Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1 This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 21.11.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein and whereby the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli in S.C.No.918 of 2001, dated 16.02.2006, was confirmed.

2 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is three fold. 1) The Courts below failed to appreciate the delay in lodging the complaint which is fatal to the case of prosecution, 2) The Courts below ought not to have convicted the petitioner basing on the sole testimony of P.W.2 who is an interested witness, and 3) The findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse as the same are based on material which is not legally admissible.

3 Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Court can convict a person basing on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if the same inspires the confidence of the court. She further submitted that the prosecution has assigned cogent and valid reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. She further submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below are fully supported by oral and documentary evidence available on record. 4 The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows: 5 On 22.02.2001 the petitioner went to the house of Kaadasi Babu (P.W.1) to invite his family members for the cradle ceremony of his daughter. Taking advantage of the loneliness of Rajeswari (P.W.2) i.e. the wife of P.W.1, the petitioner caught hold of her hand with an intention to commit rape on her. P.W.2 sprinkled chilli powder on the face of the petitioner and escaped from his clutches. The incident was witnessed by P.Ws.3 to 5. On 23.02.2001 P.W.1 lodged a complaint to the police who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.12 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the section of law was altered to 376 r/w 511 of IPC and after completion of investigation, the investigating officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376 r/w 511 of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli. After the case being committed, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar has taken the case on file under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC and numbered it as S.C.No.918 of 2001 and made over the same to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli heard the version of the prosecution as well as the defence and framed charge under Section 376 r/w 511 of IPC against the petitioner for which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6 To bring home the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 376 r/w 511 of IPC, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1 were marked. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

11 Let me consider whether there is any legal flaw in the findings recorded by the courts below.

12 As per the version of the prosecution, the alleged incident took place on 22.02.2001 at the house of P.W.1. As seen from the testimony of P.W.1, he lodged the complaint (Ex.P.1) on 23.02.2001. As seen from the testimony of P.W.7, basing on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.12 of 2001 and issued Ex.P.6 - First Information Report.

13 As per the prosecution version the alleged incident took place at 2.00 PM on 22.01.2001 whereas P.W.1 set the criminal law into motion on 23.02.2001. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner there is a delay of nearly 22 hours in lodging the complaint. Mere delay in lodging complaint, more particularly, in cases of this nature, cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the case of the prosecution. It is needless to say that the prosecution has to assign reasons much less cogent and convincing reasons for the delay. According to the victim, on the date of incident her husband was out of station and he returned home only on 23.02.2001 and after she narrated the said incident to her husband, they both went to the police station and gave report, which is marked as Ex.P.1. It cannot be expected from any woman to go to the police station straight away from the place of incident. In cases of this nature it is not uncommon for the victims to discuss the details with their kith and kin like husband, son etc., keeping in view their family reputation. No house wife will lodge a complaint to the police without consulting her family members. The possibility of lodging of complaint after arriving at the consensus with the family members is quite natural and probable. In those circumstances, delay in lodging complaint by itself is not a valid ground to vitiate the case of the prosecution. The Court has to take into consideration whether the prosecution has put forth cogent and convincing reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. The Court has to consider the delay in lodging the complaint basing on the nature of the offence and the circumstances under which it was committed. At this juncture, this Court places reliance on the ratio laid down by the Honble apex Court in Deepak Vs. State of Haryana wherein it was held at Para No.16, which reads as follows:

14 The Courts below have come to a conclusion that the prosecution has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. I am fully agreeing with the findings recorded by the Courts below while accepting the reasons put forth by the prosecution for the delay in lodging the complaint. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the case cited supra, I am unable to accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in lodging the complaint by itself vitiates the case of the prosecution. 15 As per the testimony of P.W.2 on 22.02.2001 at 2.00 PM the petitioner came to her house and caught hold of her hand and made an attempt to commit rape on her. Her testimony further reveals that she informed the same to her husband (P.W.1) after he came from the village. As seen from the testimony of P.W.1, his wife (P.W.2) informed him that the accused came to their house and attempted to commit rape on her. The testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborated with each other with regard to the manner of incident. 16 As per the testimony of P.W.3 on the date of incident P.W.2 made hue and cry. As per the testimony of P.W.5, P.W.2 informed him that on 22.02.2001 one person came to her house and caught hold of her hand. For one reason or the other P.Ws.3 and 5 did not support the case of prosecution in all respects, therefore, they were cross examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. It is needless to say that the Court need not brush aside the evidence of the hostile witnesses in toto. The court can place reliance on the testimony of hostile witnesses also to the extent of their supporting the version of the prosecution case. If the testimony of P.Ws.3 and 5 is taken into consideration on 22.02.2001 some body entered the house of P.W.2 and caught hold of her hand.