IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING OF CASES
RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL
Friday, this the 4th day of June, 2021
PRESENT:- Smt.P.Mukthida,
Special Judge For Fast Tracking of Cases
Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum- IX Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal
SESSIONS CASE NO.204 OF 2018
(in Cr.No. 5/2018 of P.S. Kodakandla)
1.Name and description of:The State of Telangana through the complainant.SHO of P.S. Kodakandla
2.Name and description of:Md. Haneef @ Aneef, S/o. Althaf, the accusedAge: 28 years, Occ: Grameen Dhaak Sevak (Extra Department- packer) at Sub Post Office, Kodakandla, R/o. Ellanda Village, Wardhannapet Mandal.
3.Offence charged:Offencespunishableunder Sections 376 (2) (b) (m) and 506 of IPC
4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.
5.Finding of the Court: The accused is found not guilty for the charges u/ss. 376 (2)(b)
(m) and 506 of IPC and he is acquitted of the said charges u/s. 232, Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as provided under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
6.Conviction, sentence or: Acquittal acquittal
7.Name of the Counsel forSri M. Anjaiah, the prosecutionAdditional Public Prosecutor representing the State
8.Name of the Counsel for:Sri C.Vidyasagar Reddy accusedAdvocate for the accused
This case is coming on 01.06.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Anjaiah, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri C. Vidyasagar Reddy, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
1/22
S.C.No.204/2018
J U D G M E N T
The Circle Inspector of Police, Kodakandla laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 05 of 2018 for the offences under sections 376 (2)
(b) (m) and 506 of IPC .
2.The allegations of prosecution are that:
(i)The victim/PW1 is the daughter of PW2 and younger sister of PW9.
She is a resident of Kodakandla Village and Mandal and owing to congenital heart disease, she has undergone heart surgery twice and was getting physically disabled pension. She has been collecting her pension amount of Rs.1500/- per month from Kodakandla Sub Post Office. The accused is working as Grameen Dhaak Sevak (Extra Department Packer) in Kodakandla Sub Post Office since 2015. He used to disburse pension to the beneficiaries previously but due to some reasons, PW3, who is Post
Master of Kodakandla Post Office, has changed the accused in the month of August, 2016 and gave the charge to PW4 to disburse the pension. The accused had an evil eye on PW1 and to satisfy his lust on her, waited for an opportunity.
(ii)On 23.11.2017, PW1 went to Sub Post Office to collect her pension and gave her pension book to the accused but he, with an intention to fulfill his lust, kept her pension book aside. When PW1 asked him that pension amount was disbursed to the persons who came after her, the accused replied that the accounts entered into her book were not correct and that she has to stay for sometime. At about 14.00 hours the staff members PWs 3 and 4 and others went to have their lunch and taking it as an advantage, the accused called the victim/PW1 to the last room inside the Post Office and caught hold of her hand and expressed his lust upon her but she denied stating that she had undergone surgeries and 2/22
S.C.No.204/2018 was suffering from ill health. However, the accused threatened her with dire consequences and forcibly committed rape on her and further threatened her not to inform the same to her parents. Out of fear of the accused, PW1 did not inform the same to her parents.
(iii)On 16.01.2018, PW1 suffered from severe vaginal bleeding and went into unconscious state and immediately her mother/PW2 and elder brother/PW9 shifted her to Government Maternity hospital, Hanamkonda and admitted her for treatment. PW8 diagnosed her and noticed that she had conceived and that the conception was aborted causing bleeding.
When she questioned PW1 about her conception, the latter disclosed about the rape incident to her and, in turn, PW8 informed the same to
PWs 2 and 9 and after discussing with their relatives, PW2 informed the matter to the S.I. of Police/PW13 through phone.
(iv) On receiving telephonic information from PW9 on 24.01.2018, PW13 made G.D.entry and visited the Government Maternity Hospital,
Hanamkonda, along with PW5, and on his instructions, PW5 recorded the statement of PW1, read over the contents to her and then obtained her signature on the statement. PW13 returned to P.S. Kodakandla at 15.30 hours on the same day and registered a case in Cr.No.5/2018, U/sec.
376(2)(b)(m) and 506 of IPC and issued Express FIR, sent it to the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Thorrur and submitted copies to all the concerned.
On receiving information about the FIR from PW13, PW14 collected the case diary and took up investigation of the case. He visited the scene of offence at Post Office, Kodakandla and secured the presence of PW7 and
LW11/Banoth Somanna and examined the scene in their presence and incorporated all its physical features and drew rough sketch in Crime
Detail Form. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs 3 3/22
S.C.No.204/2018 and 4 and collected attested copies of pension payments made at
Kodakandla Sub Post Office on 23.11.2017 and further collected
Attendance Register for the month of November 2017 from PW3. PW14 visited Government Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda on 25.01.2018 and took permission of Duty Doctor, and on his instructions, PW5 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 under video coverage with the help of private photographer/PW6. Later, PW14 examined and recorded the statements of PW2, PW5, PW6 and PW9. On receiving reliable information,
PW4 along with PW13 and staff rushed to the house of accused situated at Ellanda village, Wardhannapet Mandal on 26.1.2018 and apprehended him at 1730 hours. On interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. PW14 brought the accused to P.S.
Kodakandla, effected his arrest and produced him before the concerned
Magistrate for judicial remand.
(v) On 27.01.2018, PW14 visited Kodakandla and recorded statements of
PW10 and LW8/Sudagani Anasurya. PW8 gave medical examination report and final opinion stating that there was evidence that PW1 had sexual intercourse, that she has conceived and has taken abortion from RMP and admitted at GMH in shock with incomplete abortion which was with 30
PRBC transition & emanation of produce of conceiving done and discharged with completed recovery on 25.01.2018. On the requisition of
PW14, the then Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad,
LW13/Ms.Radhika Jaiswal recorded the statement of victim under 164
Cr.P.C. PW11 examined the accused and issued potency certificate that the accused is potent. On the requisition of PW14, the Inspector of Posts,
Warangal, North Subdivision/PW12, who is the appointing authority of accused, accorded permission to prosecute the accused in this case. After 4/22
S.C.No.204/2018 completing investigation, PW14 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/sec. 376 (2)(b)(m) and 506 of IPC.
3.The accused is examined u/s. 228 (1) Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, charges u/ss. 376(2)(b)(m) and 506 of IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.To prove the complicity of accused, the prosecution has examined
PWs 1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12. Ex.D1 is marked for the defence through PW14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW8/ Sudagani Anasurya who along with the accused used to collect pension at the Sub Post Office Kodakandla, LW11/
Banoth Somanna who is one of the mediators to CDF and LW14/Ms.
Radhika Jaiswal, Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad who recorded the statement of victim under 164 Cr.P.C.
5. The accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied but reported no defence evidence.
6.Perused the written arguments filed by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and heard the learned counsel representing the accused through Video Conference. Perused the material on record.
7.The points for determination are :-
1. Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the charge u/sec. 376 (2) (b) (m) of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?
2. Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the charge u/sec. 506 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?
5/22
S.C.No.204/2018
Points No.1 and 2 :- The points no.1 and 2 being inter-related, they are discussed together for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition of evidence.
8.PW1 is the victim. PW2 and PW9 are the her mother and elder brother respectively. PW3 and PW4 are the Sub-Post Master and
Employee respectively in Sub Post Office, Kodakandla village at the relevant time. PW5 has recorded the statement of victim before and after registration of the crime and PW6 has videographed her statement. PW7 is a mediator to the scene panchanama and Crime Details Form. PW10 is the Rural Medical Practitioner who prescribed tablets to the victim. PW8 has examined and treated the victim at Government Maternity Hospital,
Hanamkonda while PW11 has conducted potency test on accused and issued report. PW12 is appointing authority of the accused and accorded permission to prosecute him. PW13 registered the crime and PW14 has investigated the case.
9.The defence of the accused is of total denial.
10.The prosecution case is that the victim/PW1 suffered from congenital heart decease and having undergone heart surgeries twice, she was taking physically disabled pension amount of Rs.1500/- pm from
Kodakandla Sub Post Office; that when she went to the said Post Office on 23.11.2017 to collect her pension and gave pension book to the accused, who kept an evil eye on her, the accused asked her to wait till the other staff went to have their lunch at 14.00 hours and took her into the last room inside the Post Office, caught hold of her hand and forcibly committed rape on her and threatened her not to inform the same to her parents. It is also the case of prosecution that on 16.01.2018, when the victim suffered from bleeding and became unconscious, she was admitted 6/22
S.C.No.204/2018 in Government Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda whereupon PW8 diagnosed her and found that she had undergone abortion and questioned PW1 about it, upon which she disclosed the incident to the said Doctor and the Doctor, in turn, informed to the mother and brother of the victim, consequent to which the matter was reported to police.
11.The evidence of PW1 in this regard is that she went to the Post
Office in Kodakandla village in November, 2017 as usual to take the pension amount, that 4 persons who came after her were given pension
before her and when she asked the accused about it, he asked her to wait
and thereafter he dragged her into the third room inside the Post Office and raped her, that she raised hue and cry but there was no one around, that she pleaded him to leave her stating that she was heart patient but he did not consider the same but threatened to kill her and her family if she informed them about the rape and hence, out of fear, she did not inform about the incident to anyone. The further evidence of PW1 is that she did not get periods in that month and informed the accused about it and he advised her to go to PW10/RMP and when she visited him, he checked and told her that she was pregnant and gave tablet after taking which she suffered from bleeding and fell sick and unconscious and then her family shifted her to Government Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda.
PW1 further deposed that the Doctor informed her mother that she was pregnant and took tablets for causing abortion and when they questioned her, she informed them about the incident and gave statement to the police who visited the said hospital and later gave statement before the
Magistrate in Mahabubabad under Ex. P2.
12.It was elicited in the cross examination of PW1 that there are about 4 or 5 staff in the said Post Office and they take lunch break from 12.00 7/22
S.C.No.204/2018 noon to 3.00 pm, that about 500 people take pension from that Post
Office, that during rush time pension is distributed from across the counter but if there were a few people to take pension, they will be called inside the Post Office to take the amount. PW1 admitted that except for the person distributing the pension, there will not be any kind of interaction between other staff of the Post Office and the pensioner and further admitted that PW4 has been distributing pension in the said Post
Office for the past 2 or 3 years till date. PW1 voluntarily stated that she has been taking pension since the time of PW4 only.
13.It is the further evidence of PW1 that whenever pension is distributed, entry will be made in the pension pass book and computer receipt will be maintained by the staff, which contains details of making the payment and time of payment. She further stated that PW4 was not present on the relevant date and therefore, she took pension from the accused but has not revealed the same before the police. It is further elicited from PW1 that the premises comprising the Post Office has four portions, out of which the Post Office is run in two rooms and two families reside in rest of the two portions and there is a common wall between the
Post Office and residential portions.
14.With regard to the incident, PW1 stated that the accused dragged her by holding her right hand and when she questioned him, he asked her to come inside to sleep with him or else he would kill her but she did not question his intention and raised alarm but none came as there was no one around and she followed the accused as he threatened her and she did not try to escape from him. However, she further stated that the incident of rape took place for two hours but she did not resist the accused as she was frightened since the accused threatened her. It is also 8/22
S.C.No.204/2018 the evidence of PW1 that she never met the accused after November, 2017, that she had her periods normally in December, 2017 and that she missed her periods for the first time in January, 2018. She asserted that she did not meet the accused and did not talk to him after November, 2017.
15.It was elicited from PW1 that she went inside the Post Office at 1.00 pm and by the time she came out, the staff and other pensioners were not present. She has also stated that she was given pension before the accused called her inside the Post Office but again voluntarily added that the accused opened the door and gave her pension just before she came out. She denied the suggestion that she took pension by putting her thumb impression on 23.11.2017 at 10.40 am and left the Post Office. She further denied knowledge whether pension was distributed to 239 pensioners of Kodakandla village on 23.11.2017 between 9.25 am and 1.32 pm and whether 98 pensioners were disbursed pension between 4.06 pm and 7.02 pm. She has also denied the suggestion that only PW4 has handled POTD machine on that day and that the Sub Post Master was engaged in operating the computer till 2.40 pm and that the Post Office staff did not leave the premises at any point of time before 7.02 pm on the relevant date.
16.The evidence of PW2 and PW9 is that they took PW1 to Government
Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda on 16.01.2018 as she was suffering from severe bleeding and after about one week, i.e. on 23.01.2018, the Doctor who treated PW1 informed them that PW1 suffered miscarriage and enquired them but they denied knowledge and on questioning PW1, she told them that when she went the Post Office to take pension, the accused raped her by taking her inside the Post Office forcibly and 9/22
S.C.No.204/2018 threatened her not to inform anyone about it or else he would kill her and her family, and so they discussed with their relatives and informed the police on 24.01.2018, upon which a woman Police Officer of Kodakandla came to the hospital along with C.I. and examined PW1.
17.It was elicited from PW2 by the learned counsel for accused that she did not observe any change in the health or behaviour of PW1 until the day she was admitted in hospital and that police examined her on the date of recording statement of PW1 in the hospital. Though PW2 denied the suggestion that she has not informed the police that PW1 told her and
PW9 that the accused raped her by taking her inside the Post Office forcibly and threatened her not to inform anyone about it, the investigating officer PW14 admitted the said omission. The 161 Cr.P.C.
statement of PW2 reveals that she and her son PW9 came to know about the incident from the doctor and then questioned PW1, upon which she informed them that out of fear of accused she has not revealed the incident to them. Thus, the evidence of PW2 about the incident of rape is based on hearsay information from PW8 and is not direct and is an omission amounting to material contradiction.
18.It was elicited from PW9 that they had no knowledge as to what had happened to PW1 until the Doctor informed them about the condition of
PW1 on 23.01.2018 and they took PW1 to their house on 24.01.2018 after the police examined her in the hospital. PW9 further stated that he did not enquire PW1 about the incident until after 15 days after her discharge from the hospital but police examined him and his mother on the same day of examination of his sister. Thus, the evidence of PW9 with regard to the incident of rape is also an omission amounting to material contradiction.
10/22
S.C.No.204/2018
19.The evidence of the then Sub Post Master PW3 is that he went to
Post Office, Kodakandla as usual on 23.11.2017 and opened the office, that five staff including himself worked there, out of whom PW4 disbursed pension to 239 pensioners on that day and completed their work by 6.00 pm and left the office, and later he came to know about the complaint against the accused. He further stated that he gave Attendance Register and also List of Pensioners who received pension on 23.11.2017, from their on line portal, to the police. It was elicited in his cross examination that the accused worked as Packer in their Post Office and was not concerned with distribution of pension.
20.The evidence of PW4 is that he has been working as Grameen Dhak
Sevak in Kodakandla Post Office for the past 5 years and distributed
Aasara pensions in the Post Office. He further stated that he came to know two years ago about the complaint against the accused that he raped PW1, that he distributed Aasara pensions as usual on the relevant date and after completing the work, he locked the Post Office and went home. He denied knowledge about the incident as alleged by PW1. It was elicited in his cross examination that he distributed pension up to 5.30 pm on that day. He admitted that pensioners do not have access inside the
Post Office and that pension is distributed across the window counter in the Post Office.
21.The evidence of PW5 is that on the instructions of PW13, she proceeded to Government Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda and recorded the statement of PW1 and handed over the same to PW13 and again on 25.01.2018, she recorded the statement of PW1 in P.S. Kodakandla. It was elicited in her cross examination that she was working in PS Palakurthy at the relevant time and was summoned by PW13 by phone call, that she 11/22
S.C.No.204/2018 has recorded both the statements of PW1 on her narration and that a female Doctor was was present at the time of said recording.
22.PW6 testified that he has videographed the statement of PW1 when it was recorded by WPC at Government Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda in his video camera and transferred the contents of that video to C.D. and handed over to the police. He further stated that he did not mention the date and time of recording as well as copying into C.D., though he himself copied the contents into C.D.
23.PW7 testified that the police, Kodakandla conducted scene observation panchanama at 5.00 p.m on 24.1.2018 at the Post Office,
Kodakandla and drafted rough sketch of the scene in Crime Detail Form under Ex.P5 in the presence of himself and his friend LW11/Banoth
Somanna.
24.PW8 is the Doctor who treated PW1 when she was admitted in
Government Maternity Hospital. Her evidence is that PW1 was admitted on 16.1.2018 at 12.06 am for bleeding from vagina with a history of unconsciousness and on examining her, she was found to be severely anemic but was coherent, that her pregnancy test was positive and her general condition improved with 3 units of blood and then evacuation of products was done on 18.01.2018 and after recovery, PW1 gave history of 3 months’ pregnancy and taking MTP pills with the prescription of RMP in the village and that PW1 recovered completely on 24.01.2018 and was advised for discharge and on the requisition of concerned police on 25.01.2018, MLC was done and PW1 was discharged on 25.01.2018 and that she gave final opinion under Ex.P6.
25.It was elicited in the cross examination of PW8 that as per the final opinion Ex.P6, that was given basing on the case sheet of PW1, it was 12/22
S.C.No.204/2018 recorded that PW1 had 3 months’ pregnancy as per her statement and that PW1 did not mention anything that the intercourse was against her will. PW8 admitted that the time of sexual intercourse should be more than 3 months to carry a foetus of 3 months age and further stated that by the time PW1 was admitted in their hospital, the abortion process was incomplete as she was given abortifaciants by RMP.
26.The Rural Medical Practitioner/RMP is examined as PW10. His evidence is that about 3 years ago, PW1’s mother brought her with complaint of fever and PW1 had also complained of bleeding and so he referred her to Government Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda without examining her and that later he came to know about this case from the police.
27.PW11 worked as Assistant Professor in Department of Forensic
Medicine, Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal at the relevant time. He testified that on the requisition of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thorrur, he conducted potency test to the accused on 21.04.2018 and gave certificate under Ex.P7 that the accused is potent.
28. PW12 testified that he was working as Inspector of Posts, Warangal
North Sub Division during the relevant time and and on the requisition of
Inspector of Police, P.S. Palakurthy, he gave sanction to prosecute the accused for this crime of P.S. Kodakandla, under Ex. P8.
29.PW13 testified that on receiving telephonic information from PW9 in the morning hours of 24.01.2018 that his sister was raped by the accused and that she was undergoing treatment in Government Maternity
Hospital, Hanamkonda, he gave telephonic information to PW5, who was working in P.S. Palakurthy to go to the said hospital and record the statement of victim since there was no woman Police Constable in his P.S.
13/22
S.C.No.204/2018 and he has made G.D entry simultaneously and visited that hospital and that by the time he reached there, PW5 came and recorded the statement of victim after he took permission from the Duty Doctor. He further stated that PW5 handed over the victim’s statement to him at about 1.45 pm and he returned to the P.S. and basing on the said statement, he registered a case and issued express FIR at about 15.30 hours and intimated PW14 for the purpose of investigation.
30.During cross-examination, PW13 admitted that the details of telephonic information received by him and making G.D. entry was not mentioned in the FIR and also in the endorsement made on the statement of victim but denied the suggestion that the name of accused was deliberately got included in the statement of victim.
31.PW14 is the Investigating Officer in the case. He testified as to the manner of investigation done by him. During cross examination, he admitted that he did not verify the List of Pensioners who received payment on 23.11.2017, given by PW3 under Ex.P11, with the online data and could not say whether Ex.P11 list was extracted from online or was it prepared manually and further admitted that there is no time of disbursement in Ex.P11. On being confronted with extract of Online List of pension payments/ Ex.D1, PW14 admitted that according to it pension was distributed to PW1 at 10.40.48 am on 23.11.2017.
32.PW14 has alsoadmitted that the scene of offence building consisted of three portions, of which two are residential portions and one is occupied by the Post Office. PW14 denied knowledge as to the number of staff who worked in that Post Office at the relevant time but admitted that the accused was entrusted with duties of Dhak Sevak, which comprised of packing and dispatching. PW14 further admitted that the 14/22
S.C.No.204/2018 accused was no way concerned with disbursement of pension and that the duty of disbursement of pension was entrusted to PW4 even as per the statement of PW3 recorded by him and that even PW4 gave statement before him that he (PW4) has disbursed pensions on 23.11.2017 on the instructions of Post Master.
33.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed written arguments wherein he submitted that as per the evidence of PW1, the accused dragged her into the Post Office and raped her forcibly without her consent though she pleaded to him to leave her as she is a heart patient but he threatened to kill her and her family not to inform the same to anyone. He relied on the presumption U/sec. 114A of the Indian
Evidence Act to presume that PW1 did not consent for the intercourse.
34.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the decision in Mukesh Vs. State of Chhattishgarh reported in 2016 (2)
SCJ 603 in support of his argument that the sole testimony of a witness is sufficient to establish the commission of rape even in the absence of corroborative evidence and there is no prohibition in law to convict the accused on the basis of her sole testimony. He has also relied on the said judgment to support his argument that mere delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground by itself by throwing the entire prosecution overboard but the Court has to seek an explanation for delay and test the truthfulness and plausibility of the reason assigned and if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, it cannot be against the prosecution.
35.The Additional Public Prosecutor further relied upon the Judgment in
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny reported in 2017 (3) ALT (Crl.) 73 (SC) to stress the point that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling 15/22
S.C.No.204/2018 reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the
Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict the accused. He has also relied upon the judgment in Pushpanjali Sahu Vs. State of Orissa and another reported in AIR 2013 SC 1119 that protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence and that sexual crimes against women need to be dealt with sternly and severely. He further relied on the judgment in Wahid Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
AIR 2009 (4) Crimes 265 wherein it was held that corroboration is immaterial where the evidence of prosecutrix is credible and consistent.
The learned Additional PP further submitted that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 to 14 is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to convict the accused as per the law.
36.Per contra, the learned counsel representing the accused relied upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Santhosh Prasad @ Santhosh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443 and Rajoo & others Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2008) 15 SCC 133 in support of his argument that when there are material contradictions and even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place, the version of the prosecutrix is not believable and she does not pass any of the tests of sterling witness. The learned counsel further asserted that the evidence of prosecutrix coupled with the evidence of remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution discloses that there was absolutely no chance for the accused to give pension to the victim on the relevant date since the accused was not at all concerned with the job of disbursing pensions at the Sub Post Office, Kodakandla as on the relevant date and 16/22
S.C.No.204/2018 month. Referring to Ex.D1, which is relevant portion in the online data obtained from the department portal, the learned counsel argued that
PW1 has taken pension on 23.11.2017 at 10.40.48 am and therefore, there was no necessity for her to stay in the Post Office until 14.00 hours and that the prosecution has not rebutted Ex.D1. He argued that the scene is not an isolated place but is thronged by pensioners and staff of the Post Office apart from families residing adjacent thereto and hence, the happening of incident itself is unbelievable. The learned counsel further argued that even according to PW1, she has not met the accused at any time after November, 2017 and she has had her periods normally in December 2017 and missed her periods in January 2018 and hence, there cannot be any relationship between the pregnancy allegedly aborted by PW1 in January, 2018 to the incident of rape allegedly committed by the accused in November, 2017 and that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence alleged and prayed to acquit the accused.
37.The prime and only witness to rape is the victim herself. However, her evidence is clouded by several inconsistencies and material contradictions as can be observed from the above detailed version of
PW1. She stated that she had given her pension pass book to the accused to get the pension amount on 23.11.2017 but has also admitted that PW4 was entrusted with the duty of disbursement of pension at the relevant time. She has asserted that only PW4 was disbursing pensions to the beneficiaries even before 23.11.2017 and that she has been taking pension since the time of PW4 only. Though PW1 has voluntarily stated in her evidence that PW4 was not present on that date and hence, she took pension from the accused, she again admitted in cross-examination that 17/22
S.C.No.204/2018 she did not state the same before the police. Hence, the said evidence is a material contradiction. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 corroborates her that only PW4 was entrusted with the duty of disbursement of pension but not the accused, who was working as an Extra Department Packer. The extract of Attendance Register Ex.P4 discloses that PW4 was present in office on 23.11.2017 and the evidence of PW3 is that until their duties are completed, the staff of that Post Office were not permitted to leave.
Therefore, considering the admissions of investigating officer PW14 and the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4, it is proved that the accused was not entrusted with duty of disbursing pensions in Sub Post Office, Kodakandla as on 23.11.2017.
38.According to PW1, she was made to wait in the Sub Post Office,
Kodakandla up to 2.00 pm by the accused to give her pension and only when the other staff went for lunch, he took her inside the Post Office and forcibly committed rape on her. However, a perusal of Ex.D1, which is the list of Social Security Pension payments made on 23.11.2017 in Sub Post
Office, Kodakandla taken from the Postal web portal, reveals that PW1 has taken pension at 10.40.48 am on 23.11.2017. Admittedly, PW14/
Investigating Officer has not verified whether Ex.P5 list given by PW3 tallied with the online data correctly or not. Ex.P5 also did not contain details like time of payment of pension but has only reflected the account number, date of transaction and transaction reference, apart from the account holders’ name. Ex.D1 is not rebutted by the prosecution. Hence, this Court relies on Ex.D1 to hold that the contention of PW1 that she was not paid pension until 2:00 pm on 23.11.2017 is disproved.
39.That apart, according to PW1, the incident of rape lasted for about 2 hours and that no one was around though she raised alarm. The evidence 18/22
S.C.No.204/2018 of both PW1 and PW14 in cross examination reveals that the premises comprising the Post Office consisted of three portions, one occupied by the Post Office and two by residential portions and that there is a common wall between the Post Office and residential portions. The same is evident from the rough sketch in CDF/Ex.P5. Ex.P5 discloses that 239 beneficiaries were made payments on 23.11.2017 at Kodakandla Sub Post
Office and Ex.D1 discloses that the payments were made even after 6:00 pm. Therefore, likelihood of commission of the offence, as alleged by
PW1, for a long period of two hours in a room in the scene office building, which is not an isolated place, appears to be unlikely.
40.The evidence of PW8 coupled with her Final Opinion Ex.P6 shows that PW1 had intercourse and conceived and has taken abortifaciants from RMP and was admitted in Government Maternity Hospital,
Hanamkonda on 16.01.2018 in shock for incomplete abortion and that products of conception were evacuated and discharged from hospital on 25.01.2018. It is further recorded in Ex.P6 that as per information given by PW1 at the time of admission, she was three months’ pregnant as confirmed with urine test by RMP in her village. However, the same is contradicted by the evidence of PW1 in cross-examination that she had her periods normally in December, 2017 and also by the evidence of PW8, that to carry a foetus of three months age, the intercourse should have been before that time. Thus, there is no reliable evidence on record, either oral or medical, to conclude that PW1 had conceived only after the alleged incident on 23.11.2017.
41.In the instant case, PW1 herself stated that she did not meet the accused at any time after November, 2017. The investigating officer
PW14 has admitted the suggestion of defence that PW1 has not stated 19/22
S.C.No.204/2018
before him that on knowing that she missed her periods, PW1 approached
the accused and he advised her to meet the RMP/PW10 and that when the latter gave tablet, she suffered miscarriage. Thus, it is clear that PW1 did not meet the accused at any time after November, 2017 and termination of her pregnancy at the instance of accused is ruled out.
42.In the case of Mukesh Vs. State of Chhattishgarh suprarelied on by the learned Additional PP, the Hon’ble Court has also referred to its observations in another case that conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony; however, in case the Court has reason not to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration and in case the evidence is read in its totality and the story projected by the prosecutrix is found to be improbable, the prosecutrix’s case becomes liable to be rejected. The Hon’ble Court further held that Court must act with sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the entire case and not in isolation. Similarly, in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny supra relied on by the learned Additional PP, the Hon’ble Court found that the evidence brought on record contained positive proof, credible sequence of events and factual truth linking the respondent with rape of the prosecutrix and criminally intimidating her and held that corroboration was not required, unlike in the case on hand, wherein the victim’s evidence has been inconsistent in material details. Hence, the said judgment is of no avail to the prosecution.
43.Having regard to the case of prosecution justifying the delay in reporting the matter to police, the evidence of PW1 is that she has not informed anyone about the incident due to threat from the accused that 20/22
S.C.No.204/2018 he would kill her and her family if she informed anyone about it. However, the said reason seemed to be unreliable since PW1 did not meet the accused at any time after November, 2017 and it is not her case that the accused had influenced her by any other mode like calling her on phone or communicating with her by any means to keep her under threat continuously. PW1 was living along with her mother at the relevant time and had she intended, she would have informed her family about the incident but she did not do so until the Doctor PW8 enquired her in the hospital in January, 2018. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec. 506 IPC and further failed to justify the unreasonable delay in launching criminal action on the incident.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of accused for the charges framed against him beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. The points are, accordingly, answered.
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges u/Ss.
376 (2)(b)(m) and 506 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted of the said charges u/s. 232, Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as provided under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
(Dictation given to the Steno and after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 4th day of June, 2021)
Special Judge For Fast Tracking
Of Cases Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum-IX Additional
Sessions Judge, Warangal.
21/22
S.C.No.204/2018
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For prosecution:- For Defence:-
P.W.1- Victim -None- P.W.2- M.Sarojana P.W-3- Mohd. Khaleel P.W.4- E. Anil P.W.5- K. Priyanka P.W.6- R. Murali P.W.7- B. Mohan P.W.8- Dr. Radhika P.W.9- M.Yakanna P.W10-A. Narsimha Raju P.W11-D.Shaik Kaza Moinuddin P.W12-K.Harikrishna P.W13-Y. Satyanarayana, S.I of Police P.W14-K.Karuna Sagar Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:- Ex.P.1 is the Statement of Victim/PW1 Ex.P.2 is the 164 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3 is the Signature of PW5 on 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P.4 is the Crime Detail Form Ex.P.5 is the Rough Sketch Ex.P.6 is the Final opinion given by PW8 Ex.P.7 is the Potency Certificate Ex.P8 : Sanction order dt: 23.4.2018 Ex.P9 : FIR Ex.P10: Extract of Attendance Register for the month of November, 2017 Ex.P11: Copy of List of Pension payments made at Kodakandla Post Office, dt: 23.11.2017. Ex.P12: Discharge Record of PW1 along with out-patient tickets and report. For Defence:-
Ex.D1: Relevant portion in online List of Social Security Payments made in Post Office, Kodakandla, dt.23.11.2017
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
- Nil -
Special Judge For Fast Tracking
Of Cases Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum-IX Additional
Sessions Judge, Warangal.
22/22