Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Criminal Revision Case Is Filed By ... vs Unknown on 20 December, 2022
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.156 OF 2008
ORDER:-
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2006, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool and the accused in Sessions Case No.433 of 2003, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni, challenging the judgment, dated 18.01.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2006, whereunder the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, as against the judgment in S.C.No.433 of 2003, whereunder, the appellant was found guilty of the charge under Section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and after questioning about the quantum of sentence, was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.
3) The Sessions Case No.433 of 2003 arose out
P.R.C.No.22 of 2003, on the file of Judicial First Class
2
Magistrate, Pattikonda, which was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code ("Cr.P.C." for short).
4) The case of the prosecution, in brief, pertaining to Crime No.22 of 2003 under Sections 506 and 376 (1) of I.P.C. of Pattikonda Police Station, according to contents of the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate, is as follows:
(i) L.W.1, the victim girl, is aged 18 years. Accused is aged 19 years. The victim i.e., L.W.1 is the elder daughter of L.W.2-Harijana Nagamma and L.W.3-Harijana Kasanna.
Accused developed an evil eye and intended to fulfill his sexual desire against the victim. He used to say the victim that he loves her and would marry her and used to follow her. But, the victim did not oblige the offer of the accused. She also informed the behavior of the accused to her father, who chastised the accused.
(ii) While so, on 15.03.2003 at 12-30 P.M., the victim was watching garden at her filed. Accused came to her and expressed that he loves her and after marriage, he would take her to Hyderabad. So, saying he caught hold of her hand and dragged her near to farm trees in the fields of H. Adivemma to have forcible sexual intercourse. She cried, but, the accused 3 threatened her with dire consequences, pushed her down and he did forcible sexual intercourse with the victim, as such, fulfilled his lust. L.W.2-Harijana Nagamma, the mother of victim came there with meals carrier for the victim and witnessed the offence. On seeing the mother of victim, accused ray away from the scene of offence. Mother of victim brought the victim to the house. On 17.03.2003 the father of victim came to his house and then the victim informed the incident to her father. On the same day, at 1-00 P.M., she went to the police station along with her father and lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattikonda. Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattikonda, registered a case in Crime No.22 of 2003 under Section 376 of I.P.C. and investigated into the case. He seized wearing apparels of the victim under the cover of police proceedings. On the same day, at 3-00 P.M. he sent the victim for medical examination. L.W.8-Dr. B.G. Padmavathi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, examined the victim and collected the finger nails, pubic hair and vaginal swabs and smears for biological examination. L.W.12-K.S. Nanjundappa, Inspector of Police, arrested the accused and seized underwear from him under the cover of panchanama and sent him for remand. L.W.10-Dr. P.S.V. Saleem Basha, Medical Officer, examined the accused and 4 issued certificate that the accused is fit to do sexual act. L.W.7- I. Venkataiah, Assistant Director, RFSL, Ananthapur, issued a report that blood is detected on Item Nos.1, 2 and 12 and it is of human origin but their blood group could not be determined. Report further shows that human semen and spermatozoa are detected on Item Nos.1, 2, 5 to 9 and 13, but their blood group could not be determined. Item No.14 was found to be human saliva. L.W.8, the Medical Officer, examined the victim and opined that sexual intercourse might have been occurred. L.W.9-Dr. L.C. Obulesu, Professor and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, issued age certificate stating that victim is aged about 18 years. Hence, the charge sheet.
5) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pattikonda, took cognizance and after complying necessary formalities under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions and thereupon, it was numbered and made over to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni. On appearance of the accused, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni, framed charge under Section 376(1) of I.P.C. and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5
6) During the course of trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which he denied the same and stated that he has nothing to say.
7) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni, on hearing both sides and on considering the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 376 (1) of I.P.C. and convicted him under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2006 before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, which came to be dismissed on merits. Challenging the same, the unsuccessful accused and appellant as above, filed this Criminal Revision Case.
8) Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case, the points that arise for consideration are:
6
(1) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved that accused committed rape of the victim girl in the manner as alleged?
(2) Whether the judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Criminal Appeal 123 of 2006 suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?
Points:-
9) Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is interested in nature. There was delay of two days in lodging the report by the victim which remained unexplained by the prosecution. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni, did not look into the discrepancies in the evidence. Victim did not speak about the alleged injuries on her neck. She did not state before police that her blouse was torn. The learned Sessions Judge failed to look into that the victim is above the age of 16 years. If the evidence of P.W.1 is considered that accused dragged her for 10 feet into the trees, there should have been injuries and scratch marks. Even the medical evidence as regards the alleged rape is not conclusive. On account of the prior disputes between P.W.3 and father of the accused, accused is falsely implicated. P.W.3 was facing allegations of misusing of 7 funds in the name of Dalitha Ikya Vedika. P.W.1 deposed that her father was beaten by 20 members, who are relatives of the accused. Even according to P.W.1, she was divorced after marriage. P.W.3 collected Rs.3,000/- from one Kasana, who committed rape/had illegal relationship with P.W.1. P.W.3 admitted that he received Rs.50,000/- at the initiation of Dalitha Sangam. So, P.W.3 has questionable integrity. Prior to the amendment to Section 376 of I.P.C. even the Court can impose a sentence that is less than seven years by recording reasons.
If the contention of the Revision Petitioner is not going to be accepted, the Court may reduce the period of punishment which the Revision Petitioner already undergone.
10) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is fully convincing and the oral evidence of P.W.1 is supported by the medical evidence and the reasons set forth for false implication of the accused is not tenable and both the Courts below on analysation of the evidence with sound reasons, convicted appellant, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11) P.W.1 before the trial court is no other than the victim. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the mother and father of victim 8 respectively. P.W.3 is the Panchayat Secretary, who was present at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of the underwear. P.W.5 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who examined the victim and issued report. P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, who examined the accused and issued potency certificate. P.W.7 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattikonda Police Station, who recorded the statement of victim and registered the same as F.I.R. P.W.8 is the Medical Officer, who examined the victim with regard to the age determination. P.W.9 is the Inspector of Police i.e., the investigating officer.
12) Turning to the evidence of P.W.1, the substance of her evidence is that the accused is resident of her village. She is the eldest daughter to her parents. On the date of incident it was Saturday. At about 8-00 A.M. she went to Pundikura Chenu for guarding at 12-30 noon, accused came to her and expressed that he loves her and he would marry her and he would take her to Hyderabad. While saying so, he caught hold of her hand. She raised cries. Then accused threatened to kill her and dragged into thorny bushes. He had pushed her down and had sexual intercourse with her. Accused had sexual intercourse against her wish forcibly. She raised cries. She protested. He threatened to kill her. Then her mother came there. Then 9 accused left and ran away. She narrated the incident to her mother. Thereafter, she and her mother went to the house. Her father was not present there. Her father went to Alur. He had returned home on Sunday night. After return of her father, she informed the incident to her father. On the next day i.e., Monday morning, they went to police station and she gave a complaint. Police recorded her statement and she affixed her signature on the statement. Ex.P.1 is her statement. (Witness identified her signature). Police seized her clothes. Thereafter, she was referred to Government hospital, Adoni for examination. She identified her clothes. M.O.1 is the red colour Langa. M.O.2 is green and white terricotton Petticoat. M.O.3 is white hooks jacket. M.O.4 is yellow colour polyster pyta. Two months prior to the incident, the accused expressed that he loved her that he would marry her. Then she informed the incident to her father, who chastised the accused.
13) The material portion of the evidence of P.W.2 is that on the date of incident she sent P.W.1 to agricultural field to guard Pundikura Chenu. At about 12-30 noon, she carried lunch to her daughter, who is at the field. She did not find her daughter at her field. Then she was searching for her. Then she heard cries of P.W.1 from thorny bushes (reserve trees). Then 10 she went towards thorny bushes. She saw the accused committing rape on P.W.1. When she went near her daughter, the accused ran away. When she enquired, P.W.1 informed her about the incident. Then she and her daughter returned home. Her husband was not present at the house. He went to Alur. He returned home on Sunday night. Then they informed the incident to her husband. On the next day morning, they gave report. She and her husband accompanied P.W.1 to the police station. P.W.1 gave statement. Police asked her to secure a set of dress of P.W.1 and then she secured and then P.W.1 changed her clothes.
14) P.W.3 spoken to the fact that the incident occurred about three years back. By then, he was not present. One day prior to the incident, he went to Alur. He returned to home during night of Sunday. Then P.Ws.1 and 2 informed him about the incident. Then they went to police station on Monday. P.W.1 gave statement to police. Police recorded it and seized clothes and referred her to hospital. Police also examined him. Prior to the incident, accused expressed his love towards P.W.1 and that he would marry her and then he reprimanded them.
15) P.W.4 testified that in his presence on 25.03.2003 police arrested the accused and seized his underwear under 11 cover of Panchanama. M.O.5 is underwear. The underwear was said to be washed away by the accused after the incident. Ex.P.2 is the panchanama.
16) According to P.W.5, she examined P.W.1 on 17.03.2003. She observed vaginal swabs and forwarded to Ananthapur and as per her observations after report sexual intercourse might have been occurred on the victim. Ex.P.3 is the report and Ex.P.4 is the report from R.F.S.L.
17) According to P.W.6, the medical officer, he examined the accused on 26.03.2003. There is nothing to suggest that accused is incapable of performing sexual activity. Ex.P.5 is the report. He examined the accused at request of the police.
18) P.W.7 spoken to the fact that victim came to the police station along with her parents and then he recorded her statement and registered it as a case in Crime No.22 of 2003 and thereafter, he seized the clothes of the victim and forwarded to the Women and Children Hospital, Adoni, for medical checkup.
19) P.W.8 is the Forensic Department person, who examined the victim and issued age certificate opining that she is aged 18 years. P.W.9 is the investigating officer, who spoken about the investigation.
12
20) According to the case of the prosecution, on the fateful day, victim was subjected to rape by the accused. P.W.2, the mother of victim claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. Now, it is a matter of appreciation as to whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is believable or not. If the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the delay in lodging the report by P.W.1 to the police and medical evidence is believable, definitely it would prove the offence of rape against the accused.
21) Now, turning to the cross examination part of P.W.1, she deposed that she do agricultural works like carrying water, weeding out unwanted plants, etc. She carries water in a pot. There is a small hut erected in the fields. She does not know whether the accused is having Ac.3-00 cents of land and residential house. She went to the fields at 8-00 A.M. The road is on the eastern side of the fields. The distance between their hut and place of offence is about 50 feet. She was driving away the cattle of others. The cattle comprise of cows and she- buffalos. She does not know the name of the owner of the neighbor of her fields.
22) Turning to the cross examination of P.W.2, she deposed that she heard the cries from P.W.1 at the fields of Adivemma. The distance between her fields and the fields of 13 Adivemma is about 200 yards. There is reserve tress on the northern side of the field of Adivemma. The witness showed the left hand side. She saw the incident at reserve trees of Adivemma. She heard cries from a distance of 200 yards. The cries came from the fields of Adivemma and then she went to the spot. It was at a distance of 200 yards from her. She saw the accused and P.W.1 from the distance of four or five yards. Immediately after seeing them, she raised cries and when she went nearer to the place of incident, accused left the place. Accused ran away from the fields of Adivemma towards village by taking passage. Adivemma fields are on the western side of the fields. Accused went to the passage to the fields of Adivemma.
23) The trend of cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 shows that accused probed P.Ws.1 and 2 as to how and why P.W.1 went to the fields. The answers that are spoken by P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the presence of P.W.1 at the fields are consistent. No positive defence was set forth either before P.W.1 or before P.W.2 that they did not go to the fields on the fateful day. P.Ws.1 and 2 consistently spoken that too in cross examination that the actual offence was happened at the fields 14 of Adivemma. It is quietly evident from the cross examination part of P.Ws.1 and 2.
24) The defence of the accused before the Court below is denying the offence alleged against him and at the same time took another defence that P.W.1, the victim, was a consenting party for sexual intercourse with him. It is quietly evident from the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused before the Court below.
25) Another line of defence of the accused is that P.W.1 was of a girl of bad character, as such, her evidence should not be believed. Now, this Court would like to deal with the same. P.W.1 furnished her age as that of 19 years as on the date of evidence on 19.06.2006. According to allegations in Ex.P.1, at the time of offence she was aged about 18 years. During cross examination she deposed that she was married nine years back. She denied that she was married about five or six years back. She does not know whether dowry was given in her marriage or money was spent by her father. She answered to the question posed by the Court stating that at the time of her marriage, she was aged about 10 years. After the marriage, she went to her matrimonial house for only one day and returned to home. Within two or three days of marriage, divorce was effected. She 15 had asked for grant of divorce as she disliked the marriage. She informed to her father about the dislike of the marriage. A Panchayat was held in their village in connection with the divorce. She was present when divorce was granted. She does not remember the names of Panchayatdars. She herself expressed her desire to get divorce. Again she says that it is true that three years prior to the complaint, she was married. She denied that after the marriage, she lived with her husband for a month or two. She denied that at the time of marriage she attained puberty and she was aged about 18 years old. She denied that her husband had obtained divorce on the ground of her bad character and that her husband left her on the ground of her bad character. She does not know Kasanna S/o Sunkanna. She denied that two years prior to the complaint Kasanna was made to pay penalty of Rs.3,000/- in the panchayat to her father on the allegation of his illegal contact with her. The trend of the above cross examination done on behalf of the P.W.1 shows that accused wanted to attribute bad character against the P.W.1.
26) Now, it is a matter of appreciation as to whether such a defence raised by the accused was probabalized in any way. Though P.W.1 stated that her marriage took place about 16 nine years back or three years back prior to the complaint, accused cannot take that inconsistency in support of his defence. In fact, even assuming for a moment for the reasoning sake without admitting that the marriage took place three years prior to the complaint it means that P.W.1 was a minor by the time of marriage. She cannot be found fault by anybody when she expressed her inclination to get divorce, especially, when her marriage was performed when she did not understand the rationale of the marriage being minor. The suggestion put-forth before P.W.1 by the accused that her husband obtained divorce and left her as she was of a bad character is totally baseless. It was nothing but an attempt made by the accused to assassinate the character of P.W.1 in a Court of law without any basis whatsoever. The accused put-forth a suggestion before P.W.1 that she was aged about 18 years at the time of marriage. The above said suggestion is also baseless. The accused wanted to take advantage of the fact that one Kasanna was penalized for a sum of Rs.3,000/- on the ground that he had illegal contacts with P.W.1. In fact, that suggestion put-forth before P.W.1 was denied by her. Ultimately, it is P.W.2, the mother of P.W.1, during cross examination stated that she know Kasanna and he committed rape on P.W.1 and Kasanna was penalized by 17 imposing Rs.3,000/-. She denied that Kasanna had illegal contact with P.W.1. According to the defence of accused before P.W.1, the so-called penalty was imposed two years prior to the complaint. So, it means that even it was when P.W.1 was in minor. Accused cannot attribute unchastity or cannot assassinate the character of P.W.1 that she had illegal contact with Kasanna. Accused failed to understand that a sexual intercourse with a woman with or without consent in view of Section 375 clause sixth amounts to rape. In my considered view, accused miserably failed to substantiate his defence that P.W.1 was of a bad character.
27) Now, next line of defence of the accused before the Court below is that five or six days prior to the complaint, P.W.1 had menstrual period. She denied the same. A marathon cross examination was done on behalf of the accused probing the said issue. She denied in cross examination that five or six days prior to the complaint, she had menstrual period. She denied that she was having bleeding for four or five days. Witness volunteers that she had bleeding for three days. They applied cloth during menstrual period. It will be changed for three days as and when required. Regular bath will be taken and the cloth will be washed during menstrual cycle. She categorically 18 explained that the clothes at the time of alleged incident were not washed. Further she clarified that she did not take bath after the incident, as she was waiting for arrival of her father. She took bath on Tuesday and the incident was occurred on Saturday. She denied that six days prior to the examination by the Doctor, she got menstrual cycle.
28) Now turning to the medical evidence in this regard, P.W.5 during cross examination stated that it is true that patient has menstrual period for one week prior to her examination. So, it belies defence of the accused that P.W.1 had menstrual period five or six days prior to the incident. Apart from this, there was no possibility for the presence of menstrual blood on the inner clothes of P.W.1 at the time of offence in question as she categorically explained that she used to wash clothes during the menstrual period. All these are elicited from P.W.1 with a probing cross examination even questioning her when she got menstrual period. The obvious intention of the accused is to put-forth a contention that the material objects that were examined by the Forensic Laboratory contained blood stains because of the menstrual period of P.W.1. But, at the same time, the accused failed to note that underwear and other petticoat and other material objects that were sent to RFSL 19 contained semen and spermatozoa. So, it is crystal clear that the contention of the accused before the Court below that whatever the blood stains that were found on the petticoat of P.W.1 were of the blood stains of menstrual period is nothing but baseless.
29) So, the accused failed to probabalise his contention that P.W.1 was of a bad character. At one hand he denied the offence. At another hand he put-forth a contention that she was a consenting party for act of coitus. Now, I would like to deal with the same. As evident from the contents of Ex.P.3, medical report, there was an abrasion on the neck of P.W.1. Ex.P.3 was given by P.W.5. The victim need not speak about the minute details of receiving an abrasion. The defence of the accused is also that if really P.W.1 was dragged, she would be received more injuries. One cannot last sight of the fact that it is not the evidence of P.W.1 that she was dragged by the accused on ground. The accused dragged her by catching hold of her hand. So, in such an event, one need not receive more injuries. So, it is crystal clear that there was some force used by the accused on P.W.1 which resulted into causing of an abrasion. P.W.1 was questioned during cross examination that she was pushed down and it was a ground and she fell on back facing upwards. She 20 was pushed nearby reserve trees. Her mother had reached the place of occurrence nearly 10 minutes after she was pushed down and she was struggling with cries. She attempted to use nails on the accused, but he was wearing shirt. It is crystal clear that the blouse wore by P.W.1 at the time of offence that is M.O.3. It was in torn condition. According to the case of the prosecution M.O.3 was in torn condition. So, it all goes to show that P.W.1 resisted the act of the accused while committing rape. But, accused being able bodied person was able to over power to her. What all the answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during cross examination shatters the defence of the accused. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that P.W.1 was a consenting party for the act of coitus done by the accused on P.W.1. A deliberate attempt was made by the accused to brand P.W.1 as of a bad character. He wanted to gain advantage that being child or a minor, she repudiated the marriage by asking for divorce and on that ground that accused cannot brand her as a bad character. When Kasanna allegedly committed rape on P.W.1 for which he was said to be penalized according to the defence of the accused, he cannot take any advantage that he can rape the victim as she got divorce from her husband and Kasanna committed rape on her. Having 21 regard to the overall facts and circumstances, though the accused made a deliberate attempt against P.W.1 to assassinate her character, but he miserably failed to substantiate or probabalise his defence before the Court below. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 stands to the test of scrutiny.
30) Another line of defence of the accused is that as there were disputes between him and father of P.W.1, he was falsely implicated in the case on hand. It is to be noticed that in Indian backdrop of society, it is rather improbable to assume a father like P.W.3 would raise false allegations by putting the career of P.W.1 at peril thereby exposing that she was subjected to rape. Already, the marriage that was performed against the will of P.W.1 was not materialized as P.W.1 could not live with her husband and obtained divorce. In such circumstances, no father would make an attempt to expose the daughter as a girl of victim of heinous offence of sex falsly. So, the defence theory that on account of previous disputes, P.W.3 implicated the accused appears to be baseless.
31) Turning to the delay when the offence was happened on one day, the report came to be lodged on third day. P.Ws.1 and 2 explained that the father of P.W.1 or husband of P.W.2, as the case may be, was not in village and on the next day night he 22 came to the village and after informing the incident to P.W.3, they went to the police station along with victim in the morning of following day. P.W.1 was asked the reason as to why her father went to Alur. P.W.2 was also asked as to why her husband went to Alur. Ultimately, P.W.3 was subjected to probing cross examination as to why he was not in the village. He deposed that he went to Alur on Friday in the morning hours. He did not inform to his wife that he is leaving to Alur. He left Alur at 9-00 P.M. on Sunday. He went to Alur to earn money, but he could not get any work there. He spent there without any work and he stayed at Sandy market for two nights. He asked for the tractor work with one trader at Alur. But, he cannot give the name of trader. He intended to do labour work. So, he explained the fact that he was not in the village on that day.
32) Apart from this, this Court would like to make it clear that in our country when a girl like P.W.1 was ravished to heinous offence of rape, there would be hesitant attitude on the part of the parents as to whether a report is to be lodged or not as branding the girl as a victim of rape in the eye of public is nothing but stigma on her. So as repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of this nature, the delay in lodging report for one day or two days is bound to be occurred. Even 23 otherwise, the prosecution has categorically proved that report could not be given to police as P.W.3 was out of station and he could come to the village only on the next day night. Hence, another line of the defence that prosecution failed to explain the delay properly in lodging complaint before the police cannot stands to any reason.
33) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that P.W.1 resisted the act of the accused and she was struggling even according to her cross examination, as such, she received some scratch mark on the neck. Hence, it cannot be held that she was a consenting party. The answers spoken by her in cross examination further strengthens the case of the prosecution that she put-forth proper reason for her staying in the fields at the time of offence in question. When P.W.1 was deputed to fields to guard the fields, it is quite natural for P.W.2, being mother, to take carriage containing food to P.W.1. So, presence of P.W.2 at the time of offence cannot be doubted. Even otherwise, it is well settled that if evidence by prosecutrix is inspiring confidence, conviction can be maintained in an offence of rape even without corroboration. But, here, the evidence of P.W.1 has categorically support from the evidence of P.W.2. According to the evidence of P.W.5, medical officer, 24 coupled with Exs.P.3 and P.4, sexual intercourse might have been happened. The presence of spermatozoa on the material objects and the presence of blood go to show that prosecution was able to establish the offence of rape even by medical evidence.
34) It is to be noticed that the accused got made probing questions before P.W.1 as to whether he ejaculated or not. She deposed clearly in cross examination that accused had ejaculation by the time her mother came there. She cannot say in seconds or minutes of time when the accused had ejaculated. The manner in which the question was posed to the victim is nothing but surprising. When the victim was asked to state as to whether accused ejaculated the sperm or not, she answered in positive, but she was not supposed to say how much time the accused took in giving ejaculation. So, it all goes to show that P.W.1 withstood the marathon cross examination and probing cross examination, which was only strengthening the case of the prosecution to any extent. In my considered view, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pattikonda as well as the II Additional Sessions Judge, Adoni, rightly looked into the evidence on record and rightly analysed the entire evidence on record and 25 gave findings that accused committed heinous offence of rape against the victim with force.
35) Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2006, does not suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety, as such, the appeal must fail.
36) Turning to the alternative contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is argued that prior to 2013 Amendment made to Section 375 of I.P.C., the Court can impose lesser punishment than seven years for adequate and special reasons and as the incident was occurred long back and as the petitioner is now married and with three children, sentence may be reduced to already undergone.
37) Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances and the manner of the offence and the age of the victim at the time of offence, this Court is of the considered view that absolutely, it is not at all a fit case to reduce the sentence of imprisonment as sought for.
38) Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool in 26 Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2006, as such the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
39) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
40) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court to the trial Court and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant (accused) in S.C.No.433 of 2003, dated 19.10.2006 and to report compliance to this Court.
41) Registry is directed to send copy of the order along with original records to the Court below on or before 23.12.2022.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 20.12.2022.
PGR 27 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU CRL. REVISION CASE NO.156 OF 2008 Date: 20.12.2022 PGR