State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Jalapathi Subbarayudu and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 1996
Petitioner: State of Andhra Pradesh
Respondent: Jalapathi Subbarayudu and Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 1996
Judges: Y.K. Sabharwal &
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, JJ.
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 19, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 376, 452, 506, 143 with Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Rape – Evidence – Appreciation – Incident in night of 4th and 5th of July, 1989 – FIR lodged on 10th – Explanation given that husband was out – After 14 hours of his return, complaint lodged – Two sons of prosecutrix, aged 10 and 8 years sleeping in same room on separate cot – No noise by them – House of prosecutrix in the middle of the village – External injuries, only abrasions. Held that version of prosecutrix is doubtful, though delay in lodging FIR may not by itself be fatal. Acquittal upheld. (Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. The assistant session judge found respondents-accused, five in number, guilty of offence under sections 376 (1), 452, 506 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code. They were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each for the offence under section 376 (1) I.P.C. in addition to fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. For offence under section 452 I.P.C., sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment was imposed on them and for offence under sections 506 and 143 I.P.C., fine of
Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively was imposed and in default, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal was filed by the accused before the High Court. The High Court, on appreciation of evidence, by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal. The conviction and sentence awarded to the respondents was set aside. The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the evidence, in particular the evidence of the prosecutrix – P.W.1. The incident of rape had allegedly taken place on the intervening night of 4th and 5th July, 1989. The first information report was lodged with the police station on 10th July, 1989. The police station is about 4 kms. away from the place of occurrence. According to the version of the prosecution, at the time of occurrence two minor sons of P.W.1, who were examined as P.Ws 2 and 3 were sleeping in a separate cot in the same room where the offence is said to have taken place. Their ages at the time of occurrence were 10 years and 8 years respectively. According to the version of the prosecution, they did not raise any alarm or informed anyone on account of threat given to them and one of the accused having threatened them with a knife. There are houses close to the house in which P.W.1 was staying at the time of the incident. The house is in the middle of the village as per the testimony of the investigating officer – P.W.8. The reason for delay in lodging the report to the police is said to be the absence of the husband of P.W.11 from the village. The husband was examined as P.W.4. He is said to have gone out of the village to purchase buffaloes, being in the business of sale and purchase of buffaloes and after his return the report was lodged with the police after about 14 hours of his arrival. The doctor was examined as P.W.6. According to P.W.6, the external injuries were of about one week prior to the examination. Those injuries were in the nature of abrasions.
4. It is no doubt true that in these matters, the delay by itself cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but that will depend upon other facts and circumstances of the case. The fate of the case primarily hinges upon the testimony of P.W.1. With a view to satisfy our conscience, we have minutely examined the said testimony besides the testimony of other witnesses, referred to above. On examination of the evidence on record, it is not possible for us to come to the conclusion in this appeal against acquittal of the accused that the view taken by the High Court is in any manner unreasonable, let alone perverse. The High Court has rightly, on appreciation of evidence, has come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 is highly doubtful and we see no reason to reverse the well founded conclusion of the High Court in the impugned order.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
6. The bail bonds against the accused stand discharged.
1. The assistant session judge found respondents-accused, five in number, guilty of offence under sections 376 (1), 452, 506 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code. They were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each for the offence under section 376 (1) I.P.C. in addition to fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. For offence under section 452 I.P.C., sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment was imposed on them and for offence under sections 506 and 143 I.P.C., fine of
Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively was imposed and in default, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal was filed by the accused before the High Court. The High Court, on appreciation of evidence, by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal. The conviction and sentence awarded to the respondents was set aside. The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the evidence, in particular the evidence of the prosecutrix – P.W.1. The incident of rape had allegedly taken place on the intervening night of 4th and 5th July, 1989. The first information report was lodged with the police station on 10th July, 1989. The police station is about 4 kms. away from the place of occurrence. According to the version of the prosecution, at the time of occurrence two minor sons of P.W.1, who were examined as P.Ws 2 and 3 were sleeping in a separate cot in the same room where the offence is said to have taken place. Their ages at the time of occurrence were 10 years and 8 years respectively. According to the version of the prosecution, they did not raise any alarm or informed anyone on account of threat given to them and one of the accused having threatened them with a knife. There are houses close to the house in which P.W.1 was staying at the time of the incident. The house is in the middle of the village as per the testimony of the investigating officer – P.W.8. The reason for delay in lodging the report to the police is said to be the absence of the husband of P.W.11 from the village. The husband was examined as P.W.4. He is said to have gone out of the village to purchase buffaloes, being in the business of sale and purchase of buffaloes and after his return the report was lodged with the police after about 14 hours of his arrival. The doctor was examined as P.W.6. According to P.W.6, the external injuries were of about one week prior to the examination. Those injuries were in the nature of abrasions.
4. It is no doubt true that in these matters, the delay by itself cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but that will depend upon other facts and circumstances of the case. The fate of the case primarily hinges upon the testimony of P.W.1. With a view to satisfy our conscience, we have minutely examined the said testimony besides the testimony of other witnesses, referred to above. On examination of the evidence on record, it is not possible for us to come to the conclusion in this appeal against acquittal of the accused that the view taken by the High Court is in any manner unreasonable, let alone perverse. The High Court has rightly, on appreciation of evidence, has come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 is highly doubtful and we see no reason to reverse the well founded conclusion of the High Court in the impugned order.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
6. The bail bonds against the accused stand discharged.
