LexRADHAKRISHNA NAGESH versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 11 S.C.R. 1114 RADHAKRISHNA NAGESH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No.1707 of 2009) DECEMBER 13, 2012 [SWATANTER .KUMAR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss.376(2)(f) and 363 - Rape - Of minor girl - Conviction of accused-appellant - Challenge to C - Plea of accused that serious contradictions between ocular and medical evidence materially affected the case of the prosecution - Held: Not tenable - In order to establish conflict between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, there has to be specific and material contradictions - Absence of D injuries on the body of the victim girl (PW2) not of any advantage to the accused - Absence of injuries on her back and neck can be safely explained by the fact that she was lured into the offence rather than being taken by using physical force on her - Preparation, attempt and actual act E on the part of the accused clear from the fact that he had purchased bangles which he had promised to her and thereafter had taken her into the tennis court store room, the key of which was with him - This is also corroborated from the recovery evidence - Merely because, some fact was not F recorded or stated by the doctor at a given point of time and subsequently such fact was established by the expert report, the FSL Report, would not by itself substantiate the plea of contradiction or variation - No reason to disbelieve the statement of PW2 that she knew the accused and that he G incited her and lured her to buying bangles and then took her to the storeroom where he committed rape on her - PW3 had seen the accused taking PW2 inside the tennis court store room and bolted the door from outside, and then went to report the matter - On way, he met PW1 (a police official), who H 1114 RADHAKRISHNA NAGESH v. STATE OF ANDHRA 1115 PRADESH accompanied him to the store room, brought both the A accused and PW2 to the police station, and got an FIR registered on his own statement, the investigation of which was conducted by PW11 - No reason to disbelieve the statements of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5(mother of PW2) and PW11, particularly when they stood lengthy cross-examination B without any material damage to the case of the prosecution. Penal Code, 1860 - ss.376(2)(f) and 363 - Rape - Of minor girl - Conviction of accused-appellant - Challenge to - Plea of accused that there was no direct evidence connecting him to the commission of the crime - Held: Not C tenable - On facts, presence of the element of mens rea on part of the accused cannot be denied - He had fully prepared himself - He first lured the victim girl (PW2) not only by inciting her, but even by actually purchasing bangles for her - Thereafter, he took the girl to a room where he threatened D her of physical assault as a consequence of which the girl did not raise protest - This is why no marks of physical injury could be noticed on her body - Absence of injuries in the context of the present case would not justify drawing of any adverse inference against the prosecution, but on the contrary E would support the case of the prosecution - Direct link of the accused with the commission of the crime well established by the statement of the witnesses, the recoveries made, the Medical Report and the FSL Report -Statement of PW2 credible, truthful and, thus, can safely be relied upon - Such F statement fully corroborated by the statements of PW1 and PW3, who were independent witnesses and had no personal interest or motive of falsely implicating the accused or supporting the case of the prosecution. Penal Code, 1860 - s.376 and Explanation to s.375 - G Rape - Penetration - Intact hymen - Inference - Held: The mere fact that the hymen was intact and there was no actual wound on her private parts not conclusive of the fact that she was not subjected to rape - Penetration itself proves the H 1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A offence of rape, but the contrary is not true i.e. even if there is no penetration, it does not necessarily mean that there is no r8pe - Penetration may not always result in tearing of the hymen and the same will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case - In the case at hand, it was B clear that there was limited penetration due to which probably the hymen of the victim girl (PW2) was not ruptured. Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Interference with - Principles - Held: Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.