Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Both the appellant and his wife/accused No.2 threatened the complainant not to cry. The accused also showed photographs belonging to accused No.1 and the cousin sister of accused No.2 by name Swapna and threatened that they would also take photographs of her and show it to all the people. On account of threat, the victim girl was dam afraid of and did not disclose the incident to anyone. Since the date of incident, accused No.2, wife of the appellant, used to visit the house of victim girl and take her to their house for every two or three days and accused No.1 used to enjoy her sexually against her will. On one day, the photographs of the victim girl and accused No.1 while they were in compromising position were taken and shown to the victim girl and MSM,J CrlA_776_2008 threatened her not to disclose anything to anyone with threat to exhibit the photographs to everyone. They used to beat her whenever she refused to go with them.

During hearing, Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 contended that the medical evidence is clear that the victim girl was not subjected to any sexual harassment by the appellant and in the absence of any material that the appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim girl forcibly or against her will, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant is erroneous, that apart the victim girl appearing in the positive photographs with negatives marked as Exs.P.2 to P.5 are not that of the victim girl and the appellant and the woman appearing in compromising position, whose face is not visible, is not the victim girl and the trial Court also accepted the said fact, but still recorded conviction against the appellant for the charge punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced him erroneously. It is also contended that Ex.P.9 - medical opinion and Ex.P.10 - F.S.L. report are suffice to hold that the appellant is not MSM,J CrlA_776_2008 guilty for such offence punishable under Sections 376 of I.P.C. Viewed from any angel, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the appellant/accused No.1 herein raped the victim - girl or had sexual intercourse against her will or without her consent, beyond reasonable doubt and when two views are possible, view favourable to the accused is to be accepted and the Court ought to have acquitted the appellant/accused No.1 for such offence finding him not guilty, but committed error in finding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections referred above.

Learned Public Prosecutor for State contended that the evidence of victim girl is suffice to conclude that she was subjected to sexual assault against her will if it inspires confidence of the Court and mere continuance of sexual intercourse against her will is not sufficient to conclude that she is consenting party and the sex between the victim girl and the appellant is not consensual sex as she was subjected to sexual intercourse under threat to exhibiting photos to the public and forced her to participate in the sexual intercourse and the photos marked as Exs.P.2 to P.5 are sufficient to conclude that the woman appearing in compromising position is the victim girl. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be disturbed reversing the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Thus, it is clear from the facts narrated by victim girl in her examination-in-chief, under threat to exhibit or publish the photographs taken by accused Nos.1 and 2 while the victim girl and accused No.1 in compromising position, despite her unwillingness and they would see that the marriage of her sister would not be materialised, the appellant/accused No.1 had sexual intercourse with victim girl. Therefore, it is clear that under threat to publish or exhibit the photos taken while in compromising position, they made the victim girl to participate in sexual intercourse frequently and accused No.2 used to take her to their (accused Nos.1 and 2) house and forced her to participate in sexual intercourse under threat, with accused No.1. More curiously on one day, when the victim girl was suffering from fever and in menstrual cycle, accused No.2 came to her house and asked the victim girl to come to the house of accused, but she refused, then accused No.2 beat her, thereupon she started crying, on hearing the same, her sister Rama Devi came and questioned as to the reason for crying, then she revealed everything to his sister as her mother was not available at home at that time. Thus, it appears from the testimony of P.W.1, she was forced to participate in the sexual intercourse under threat of publishing or exhibiting MSM,J CrlA_776_2008 photos taken while accused No.1 having sexual intercourse with her against her will.