Sirivalla Srinivasa Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2009

SRIVALLA SRINIVASA RAO & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. The appellants, eight in number, were brought to

trial for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2g),

323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court

on a consideration of the evidence acquitted the

appellants for the offence punishable under Section 354

but convicted A1 to A3 under Section 376(2g) and imposed

a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment whereas a

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 2

fine of `1,000/- was levied for the offence punishable

under Section 323 IPC on all the eight accused. An

appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court and the

High Court reduced the sentence awarded to A1 to A3 from

ten years to seven years rigorous imprisonment and with

this modification in the order of the trial court,

dismissed the appeal. It is in this background the

present appeal has come before us for consideration

after the grant of special leave.

2. The facts of the case are as under:

2.1 At about 6:00a.m. on the 22nd of March, 1986 the

victim P.W. 1, left her village for village Pidana to

sell milk. As she was on her way she wa accosted by A1

to A3 who were coming from the opposite direction. They

abused P.W. 1 and beat her thereafter. They also took

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 3

her to the nearby field of one Chintalu and committed

rape on her. In the meantime, A4 to A8 also came there

and pointed out that it was not sufficient punishment

for her to be raped but she should also be given a

severe beating to teach her a lesson. All the accused

thereupon beat her still further. The cries of the

victim attracted some of the villagers who were closeby

and on reaching there they found that her clothes had

been torn and that she was in a traumatised state. The

villagers took her to her village where she narrated the

incident to her co-villagers and on their advice made

her way to the police station at about 8:30p.m. and

lodged a report with the Sub Inspector alleging the

facts as given above. The investigating officer then

visited the scene of occurrence and seized broken pieces

of glass bangles in the presence of witnesses. He also

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 4

arrested the accused and seized the clothes they had

been wearing at the time of the incident and also sent

A1 to A3 for their medical examination.

2.2 On the completion of the investigation, a charge

sheet was, accordingly, filed against the eight accused

for offences punishable under Section 376(2g), 114, 354

and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

and they were committed for trial to the Court of

Sessions and were, accordingly, charged and tried for

the aforesaid offences with the results already

mentioned above.

3. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, the learned counsel for the

appellants, has raised several arguments before us

during the course of hearing. He has first pointed out

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 5

that but for the self-serving evidence of P.W. 1, the

complainant who as also the victim of rape, there was no

independent evidence with respect to the involvement of

the appellants. He has also pointed out that the

medical evidence did not indicate the commission of rape

more particularly, as these injuries were no on the back

of the victim. It has also been urged that as the FIR

had been lodged belatedly the prosecution story had

been created in suspicious circumstances.

4. The learned counsel for the State of Andhra

Pradesh Mr. D. Mahesh Babu has, however, supported the

judgment of the trial court and the High Court and has

urged that no interference was called for as the courts

below had found that the primary evidence against the

appellants was that of the victim herself wherein she

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 6

had stated that she had been accosted by A1 to A3 who

had then carried her to the fields close by and raped

her and accused A4 to A8 had also arrived at the site

thereafter and all the accused had caused injuries to

her. We, further find that the statement of P.W. 1 is

corroborated by the statements of P.W. 2 and 6 who were

attracted to the place of incident on hearing the

shrieks of the victim. We are, therefore, of the

opinion that the statement of these witnesses inspires

confidence.

5. It is true that there appears to be some delay in

the lodging of the FIR but in a case of rape and that

too in a gang rape, some delay is inevitable. The

incident is said to have happened at about 6:00a.m. and

P.W. 1 had reached the police station at about 8:30p.m.,

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 7

the same evening and the formal FIR recorded a few hours

thereafter. She had also been subjected to a medical

examination at about 11:30p.m. and P.W. 12 Dr. C.

Anantha Lakhsmi, the lady Medical Officer, found that

the injuries on the victim had been caused during the

commission of rape. P.W. 12 also observed that the

saree and blouse of the victim had been torn and that

she had multiple injuries on her person including the

arms, chest and breasts. She also opined that injuries

could have been suffered within 24 hours or so. The

time factor also fully supports the factum of rape.

Moreoever, we see that the vaginal swabs taken from P.W.

1 had been sent for examination to the Forensic Science

Laboratory, Vijayawada which in its opinion rendered on

the 21st July, 1996, found semen stains thereon.

Likewise, the police officer had picked up broken glass

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 8

bangles from the place where the rape had been

committed. In this background, though there is some

delay in lodging of the FIR this can be over looked. A

victim of gang rape inevitably suffers acute trauma and

it is some time before such a victim is in a position to

make a lucid and sensible statement. Moreover, rape

itself brings enormous shame to the victim and it is

after much persuasion that a rape victim goes to the

police station to lodge a report and if some delay if

occasioned that cannot in any way detract from the other

credible evidence.

6. We thus find no merit in the appeal which is,

accordingly, dismissed.

.........................J

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 9

[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

.........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 14, 2011.