accused of the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC, registered the same as P.R.C.No.35 of 2010 and committed the same to the Principal Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., since the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On committal, the Court of Session numbered the case as S.C.No.206 of 2010 and made over to the Court below for disposal, in accordance with law.
6. On appearance of the appellant/accused, the Court below framed charge against him of the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC, read over and explained to him, for which, the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011
7. To prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14, besides case properties, MOs.1 to 11.
8. PW.1-D.Laxmi is the de-facto complainant. PW.2-Anusha is the sister-in-law of the victim. PW.3-Narsimulu is the husband of victim. PW.4-D.Yadagiri is the brother-in-law of the victim. PW.5-Sampath, PW.6-K.Ravinder Chary, PW.7-E.Balaiah are the circumstantial witnesses. PW.8-E.Chandraiah, PW.9-K.Sreenu are the panch witnesses for the seizure of clothes of victim. PW.10-S.Maisaiah, PW.11-S.Parsharamulu are the panch witnesses for the confession and seizure panchanama of clothes of accused. PW.12-Raghavendra is the scribe. PW.13-Dr.Sunitha Laxmi is the Doctor, who examined the victim and issued Ex.P11-Final Opinion. PW.14-Md.Hyder Gori is ASI of Police who issued Ex.P13-FIR. PW.15-S.Ravi Kumar is the Investigating Officer. PW.16-Dr.Mahesh is the Doctor, who examined the accused and issued Ex.P14-Potency Certificate. Ex.P1 is the original complaint. Exs.P2 to P4 are 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.5, 6, 7. Ex.P5 is the signature of PW8 on Ex.P6. Ex.P6 is the seizure panchanama of clothes of PW.1. Ex.P7 is the signature of PW9 on Ex.P6. Ex.P8 is the signature of PW10 on Ex.P9. Ex.P9 is the recovery panchanama of clothes of accused. Ex.P10 is the signature of PW11 on Ex.P9. Ex.P11 is the Medical Officer Report of opinion.
5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 Ex.P12 is the FSL report. Ex.P13 is FIR. Ex.P14 is Potency Certificate. MO.1 is the blood samples of victim. MO.2 is the pubic hair clippings of victim. MO.3 is nails of the victim. MO.4 is smears taken from incrioter of vagina and protems fumix of vagina of the victim. MO.5 is the white colour silk sari printed with red light blue and saffron coloured flowers designed with black colour. MO.6 is the cream colour petty coat having red coloured thread. MO.7 is the black colour blouse. MO.8 is the black colour trouser having white colour lining. MO.9 is the snuff colour underwear. MO.10 is semen samples of accused. MO.11 is 12 numbers of bangle pieces having light rose coated with gold colour.
9. When the appellant/accused was confronted with the incriminating material appearing against him and was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the same and claimed to be tried. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the appellant/accused.
10. The trial Court, having considered the submissions made and the evidence available on record, vide the impugned judgment, dated 09.08.2011, convicted the appellant/accused of the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/accused preferred this appeal.
6 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011
11. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit the Court below erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused of the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC. The ingredients of Section 376(e) of IPC have not been made out against the appellant/accused. A false case has been foisted against the appellant/accused. There are several material inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix, which is not safe to act upon. Except the self-serving evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no evidence, much less cogent and convincing evidence, to establish the accusations levelled against the appellant/accused. At one point of time, PW.1 stated that the accused used to talk with her whenever he meets her in the street and at another point of time, she stated that the accused never used to talk with her. Further, the prosecutrix specifically admitted in her evidence that the accused had a filed criminal complaint against her husband and his family members. Further, the doctor who examined the victim clearly stated that there were no injuries on the body of the prosecutrix and no external injuries over her genetelia. The medical evidence on record is inconsistent with the evidence of the prosecutrix, which renders the whole prosecution case doubtful. Further, PWs.5 to 11 did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC and 7 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 ultimately prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused and acquit him of the said offence.
12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused had committed a heinous offence of rape on a pregnant woman. There is clear evidence of PWs.1 to 4, which directly connects the appellant/accused with the subject rape of the victim. The evidence of the prosecutrix is cogent, consistent and inspires confidence to act upon and there are no inconsistencies and contradictions in her evidence, as alleged. The oral and documentary evidence on record unerringly points towards the appellant/accused that he is the person who committed rape on the prosecutrix. The prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC. The Court below is justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused of the said offence and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused vide the impugned judgment, dated 09.08.2011.
13. In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:
8 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011
1) Whether the appellant/accused had committed rape on the prosecutrix on 07.09.2009?
2) Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused of the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
3) Whether the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 376(e) of IPC is liable to be set aside?
4) To what result? POINTS:-
14. The date and place of the alleged incident are not in dispute. PW.1 herein is the victim and as such, her evidence is crucial. She deposed that her marriage was performed about three years back from the date of her giving evidence with PW.3. In their house, She was living along with her parents-in-law, her husband, three younger brothers of her husband and sister of her husband. She knows the accused who is her villager. About two years back, one day, her parents-in-law, her husband, brothers of her husband went to Siddipet to purchase a motorcycle. At that time, herself and LW.2- Anusha were present in the house. While she was spreading the paddy in the front yard of her house to drain paddy under sunshine, LW.2 was sleeping inside the house. At about 12.00 or 12.30 hours, she was sitting at the main door of her house. Accused is her neighbor. Accused came to her and enquired about the whereabouts of her family members upon which, PW.1 informed the whereabouts 9 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 of her family members. Accused called her into his house to lift a pesticide basket. When she went into the house of the accused, she did not find any basket. When she enquired about the basket, accused caught hold of her, dragged her and made her to sleep on the floor. She resisted the accused and stated that she does not like those things and raised hue and cry and escaped from the clutches of the accused and came to her house. On the same day at about 03:30 PM, PW.1 asked LW.2 to guard the paddy and went to their field to get firewood. While she was collecting firewood, accused came to her from adjacent field, caught hold of her hand and her head. When PW.1 resisted the accused, he told her that since she was sleeping with her husband, she should also sleep with him. Accused slapped her and fisted on her stomach, made her to sleep on the floor and committed rape on her. At that time, she was carrying seven months pregnancy and informed the same to the accused. During the said process, her bangles were broken. In the evening, she came back to her house weeping. LW.2 asked PW.1 as to why she was weeping upon which, she informed about the incident to her. After return of her family members at 05:30 PM, she informed about the incident to them. While they were going to police station to lodge a report, they found the accused and his wife near Malyala Bus Stand and a scuffle took place between her husband and 10 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 the accused. After that, they went to police station and lodged a report.
15. PW.1 was cross-examined at length, wherein she stated that she used to talk to the accused whenever he meets her in the street. She again stated that she never used to talk to the accused at any time. She did not inform about the first incident to anyone, including LW.2, before the second incident occurred. She did not sustain any injuries when the accused fell her down. She had not raised any hue and cry when the accused was attempting to commit rape on her. She categorically denied a suggestion that there were previous petty disputes in between her family and the accused. She admitted in her cross-examination that the accused has filed a criminal complaint against her husband and his family members before the police.
16. P.W.2-Anusha, who is the sister-in-law of the victim, has deposed in her evidence that on the date of incident, all her family members went to Siddipet to purchase motor cycle, at that time, she slept in the home and PW.1 was guarding paddy. At about 03.00 PM, PW1 asked her to guard paddy and went to get fire wood from the field and when she returned home, she was weeping. On enquiry, PW.1 explained the incident to her. At that time, PW.1 was carrying seven months pregnancy. PW.2 informed about the incident to her family members on phone. Though PW.2 was cross-examined at 11 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 length, nothing contra was elicited to disprove her testimony in examination-in-chief. PW.2 categorically stated in her evidence that the accused filed a criminal case against her brother and it is pending.
17. PW.3 is the husband of the prosecutrix. He deposed that on the date of incident at about 04.30 pm, he received a phone call from PWs.1 and 2 stating that accused committed rape on PW.1 and when he and his family members returned to house, PW1 informed about the said incident and thereafter, they lodged a report with the police. In his cross-examination, PW.3 deposed that accused and his family members were cordial prior to the alleged incident and that the accused filed a criminal case against him and the same is pending before JFMC, Siddipet.
18. PW.4 is the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. He deposed that on the date of incident, PWs.1 and 2 were at their house. On the same day at about 04.30 PM, they received a call from PW2 and informed about the incident. In his cross-examination, he stated that no people will walk from the fields of PW.1 to 4 and that the accused filed criminal case against their family members.
19. PW.5 is a circumstantial witness and he did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. PW.6 is another 12 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 circumstantial witness. He also did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. PW.7 had also did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. PW.8 to 11, who are said to be panch witnesses, have also not supported case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
20. PW.12 is a police constable. He deposed that he scribed Ex.P1 report on the instructions of his inspector and that Ex.P1 report bears his signature as scribe.
21. PW.13 is the doctor who examined the prosecutrix and issued Ex.P11-Final Report. She deposed in her evidence that on 07.09.2009, she examined PW.1 and found that she was carrying 28 to 30 weeks old pregnancy. She sent smears taken from the vagina of PW.1 to FSL, Hyderabad. PW.1 was married. She found on injuries over her body. No external injuries were found over genetelia. Hymen not intact. Vagina admits two fingers. As per the FSL report, there was no comment over smear taken from the vagina of PW.1. Therefore, she could not give any opinion in that regard. Here, it is apposite to extract Ex.P11-Final Opinion given by PW.13- doctor, which reads thus:
"This is the case examined by Dr.T.Suchethe Lakshmi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, M.C.H.Hospital, Siddipet.
Crime No.143 of 2009 under Section 376 I.P.C of Rajgopalpet Police Station. M.L.C.No.2430 of 2009 of Area Hospital, Siddipet, dated 07.09.2009. Requisition from C.I. of Police, Siddipet, dated 07.09.2009. Victim :- Lady, Smt.Dandugula Lakshmi, W/o.Narsimhulu.
13 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 18 years, female, Caste - Vaddera, Occupation - Housewife, R/o.Gatlamalyala Village, Nangnoor (M), Medak (D).
Date of Examination : 07.09.2009 at 11.00 pm brought by B.Sudhakar PC 2019, PS Rajgopalpet.
Alleged to be raped by known person on 07.09.2009 at 3.00 pm. Identification Marks of victim:-
1.ABM over Right Cheek.
2.ABM over left hand.
Victim is married. L.M.P. 22.01.2009.
O/E: Pt is pregnant 8M of Amenorrhea P/A: Uterus 28 - 30 Relaxed Fetal Part + FHS No injuries over body.
No Ext.injuries over genitalia.
Hymen not intact.
Smears taken from vagina.
As per FSL - No comment about smears taken from vaginal introituse. So I am not able to conclude regarding this case.
(sd/-) Dr.T.Suchetha Lakshmi Civil Assistant Surgeon, Mother & Child Hospital, Siddipet District, Medak.
22. PW.14 is the ASI of Police. He deposed that he received complaint from PW1, based on which he registered a case in Crime No.143 of 2009 under Section 376 (e) IPC, and issued FIR.
23. PW.15 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed as per the contents of the charge-sheet and collection of MOs.1 to 11.
24. PW.16 is Dr.Mahesh. He deposed in his evidence that he was deposing on behalf of Dr.B.Sudheer Kumar, who conducted potency test of the accused, since he left the hospital and his whereabouts are not known. As per the records, Dr.Sudheer Kumar has examined the accused and issued certificate to the effect that there is nothing to suggest the male examined is not capable o performing sexual 14 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 activities. Ex.P14 is the certificate issued by the said doctor whose signature he can identify.
25. In a case under Section 376 of IPC, the evidence of the prosecutrix is most vital. Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence is found to be trustworthy, believable, cogent, reliable and free from material contradictions. In other words, if the sole testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence of the Court, no corroboration is required to record conviction for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a victim in a case of rape is not an accomplice. Conversely, she is at par with the injured witness. At the same time, considering the gravity of the offence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again echoed a voice of caution that the evidence of the prosecutrix is to be considered with great care and circumspection. Only when the evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be of "sterling quality", Court can rely on her sole testimony to convict the accused. In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State of NCT of Delhi1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider as to who can be said to be "sterling witnesses". It was observed thus:
"In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness 1 (2012) 8 SCC 21 15 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court.
It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
26. In the instant case, a close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution makes it clear that there are several material inconsistencies and contradictions in her evidence. In her cross- examination, the prosecutrix stated that she used to talk to the appellant/accused whenever he meets her in the street. Immediately, she volunteered that she never used to talk to the appellant/accused at any time. The prosecutrix further stated in her cross-examination that she has not raised any hue and cry when the 16 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 appellant/accused was attempting to commit rape on her. Normally, when a woman is being raped by a person, she would naturally raise hue and cry to attract the attention of other persons, unless her mouth is gagged/tightly closed by the person committing rape. In the instant case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused gagged or tightly closed the mouth of the prosecutrix while allegedly committing rape and hence, nothing prevented her from raising hue and cry in order to grab the attention of other persons, to avert the alleged rape. Further, during the commission of rape, it is also natural that the prosecutrix would offer resistance and try to save herself from the clutches of the person committing rape and in that process, the victim receives injuries on private parts as well as other parts of her body. In the instant case, PW.13-doctor who examined the prosecutrix categorically stated in her evidence that she found no injuries either on the body of the victim or over her genetelia. This statement of PW.13-doctor finds corroboration with Ex.P11-Final Opinion issued by her. A false accusation of rape may sometimes be exposed by marks of violence being wholly inadequate or absent. Further, the prosecutrix, in her evidence stated that she did not sustain any injury when the appellant/accused fell her down. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was carrying seven months pregnancy at the time of alleged incident. A pregnant woman cannot be easily made to lie down when the bulge 17 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 of the belly is such that even bending without difficulty is rather unusual. Further, the prosecutrix, in Ex.P1-complaint as well as in her evidence, consistently held that the appellant/accused gave fist blows on her stomach and made her to sleep on the floor. If a seven month pregnant woman receives punches/fist blows in her stomach, it will lead to serious medical complications and may even prove fatal to the baby or the mother, as the case may be. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to that effect. The law is well settled that the Court can act upon the solitary statement of the prosecutrix, provided the testimony is truthful and trustworthy, but at the same time, it cannot be mechanically applied to every case of sexual assault and the veracity of the story projected by the prosecution qua allegations of rape must be carefully examined. In the instant case, there are material inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix, which renders the entire case of prosecution unreliable. The story putforth by the prosecutrix is improbable is bereft of logic.
27. Further, though a rape victim should not suffer and justice should not be denied to her for want of medical evidence and the crucial piece of evidence is their testimony, but however, that does not mean that the importance of medical evidence is minimized in any way. Conversely, if medical evidence is available, collected and 18 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 analyzed properly, then, it clinches the issue, as it gives strong support to the testimony of the prosecutrix. In the absence of any other direct evidence or eye-witnesses on record, as offence of rape take place in secrecy, the only piece of corroborating evidence in case of doubt, is medical evidence. In the instant case, PW.13- doctor who examined the prosecutrix deposed in her evidence that she did not find any injury over the body of the victim or on her genetelia and as per the FSL Report, there was no comment over smear taken from the vagina of PW.1 and therefore, she could not give any opinion in that regard.
28. A meticulous reading of the evidence of PW.1 makes it clear that her evidence is riddled with so many improbabilities. The medical evidence on record is also contrary to what the prosecutrix had stated about the incident. It is settled legal preposition that the statement of the prosecutrix, who complains of rape or sexual molestation, should not be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion, but, if it suffers from some basic infirmity or lacks credence or is added with material inconsistencies and contradictions or has not been corroborated either by the medical evidence or by any other direct or indirect evidence, then the conviction on the basis of her statement should not be upheld. True it is, the grammar of law permits that the 19 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 testimony of a prosecutrix can be accepted without any corroboration without material particulars, for she has to be placed on a higher pedestal than an injured witness, but, when a Court, on studied scrutiny of the evidence finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix, because it is not irreproachable, there is requirement for search of such direct or circumstantial evidence, which would lend assurance to her testimony. In the instant case, the material inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence available make it highly improbable that sexual intercourse took place between the prosecutrix and the appellant/accused. Hence, it would be erroneous to rely upon such discrepant testimony and convict the accused. It can thus be stated with certitude that the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, in absence of any corroboration by the medical evidence, is not of "sterling quality", which can be relied and acted upon. Further, in view of the consistent evidence of PWs.1 to 4 that the accused had filed a criminal complaint against the husband of PW.1 and his family members, the chances of PW.1 falsely implicating the accused in the subject crime cannot be ruled out. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused of the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC. It is a fit case to extend benefit 20 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi Crl.A.No.919 of 2011 of doubt to the appellant/accused and acquit him of the offence charged against him.
29. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused of the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC vide judgment, dated 09.08.2011, passed in S.C.No.206 of 2010 by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Siddipet, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 376(e) of IPC. The appellant/accused is on bail by virtue of the order, dated 12.08.2011, passed by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.1336 of 2011. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused, shall be refunded to him.
30. The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal appeal, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J 28th September, 2022 PNS / BVV