W' \ %4 APHC010106702014 ■ f ..lAa- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI or WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 233 OF 2014 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment passed in SC.No.155 of 2012 dt.28.02.2014 on the fiie of Assistant Sessions Judge, at Chodavaram, Visakhaptanam. Between : Katta Ravi Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 34 years, Occ:Police Constable, R/o. Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant AND State of Andhra Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor Amaravathi. High Court ...Respondent/Complainant lA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLAMP 350 OF 2014) Petition under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the praying that in the sentence passed in judgment in SC.No.155 of 2012 dt.28.02.2014 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, at Chodavaram, Visakhaptanam District, and enlarge the “petitioner on bail, pending the disposal of the Appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: APHC010106702014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.233 OF 2014 Between: Katta Ravi Kumar ...APPELLANT AND The State of AP., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the sole accused against the judgment dated 28.02.2014 passed in Sessions Case No. 155 of 2012 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, at Chodavaram. The accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 324 and 506 IPC. 2. 2 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.233 of 2014 3. By his judgment dated 28.02.2014, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, accordingly, convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. The accused was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 IPC and accordingly he was acquitted of the said charges. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows. The de facto complainant/victim (PW.1) is having extra marital relation with one Marturu Sanyasinaidu, who was working in a Bank. She lodged a complaint against the said Sanyasinaidu and basing on the same, a case was registered in Crime No.20 of 2011 of Chodavaram Police Station, for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, for which the said Sanyasinaidu committed suicide. In that connection, a case in Crime No. 17 of 2011 of Anakapalli Town Police Station, for the offences under Sections 306, 506 read with 109 IPC, was registered against the 4. i) 3 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.233 of 2014 de facto complainant. In that crime, as the de facto complainant was arrested and she was granted conditional bail, she used to visit Anakapalli Town Police Station on every Saturday to sign in the bail book. ii) Taking advantage of visit of the de facto complainant to the Police Station, the accused, who was working there as Constable, developed intimacy with her and on the night of 06.05.2011, at about 11.00 PM, the accused is alleged to have visited the house of the de facto complainant, entered into her house, picked up a quarrel with her, beat her with flask on her head, body and inflicted injuries on her body, pushed her on cot and torn her night gown and petty coat. When she fell unconscious, the accused is alleged to have raped her against her will and consent and also threatened her with consequences not to disclose the same to anybody. On the next day morning, when her husband returned home after attending his duty, the de facto complainant informed the incident and his advice, she went to the Police Station and statement. dire on gave her iii) Based on the said statement, PW.13 — the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.73 of 2011 of Chodavaram 4 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.233 of 2014 Police Station, under Sections 376, 324 and 506 IPC and the victim was sent to medical examination. PW.14 - the Circle Inspector of Police took investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P25 and examined the witnesses. Medical Officer, who examined the victim, opined that there multiple simple injuries on her body and there is evidence of recent sexual intercourse having taken place. The accused subjected to potency test and after completion of investigation, PW.14 filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. iv) up The are was 5. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chodavaram, after filing charge sheet, took cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 376, 324 and 506 IPC and numbered the same as PRC No.42 of 2011 and issued to the accused. summons 6. On appearance of the accused, as the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Sessions Division at Visakhapatnam and later the 5 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.233 of 2014 same was numbered as SC No. 155 of 2012 and made over the case to the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram, for disposal. On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 376, 324 and 506 IPC were framed against the accused, read over the contents and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26 and MOs.1 to 8. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. 10. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 11. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC, accordingly. 6 SRK, J CrLAppeal No.233 of 2014 convicted and sentenced him him of the charges under Sections 324 said conviction and sentence, the been preferred. as stated supra, while acquitting and 506 IPC. Against the present Criminal Appeal has 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ accused submits that the victim (PW.1) did not support the was treated as hostile by the prosecution: PW.2, who is the daughter of the victim, also did not prosecution case and she support the prosecution case and the prosecution has treated her as hostile; PW.3 is the minor daughter of the victim and has been stated by her with regard to the further submitted that PWs.4, 5, 9 be neighbours and VRO, did nothing alleged incident. He 10 and 11, who happened to not support the prosecution and they were also treated as hostile by the prosecution. case He submits that PW.7, who happened to be a mediator, also did not support the prosecution case and he was treated as hostile by the He submits that despite the prosecution. same, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, relying upon the evidence of PWs.12 and 14, the Medical Officer and convicted the accused. the Investigating Officer, He further submitted that the accused 7 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.233 of 2014 was subjected to potency test and the Doctor who issued the certificate was not examined by the prosecution. He submits that in the absence of any evidence that it is the accused who is responsible for the alleged rape on the victim, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge erred in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 376 I PC, hence he prays to set aside the said conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/ accused. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor * submitted that the evidence of PWs.12 and 14, the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer, is sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC, as their evidence is consistent throughout to the extent that immediately after the complaint that has been lodged by PW.1, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused. According to him, the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is on correct lines, which calls for no interference by this Court. 13. 14. Heard. Perused the record. 8 SRK, J CrLAppeal No.233 of 2014 15. PW.1, who is the victim, stated that she is living with her husband and children. She was an accused in a case registered by Anakapalli Town Police and she obtained bail in that case. As per the directions of the Court, she used to attend Anakapalli Police Station on every Saturday. She categorically stated that she does not know the accused in this case and she was seeing the accused for the first time in the Court. She further stated that about two years back on one day, she gave a report to the She identified her signature on the statement dated police. 07.05.2011. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1. about 2 years ago, when her husband left the She stated that house, during night time, one unknown person beat her on back side of her head and raped her by force. On the next day, she Station and her statement went to the Police was recorded by the police. A perusal goes to show that she did not depose anything against the accused that he is the person who of the said evidence committed rape on her. In view of the said reason, she was declared as hostile by the prosecution. Nothing much has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1. 9 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.233 of 2014 16. PWs.2 and 3 are the daughters of PW.1. absolutely nothing that has been elicited from their evidence. It relevant to mention here that PW.2 did not support the prosecution case and she was treated hostile by the prosecution. PWs.4, 5, 9, 10 and 11 also did not support the prosecution and they were treated as hostile by the prosecution. There is IS case PW.6 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town Police Station, who registered the case against PW.1 in Crime No.17 of 2011, under Section 306 IPC. According to him, PW.1 used to come to their Police Station every Saturday to sign in the register, and during that relevant point of time, the accused was working as Constable in the Police Station. He further stated that the accused might have developed acquaintance with PW.1 during that period. There is absolutely no certainty in the evidence of PW.6. 17. PW.7, who is the mediator, also did not support the prosecution case and he was treated hostile by the prosecution. PW.8 is the Photographer. PW.12 is the Medical Officer, who examined PW.1 and found as many as 10 injuries on the body of PW.1 and found no injuries on private parts. Ex.P18 is the 18. 10 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.233 of 2014 preliminary report given by PW.12. According to PW.12, PW.1 sustained simple injuries on her body and there is evidence of recent sexual intercourse having taken place. 19. PW.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, According to him, on 07.05.2011, while he Station, PW.1 Chodavaram. was in the Police came there at about 11.00 PM statement. He recorded her statement. and gave got its contents read to her and obtained her signature thereon, which i over IS marked as same, he registered a case in Crime and 506 IPC, and issued same, PW.14 - the Inspector of scene of offence and report under Ex.P24, examined completion of investigation, he EX.P22. Based on the No.73 of 2011, under Sections 376, 324 FIR EX.P23. Pursuant to the Police took up investigation, observed the prepared scene of observation i the material witnesses and after filed charge sheet. 20. Going by the evidence legal evidence to point the finger at the on record, there is absolutely accused. The learned no Assistant Sessions Judge, by relying Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer, as PWs.12 and 14, convicted the on the evidence of the who were examined accused of the offence under 11 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.233 of 2014 Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rl for ten years. In order to prove the offence under Section 376 IPC, it is essential that the victim has to identify person and depose the act committed by him on her. When the evidence given by PW.1 in the Court does not categorically reveal anything, it is not safe to convict the accused of the aforesaid offence. There is absolutely no legal evidence to show that it is the accused who committed rape on the victim. FIR is only to set the law into motion. Basing on the contents of FIR, without there being any piece of evidence supporting the same, the accused cannot be convicted of the grievous offence under Section 376 IPC. All the material prosecution witnesses, the neighbours and the mediators did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. Though it is quite evident, going by the evidence of PW.12, that there is evidence of recent sexual intercourse having taken place, it is not known as to who is responsible for the same. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has not 12 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.233 of 2014 properly considered the evidence convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused punishable under Section 376 IPC. judgment is liable to be set aside. on record and erred in of the offence Hence, the impugned 22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded in Judgment dated 28.02.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.155 of 2012 learned Assistant Sessions Judge, at Chodavaram, against the appellant/ accused of the offence punishable The appellant/accused i ' by the under Section 376 IPC. IS found not guilty of the charge under Seotion 376 IPC and is aocordingly aoquitted of the said offence, and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Fine shall be refunded to him. amount, if any, paid by the appellant/Accused 23. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand applications, if any, closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 • The Assistant Sessions District, (with records 2. The Superintendent, District. Judge, at Chodavaram, Visakhaptanam if any) Visakhapatnam Central Jail, Visakhaptanam 3. The Station House Officer, Chodavaram Police Station, Visakhaptanam District. 4. The Station House Officer, Anakapalli Police Station Visakhaptanam District. 5. One CO to Sri P Nagendra Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two GO'S to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 8. Two CD Copies SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:25/06/2025 JUDGMENT AND#y^ 5 ?5JUL 2025 CRLANo. 233 of 2014 m , Current Section . ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL