AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J
1) This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2005, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, challenging the judgment, dated 25.07.2007, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in S.C.No.724 of 2004, on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Penuknoda.
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.724 of 2004, on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda, arose out of a committal order passed in P.R.C.No.26 of 2004, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Penukonda.
4) The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gorantla Police Station in Crime No.25 of 2004 of Gorantla Police Station, filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda, alleging the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) as follows:
(i) L.W.1-Mopurappagari Sailaja, aged 16 years, is resident of Gangadevipalli Village of Gorantla Mandal and she is the victim. She is studying 10th Class in Zilla Parishad High School at Budili Village. Every day she used to go to school by walk and return after the school.
(ii) On 24.02.2004 at 8-30 a.m., while she was going alone on foot to the school, near the fields of Desai Rajasurendra Reddy, the accused, who was present near the well, taking advantage of loneliness of the victim, went nearer to her and interacted with her for some time. All of sudden, he caught hold of her neck, closed her mouth and dragged her to the nearby tamarind trees, which are situated in the fields of Desai Rajasurendra Reddy. She lost her books and chappals on the road margin when the accused took her away with force. When she was trying to escape, the accused took out a knife from his waist and threatened her that he will kill, if she informs about the incident to her parents. At the same time, L.W.5-Lalepalli Srinivasappa, L.W.6-Pathapallem Mahaboob Basha and L.W.7-Goprla Gopi were passing near the place and they observed the books scattered on the road margin. In the meanwhile, L.W.3-Rangappagari Suresh Babu, who saw the books, identified that those belongs to L.W.1. L.W.5 called for Sailaja. Then, she raised cries. On hearing the cries, L.W.5 to L.W.7 went near the tamarind grove and on seeing them, the accused fled away. On enquiry, L.W.1 informed the incident to L.W.5 to L.W.7. They chased the accused, but, in vain. Then, L.W.1 along with L.W.3 went to school. On the same day, L.W.5 to L.W.7 went to Gangadevipalli Village and informed the incident to L.W.4-Rangappagari Ramachandra Reddy, who in turn informed the incident to L.W.2-Mopurappagari Laxminarayana Reddy, father of L.W.1. On enquiry, L.W.1 narrated the incident to her father.
(iii) On 05.03.2004 at 4-00 p.m., L.W.2, the father of L.W.1, along with L.W.1 came to Gorantla Police Station and preferred a report. L.W.8-K.Sainath, Sub Inspector of Police, Gorantla Police Station, registered it as a case in Crime No.25 of 2004 under Sections 354 and 506 of I.P.C. and investigated into. During investigation, he examined L.W.1 to L.W.7 and recorded their statements. On 10.02.2004 he arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody. Hence, the charge sheet.
5) The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Penukonda, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of I.P.C. against the accused. On appearance of the accused and on complying the provisions under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short), by virtue of an order, dated 04.10.2004, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereupon, it was assigned with Sessions Case Number and was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda. On appearance of the accused before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda and on following the procedure under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., charges under Sections 354 and 506 of I.P.C. were framed and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6) On behalf of the prosecution, before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda, P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 were marked and Ex.D.1 was marked. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence, for which he denied the same and stated that he has no defence witnesses.
7) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the charges under Section 354 and 506 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 two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 354 of I.P.C. and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 506 of I.P.C. Challenging the same, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2005, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, which came to be dismissed on merits. Questioning the said judgment, dated 25.07.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2005, the unsuccessful appellant, filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
8) Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment, dated 25.07.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2005, on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said judgment?
POINT:-
9) Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner, would contend that basing on the solitary evidence of P.W.1, which remained uncorroborated from any source, the conviction imposed against the revision petitioner is not sustainable under law and facts. P.W.5 and P.W.6 were not the witnesses to the occurrence and they were circumstantial witnesses, whose evidence is not at all trustworthy. Though the alleged incident was on 24.02.2004 and though the incident was learnt by P.W.2, the father of P.W.1, on 26.02.2004, F.I.R. came to be lodged after one week and the delay remained unexplained by the prosecution. There were ill-feelings between the father of accused and P.W.2 and taking advantage of ill-feelings, the accused was implicated falsely. P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.2, the father of victim, was not a witness to the occurrence. Though it was alleged that the accused used force by catching hold of the neck of the victim, but, there were no marks of violence and the oral evidence of P.W.1 has no support from any medical evidence and even the victim was not referred to the hospital. There was an abnormal delay in lodging the report. On account of animosity between father of accused and P.W.2, the false implication cannot be ruled out on account of delay. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda, erroneously sustained the conviction against the accused and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, erroneously dismissed the Criminal Appeal, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.
10) The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner would rely upon the decisions in (1) Mahadeo Kundalik Vaidya & others vs. State of Maharashtra 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 2147, (2) Rajeevan & another vs. State of Kerala 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 820 (S.C.) and (3) Marudanal Augusti vs. State of Kerala (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 425.
11) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the accused did not probabalize before the Court below about the animosity between the father of accused and father of P.W.1 i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.1 denied the above suggestions. P.W.1 had no reason to implicate the accused falsely who was a student at the time of incident and who was aged about 16 years. P.W.4 found the books and chappals of P.W.1 on the road and P.W.5 identified the same as that of P.W.1 and P.W.5 and P.W.6 supported the case of the prosecution. In fact, they chased the accused, but, in vain. Both the Courts below with cogent reasons, found favour with the case of the prosecution and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2005.
12) Admittedly, P.W.1 was no other than the victim. P.W.2 was father of the victim. P.W.3 was cited by the prosecution, who did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 was the person who claimed to have learnt about the incident through P.W.5 and P.W.6 and informed the same to P.W.2. P.W.5 and P.W.6 were cited by the prosecution to speak about the incident that they spotted the chappals and books of P.W.1 on the road and after that they heard the cries of P.W.1 and that on coming to know about the incident through P.W.1 and found the accused running away and chasing the accused, etc. P.W.7 was the investigating officer.
13) Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, her evidence in substance is that she studied 10th class during the academic year 2003-04 at Budili Village of Gorantla. Her native place is Gangadevipalli. L.W.2-Mupurappagari Lakshminarayana Reddy is her father. She knows the accused, who is resident of Gangadevipalli village. The distance between her village and Budili is three kilometers. She and other students used to go to Budili School on bicycles every day. On 24.02.2004 at 8-00 a.m., she started to go to school from her house, as her bicycle was punctured. At about 8-30 a.m., when she reached near the agricultural lands of Racha Surendra Reddy, the accused came from her back side and asked her why she is going to school alone. She told him that other students are coming on her behind. Then, he caught hold of her, closed her mouth with one hand and caught hold of her neck and dragged to the tamarind trees of Racha Surendra Reddy forcibly. Then all her books and chappals fell on the ground. L.W.5 to L.W.7, who are going by the road saw her books and chappals. On hearing the voice of L.W.5 to L.W.7, the accused removed his hand from her mouth and then she cried loudly. On her cries, L.W.5 to L.W.7 approached her and on seeing them, the accused ran away. L.W.6-Mahaboob Basha chased the accused by taking the bicycle of L.W.3-Suresh Babu, who came there on bicycle, but the accused was not traced by Mahaboob Basha. Then, she and Suresh Babu went to school. The accused dragged her nearer to the tamarind trees of Racha Surendra Reddy with an intention to outrage her modesty and threatened her to kill, if she revealed the incident to her parents. After attending the school, she returned back to her home at 5-00 p.m. She did not reveal about the incident to her parents with a fear that her future may ruined as she was studying 10th class by then. On 26.02.2004 the villagers of Budili informed about the incident to their villagers and then her parents came to know about the incident through the villagers. Thereafter, her father asked her on 26.02.2004 about the incident and she revealed the incident to her father. Her father left to St. Johns Hospital, Bangalore for treatment, as he was suffering with brain T.B. Her father returned back to the village on 04.03.2004. On 05.03.2004 she and her father went to Gorantla Police Station and she lodged a report with police. Ex.P.1 is the report.
14) P.W.2, the father of victim, deposed that he came to know about the occurrence of the incident and on 26.02.2004 at 9-00 p.m., when he was in the bazaar of the village through L.W.4-R. Ramachandra Reddy. L.W.4 claimed that he came to know about the incident through the villagers of Budili. Then, he went to his house and informed the incident to his wife. After that, on the next day morning, he left to Bangalore to take treatment. He took treatment in the hospital at Bangalore for four days and returned back to the village. After return back to village, he came to know that the accused was making efforts to kidnap P.W.1. Thereafter, he and P.W.1 went to Gorantla Police Station and P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 report.
15) According to the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.1 is his classmate. He knows the accused. He did not know anything about the case. He knows P.W.1. He was studying 10th class at Budili during the year 2003-04. The prosecution cross examined him and he denied during cross examination that he stated before police as in Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2 is proved by the prosecution by examining P.W.7, the investigating officer, who deposed that P.W.3 stated before him as in Ex.P.2. The hostility of P.W.3 is proved by the prosecution. Merely because P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution, the rest of the evidence cannot be thrown out.
16) P.W.4 supported the case of the prosecution to the effect that he knows about the incident through Mahaboob Basha of Budili Village, who came to the village and informed him that the accused assaulted P.W.1 with an intention to outrage her modesty. Therefore, he narrated the same to P.W.2 on the same day.
17) Now, coming to the evidence of P.W.5, he deposed that the offence took place about 11 months ago between 8-30 a.m. to 9-00 a.m. at a tamarind tree of Raja Surendra Reddy. On that day, he L.W.6-Mahabbob Basha, L.W.7-Gorla Gopi were going to coolie work towards Gangadevipalli to Budili by walk. While passing through the agricultural lands of Raja Surendra Reddy, they found a pair of chappals and books fell down on the road and then they were collecting all the books and chappals. By that time, P.W.3 was coming on a bicycle towards Budili. Then, they asked P.W.3 to observe to whom the books belonged to. P.W.3 observed the books and told that they belonged to P.W.1. They called P.W.1 and then P.W.1 came near to them by crying and they found one person was running towards western side. They questioned P.W.1 as to what happened. She told the incident. Then, L.W.6-Mahaboob Basha took the bicycle of P.W.3 and chased the accused, but the accused could not be caught hold of.
18) Turning to the testimony of P.W.6, the incident occurred about 11 months ago at 8-30 a.m. at the agricultural lands of Raja Surendra Reddy. Then, he, P.W.5 and L.W.7-Gopi were going to the house of Raja Reddy of Gangadevipalli. On the way, they observed some books and chappals in the agricultural lands of Raja Surendra Reddy and they were collecting books and chappals. Then, they heard the cries of P.W.1 from the side of tamarind trees in the land of Kesava Reddy. They approached near to P.W.1 and by then P.W.3 came on a bicycle. Then he took the bicycle from P.W.3 and tried to catch hold of the accused. The accused was going towards western side and later towards northern side and he did not trace him. Later, he returned back to the road. He informed the incident to P.W.4 at mid-day time.
19) P.W.7 is the investigating officer, who deposed that on 05.03.2004 at 4-00 p.m., P.W.1 came to the police station along with her father and presented Ex.P.1 report. He registered it as a case in Crime No.25 of 2004 under Sections 354 and 506 of I.P.C. Ex.P.3 is the F.I.R. He examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the police station. Later, he proceeded to Gangadevipalli village and examined P.W.3 and P.W.4. P.W.3 stated before him as in Ex.P.2. He visited the scene of offence along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 and it is located below the tamarind trees situated in the land of Raja Surendra Reddy. He prepared rough sketch which is Ex.P.4. During investigation, he examined P.W.5, P.W.6 and L.W.7-Gorla Gopi and recorded their statements. He found the accused absconding. On 10.03.2004 at 8-15 p.m., he apprehended the accused and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
20) The accused before the Court below got probing cross examination of P.W.1. She was called upon to state about the minute details of the topographic particulars in and around the scene of offence and with regard to timings of school, etc. During the course of cross examination, she testified that the school timings are 10-00 a.m. to 4-30 p.m. She, Suresh Babu, Chandrasekhar and Madhu used to go to school on bicycles with carriers. Generally, she did not carry her carrier with her. Other colleagues get her carriage. On the date of incident she did not take her carriage. L.W.3-Suresh Babu was coming behind her on that day. The distance between road and the tamarind trees is about 20 yards. When she reached the agricultural lands of Racha Surendra Reddy, the accused suddenly came her behind and asked her why she was going alone. The tamarind trees are situated towards southern side of the road. The thorny bushes also exist near the tamarind trees. Cultivable lands are there surrounding the tamarind trees. Agricultural wells of Budili Narayana Reddy and Lakshmi Reddy are existing near to the tamarind trees. She did not observe whether any crops were raised near the agricultural lands. Lakshmi Reddy raised crops surrounding the agricultural well. No biting or nail marks caused to her when the accused caught hold of her neck. No blood came out from her mouth when the accused closed her mouth with his hand. She struggled to escape from the clutches of the accused. She did not cause any nail bites and tooth bites to the accused. Her books fell down on the road itself. Her chappals were also left at the place where her books fell on the road. On hearing the cries of somebody, the accused ran away. She revealed the incident to L.W.5-Sreenivasappa, L.W.6-Mahaboob Basha and L.W.7-Gorla Gopi. She revealed the incident to her father on 26.02.2004. Her father and one Siva Reddy took a road work on contract and father of accused took another road work on contract. She does not know whether her father and Siva Reddy drawn amounts pertaining to the contract taken by the father of accused for which the accused beat her father. There were no disputes between their family and family of the accused. She denied that her father lodged a false complaint against the accused due to differences between her father and the accused.
21) As seen from the above cross examination of P.W.1, her testimony remained unshaken. She spoke minute aspects of topographical particulars of the incident. Her evidence has corroboration from Ex.P.1. Her evidence has corroboration from the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 with regard to lying over of her chappals and books on the road in pell-mell condition. Though P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution, but, he was not a witness to the occurrence. He was said to be following P.W.1 as a student. At some distance, he came to know about the incident later. Therefore, his hostility has no effect to the case of the prosecution in any way. There is consistency in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 that P.W.2 learnt about the incident through P.W.4. Further there is consistency in the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.6 that P.W.4 came to know about the incident through P.W.6. The accused failed to probabalize his defence theory that as he beat the father of the victim in connection with a dispute between his father and P.W.2, he was implicated falsely.
22) It is rather improbable that a girl like P.W.1 who was aged about 16 years would go to the extent of implicating the accused in a false case thereby exposing her reputation at stake. In Indian background of society, a girl like P.W.1 unless had questionable antecedents would not make false implication of the accused that the accused outraged her modesty.
23) Apart from this, absolutely, P.W.5 and P.W.6 found the books and chappals of P.W.1 on the road and ascertained that as they belonged to P.W.1 and in the meanwhile, P.W.1 came there and informed the incident to them and P.W.6 with the bicycle of P.W.3 chased the accused, but in vain. Absolutely, nothing is elicited during the cross examination of P.W.5 and P.W.6 to disbelieve their testimony. Virtually, P.W.5 and P.W.6 have no reason whatsoever to depose false against the accused. During cross examination they denied that they did not witness the incident and that they are deposing false. Hence, in a case of this nature, the solitary evidence of victim is sufficient if it is trustworthy. The evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy. Apart from this, the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 prove categorical circumstances against the accused that P.W.6 chased the accused, but in vain and P.W.1 informed about the incident to P.W.5 and P.W.6 immediately after the incident when they spotted the books and chappals of P.W.1 on the road. So, the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 would lend an assurance to the case of the prosecution.
24) As evident from the defence of the accused before the Court below, his contention is that there was delay in lodging Ex.P.1 to the police and it is fatal. Admittedly, the incident was happened on 24.02.2004 when P.W.1 was going to school. After the incident, she gone to school and returned back to village, but she did not reveal the incident to anybody. As evident from Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1, she could not lodge report immediately. P.W.1 was studying 10th class at the time of incident and she was going to school. Her evidence is that she was threatened by the accused not to reveal the incident to anybody. Anyhow, P.W.2 learnt about the incident on 26.02.2004 through the villagers only and later confirmed it from P.W.1. The evidence is that as P.W.2 went to St. John Hospital, Bangalore for treatment to the brain disease and after returning to the village only, report could be lodged. Having considered Ex.P.1 and the evidence adduced, both the Courts below found favour with the case of the prosecution by holding that the delay is properly explained by the prosecution. This Court has no reason to differ with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur in this regard.
25) A girl like P.W.1 in the backdrop Indian society, who was unmarried, would be hesitant to lodge a report immediately and in my considered view, the prosecution has categorically established the delay in lodging report with the police. Apart from this, the evidence of P.W.1 is fully trustworthy and it has corroboration from Ex.P.1 as well as from the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6. P.W.5 and P.W.6 have no reason to depose false against the accused.
26) It is a case where it is not the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused caused any injuries with her. Her evidence is that the accused dragged her to tamarind trees by shutting her mouth. The accused did not elicit anything from the mouth of P.W.1 as to whether there were any probability and possibility for receipt of any injuries. Under the circumstances, the non-receipt of any injuries by P.W.1 in the hands of the accused, would not falsify her evidence. The very fact that the chappals and books of P.W.1 were lying on the road which were spotted by P.W.5 and P.W.6 goes to prove the fact that P.W.1 was dragged to tamarind trees with force by the accused. Hence, the contention of the accused that P.W.1 did not receive any injury, if the incident is really true, deserves no merits.
27) Coming to the decision in Mahadeo Kundalik Vaidya’s case (1 supra), the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench in the case under Section 302 of I.P.C. and taking into consideration the interested testimony of witnesses and enmity between the accused and the informant, found favour with the defence of the accused. The above said decision has nothing to do with the present case on hand, as the evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy and prosecution has explained the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 properly and the accused failed to probabalize the enmity between his father and the father of P.W.1.
28) Turning to Rajeevan’s case (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the background of enmity between two rival political parties and taking into consideration the fact that the police gone to spot within half an hour of the incident, considered the delay in lodging the report with suspicion and extended benefit of doubt and uphold the order of acquittal. Coming to the present case on hand, as pointed out the prosecution has explained the delay properly, as such, the above said decision is of no use to the case of the revision petitioner.
29) In Marudanal Augusti’s case (3 supra) dealt with facts that F.I.R. is held to be fabricated and brought into existence after the occurrence. The above decision is of no use to the case of the revision petitioner in the light of the detailed reasons furnished supra, believing the case of the prosecution.
30) A perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur goes to reveal that the learned Additional Sessions Judge took into consideration overall facts and circumstances and with proper reasons disbelieved the defence theory. It is not that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not meet with the contentions raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal.
31) Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the judgment, dated 25.07.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2005, does not suffer with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety, as such, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur.
32) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
33) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court on or before 24.04.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant and to report compliance to this Court.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.