The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. vs Peeka Yesupadam

Radhakrishna Rao, J.—This appeal is filed against the judgment in SC 17/89 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, dt. 18-12-1989, acquitting the accused u/s 376 IPC.

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 12-10-1987 the accused asked P.W.1 to follow him to the field with fertiliser bag and on the way the accused took her to a lonely place and asked her to keep the bag on the ground. After she kept the bag on the ground the accused caught hold of her and committed rape. On hearing, her cries P.W.2 came there and she also witnessed the offence. The prosecution in all examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and marked EXs.P-1 to P-8. The learned Judge found that no case has been made out and the finding is based on the medical evidence. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the evidence of the prosecution is Convincing, the question of seeking corroboration does not arise. But in this case the medical evidence does not corroborate with the version of P. W. 1. The evidence of the doctor P. W7 shows that P.W1 had sexual intercourse 48 hours prior to her examination and there was no spermatozoa in the specimen sent for. P.W.8 who had examined the accused also stated that there was no sexual intercourse on day of his examination. P.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that she informed Pitchi Reddy, who was the Grampanchayat President. If that is true, Pitchi Reddy, who is the material witness was not examined and non-examination of material witness is a serious infirmity to the case of the prosecution. In cases like this when a married lady alleges that rape has been committed and where the medical evidence does not corroborate her version and totally excludes the possibility of committing rape, benefit of doubt can be given to the accused. Hence, the court below was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused u/s 376 I.P.C. There are no grounds for interference and the Criminal appeal is dismissed.