JUDGMENT
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-8-2003 passed in Sessions Case No. 181 of 2000 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, whereby and whereunder the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found A-1 Chollangi Arjunarao alias Arjanna and A-2 Kukkala Srinu not guilty of the offence under Section 376(2)(g), I.P.C. and acquitted them accordingly.
2. The prosecution case in brief is:
A-2 Chollangi Arjunarao alias Arjanna, A-2 Kukkala Srinu and victim-Gonela Mangalakshmi (PW 1) are residents of Vella village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal. Their houses situate in close proximity with each other. On 25-9-1999 at about 10.00 p.m. the victim-PW 1 went to the panchayat public lavatory situated nearby her house to attend calls of nature. While she was on the way, the accused dragged her into the cattle shed of A-1, which is in front of her house. It is alleged that A-1 and A-2 threatened her at the point of knife, gagged her mouth with a cloth and thereafter, A-1 raped her followed by A-2. The victim returned home and informed her co-sister-in-law Gonela Nookaveni (LW 2), who in turn informed the incident to her mother-in-law Gonela Satyavathi (PW 2). The husband and the father-in-law of the victim, who have been examined as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively, were not at home on the night of the incident. On the next day, they returned home and learnt the incident. On 27-9-1999 at about 1.45 p.m. the victim-PW 1 presented Ex. P1 report before the Station House Officer, Draksharama Police Station. PW 9 S. Venkateswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Draksharama Police Station, received Ex. P. 1 report and registered a case in Crime No. 85 of 1999 for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) r/w. 34, I.P.C. and issued Ex, P9 FIR. PW 7 M.V. Satyanarayana Rao, Inspector of Police, Ramchandrapuram took up investigation, examined the victim-PW 1 and recorded her statement. He proceeded to the scene and observed the scene of offence in the presence of PW 5 Kommireddy Satyanarayana and prepared Ex. P2 scene of offence panchanama. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, which has been exhibited as Ex. P5. He did not find any incriminating material at the scene of offence. The victim-PW 1 was sent for medical examination. PW 8 Dr. Y. Naga Sivajyothi, medically examined PW 1 and collected vaginal smears and swabs for being sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. After receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, which has been exhibited as Ex. P7, she issued Ex. P6 report opining that there is positive evidence of recent sexual intercourse. PW 7 arrested the accused on 29-9-1999 and sent them to the Government Hospital, Ramchandrapuram, for potency test. PW 6 Dr. N. Venkateswara Rao medically examined A-l and A-2 and issued Ex.P3 and Ex. P4 certificates opining that there is nothing suggestive of their incapability to perform sexual act. After completing the investigation, PW 7 laid a charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramchandrapuram.
3. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as P.R.C. No. 1 of 2000 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, as the offence under Section 376(2)(g), I. P.C. is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as Sessions Case No. 181 of 2000 and made over the same to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramchandrapuram, for disposal according to law.
4. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed a charge under Section 376(2)(g), I.P.C. against A-l and A-2, read over and explained the same to the accused, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence with which they stood charged, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and proved 9 documents. The plea of the accused was one of total denial of the case. Apart from the denial, they also pleaded that the case was foisted against them so as to make the father of A-1 to remove the hut, wherein the alleged offence took place and the people belonging to opposite group successfully removed the hut after the alleged date of incident.
6. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 376(2)(g), I.P.C. and acquitted them accordingly, by judgment dated 26-8-2003. Hence, this criminal appeal by the State.
7. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents A-l and A-2.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that PW-1 is the victim and her testimony is cogent and consistent and therefore, the trial Court committed error in not placing reliance on her testimony to record conviction of the respondents A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 376(2)(g), I.P.C. A further submission has been made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the trial Court has magnified the trivial inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and thereby proceeded to record acquittal of the respondents A-l and A-2 and thus, this is a fit case to interfere with the acquittal and instead recorded conviction of the respondents-A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 376(2)(g), I.P.C.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents A-1 and A-2 submits that the version of the incident as spoken by PW 1 is highly improbable and more particularly in view of the houses of the victim and the accused being situated in close proximity. He would also contend that the incident is said to have taken place in the dead of night and in which case identification of the culprits in the commission of the offence is practically impossible.
10. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore, to be characterized as perverse. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
11. It is now well settled principle of law that conviction can be found on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The woman or girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime, but is a victim of another person’s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with certain amount of suspicion treating her as if she was an accomplice. No female will put her character at stake to implicate accused falsely, approach cannot be applied universally though might not be wrong.
12. PW 1 is the victim. She is a married woman. PW 3 is her husband. PW 1 testifies that on the night of the incident she was proceeding to the panchayat public lavatory to attend calls of nature and while she was on the way, the accused dragged her to the cattle shed of A-1 where A-1 raped her followed by A-2. It has come on record that there were no lights either at the panchayat public lavatory or at the cattle shed. It is not the case of PW 1 that she identified A-l and A-2 by hearing their voice. She stated before the Court that there was some light. Probably her statement before the Court is to convince that she identified A-1 and A-2 in that twilight. She admits in cross-examination of her omission in her police statement with regard to existence of twilight at the time of occurrence. According to her, A-1 and A-2 together raped her for about an hour in the cattle shed belonging to A-l. It is trite to note the topography of the scene of offence as explained by PW 1 herself. She stated in the cross-examination as follows:
…It is true, the Dulla Paka referred by me is one to the opposite to the house of A-2. It is true in between the two houses i.e. the house wherein my husband and myself is residing and opposite to it is separated by a small road which is width of about one metre as suggested. It is true the Paka referred by me is at a distance of four or five metres from my house. That shed is visible from our houses. On the date of incident it is not all dark and there is some lighting. I have not stated to the police it is all dark. I have not stated to the police “CHEEKATLO VELLU CHUNDAGA”.
13. It is elicited from the Investigating Officer in the cross-examination, that PW-1 stated before him that incident occurred while she was proceeding in dead of night. For better appreciation, I may refer the cross-examination of PW-7, who is the Investigating Officer, in his own words and it is thus:
…PW 1 has not stated before me that A-1 caught hold of her first and A-2 secondly. PW 1 stated before me that her husband and father-in-law came on the next day i.e. on Sunday morning to the house. PW-1 stated before me as “CHEEKATLO VELLUTUNDAGA”. It is true PW 1 has not furnished the descriptive particulars of the knife alleged to have been shown to her. The rough sketch also does not disclose from where PW 1 was taken away by the accused.
14. PW 1 has stated before the Police that the incident occurred in the dark night. While coming to the evidence, she stated that there was twilight so as to make the Court to believe of her identifying A-l and A-2 as the assailants. The rough sketch, which has been exhibited as Ex. P5, does not indicate of existence of any electric pole. Either the panch witness or the Investigating Officer stated of the existence of any electric pole at the cattle shed or some lightjn the cattle shed of A-1 where the alleged occurrence took place. Therefore, it is highly improbable for the victim to witness the specific overt acts of A-1 and A-2. The narration of incident by PW 1 indicates of its being quite unnatural. When her house is situated at a distance of four or five metres, she “would not have stayed in the scene for about one hour without making any effort to raise cries. Of course, she claims that the accused gagged her mouth with a cloth. But, the cloth said to have been used by the assailants of the victim did not find place at the scene of offence when the Investigating Officer inspected the scene of offence in the presence of the panch, who has been examined as PW 5. The very narration of the incident that the accused gagged her mouth with a cloth for about an hour speaks of its artificiality. The trial Court having taken into consideration various factors proceeded not to rely on the solitary testimony of PW 1. The trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for not accepting the version of the incident spoken by PW 1. I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the reasons assigned by the trial Court in discarding the evidence of PW 1.
15. Accordingly, this criminal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.