SRIVALLA SRINIVASA RAO & ORS. versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 14-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 118 
A 
SRIVALLA SRINIVASA RAO & ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 671 of 2009) 
B 
JULY 14, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
s. 376 (2) (g) - Gang rape - Three accused convicted of 
the offence - Pleas of non-corroboration of version of 
prosecutrix and delay in lodging the FIR - Held: The 
evidence of prosecutrix is supported by the evidence of two 
more witnesses who reached the place of incident on hearing 
0 her shrieks - Besides, the medical evidence indicating 
duration of injuries, the Forensic Science Laboratory report, 
the broken pieces of glass bangl&s recovered from the place 
of incident and the torn clothes of the victim fully support the 
factum of rape - If some delay is occasioned in registering 
E the FIR, that cannot in any way detract from the other credible 
evidence - Conviction and the sentence of seven years RI 
upheld - Evidence - Delay in lodging FIR. 
F 
G 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 671 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 9.4.2008 of the High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderbad in Criminal Appeal No. 
562 of 2000. 
Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellants. 
D. Mahesh Babu, Ramesh Allanki for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
118 
l 
SRIVALLA SRINIVASA RAO & ORS. v. STATE OF 
119 
A.P. 
ORDER 
A 
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 
8 
under Section 354 but convicted A 1 to A3 under Section 
376(2g) and imposed a sentence of 10 years' rigorous 
imprisonment whereas a fine of Rs. 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 
C 
the High Court reduced the sentence awarded to A 1 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 
D 
she was on her way she wa accosted by A 1 to A3 who were 
E 
coming from the opposite direction. They abused P.W. 1 and 
beat her thereafter. They also took 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 
F 
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 
G 
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 
H 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 
A the presence of witnesses. He also arrested the accused and 
seized the clothes they had been wearing at the time of the 
incident and also sent A 1 to A3 for their medical examination. 
2.2. On the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet 
8 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. 
c 
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 that but for the self-
serving evidence of P.W. 1, the complainant who as also the 
D 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 p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.