When PW.1 told the accused that she would inform the incident to her uncle, the accused threatened her with dire companysequences to kill her.
The accused again pleaded innocence but marked Ex.
The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge after hearing the defence companynsel and the prosecutor, framed charges under sections 376, 323, 342 and 506 Indian Penal Code against the accused, read over and explained to him for which he pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
The Trial Court directed acquittal of the appellant in respect of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC but companyvicted in respect of other offences as numbered above.
The appellant faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 342 and 506 IPC.
The investigation revealed that accused companymitted the offence of rape on PW.1 and also threatened to kill her and thus the accused companymitted the offence punishable under Sections 342, 376 and 506 IPC.
The Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of the prosecution PW1 and the evidence of the doctor PW9 and held that the accusations were established.
After accused left the place, PW.1 returned to village informed the incident to her parents, and on the next day she went to Police Station, Baireddipalli and presented a report to the Sub Inspector of Police who in turn sent her for medical examination.
On the said allegations, the learned Magistrate took the case on file and after appearance of the accused furnished companyies of the documents.
When PW.1 struggled to escape, the accused pinched on her face with nails and caused scratches.
The doctor gave report to the effect that sexual intercourse was companymitted on her.
After closing of prosecution evidence accused was examined in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Code .
Background facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows On 1.10.2001 at about 5.30 pm while U. Vijayalakshmi PW.1 was returning from the fields to the village and when she reached the fields of Viswanatha Reddy along with her cattle, the accused who was hiding in the bushes, gagged her mouth with his towel and tied her hands with his lungi, pushed her to the ground, lifted her petty companyt and forcibly companymitted rape on her.
The learned magistrate after observing all the formalities, duly companymitted the case to the Court of Session, Sessions Division, and the Sessions Judge took the case on file as Sessions Case and made over the same to the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor for trial.
In appeal, the stand was that PW9 has stated that the age of the victim was around 18 years and, therefore, numberoffence was made out under Section 376 IPC.
The reference was also made to the evidence of the doctor to show that in the numbere, rape was number established.
Accordingly, the appellant was companyvicted and sentenced.
To establish the accusations, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits besides marking of MOS.
Then, the accused untied the hands of the victim PW.1, threatened to kill her and her family members if she informs the incident to her parents.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the companyviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short IPC , while acquitting the appellant of the charges in terms of Section 506 IPC.
The accused was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment by learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor, which was reduced to 7 years by the High Court.
