JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused against the conviction and sentence in S.C. No. 433/89 on the file of the Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. The appellant-accused was tried for an offence u/S. 376, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 12-5-88 at about 4 p.m. he raped P.W. 2 Gurram Murthamma, a girl aged about 10 years when she was in her Pillipesara crop land of her village. The court found the accused guilty of the offence u/S. 376 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer S.I. for 30 days. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence he filed the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows : P.W. 2 G. Murthamma is the daughter of P.W. 1. On the fateful day i.e. on 12-5-88 P.W. 2 was sent to the fields to watch the crop of Pillipesara. While she was in the Pillipesara crop, the accused V. Lakshminarayana came to that place and committed rape on the girl. After raping her the accused left the place. P.W. 3 and Venkayamma who came to the fields to answer calls of nature found P.W. 2 weeping and they also saw the accused going away from the fields. They went and reported to P.W. 1 that they saw P.W. 2 weeping at the fields. Then P.W. 1 along with P.W. 3 and Venkayamma went to the field and found P.W. 2 weeping and she was lying on the cot. Her clothes were bloodstained. P.W. 2 informed them that the accused raped her. Then P.W. 1 took P.W. 2 to the house and from there went to the Police Station and gave Ex. P-1 report to the Police at Narasaraopet. The medical examination revealed that the girl was forcibly raped. After investigation a charge sheet was filed and the accused was found guilty of an offence u/S. 376, IPC and he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned supra.
3. In this appeal Sri Anjireddy appearing on behalf of the appellant raised a very forceful plea to the effect that on the date of the offence the accused is a juvenile. Hence he should have been proceeded against under the Juvenile Justice Act, 53/86. The ordinary criminal court had no jurisdiction to try him and convict him in accordance with the normal procedure prescribed under the Criminal P.C. Only the authorities prescribed under Act 53/86 should have dealt with the matter. He contends that the convictions and sentences are vitiated. This argument is based on the following facts. According to the xerox copy of the date of birth extract produced before the court at the time of S. 313, Cr.P.C. examination the accused was born on 2-12-72. On the date of offence i.e. on 12-5-88 he is below 16 years of age. U/S. 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, ‘Juvenile’ means a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years. Hence the accused comes within the meaning of ‘delinquent juvenile’ as defined u/S. 2(e). Mr. Anjireddy contends that in view of the tender age of the accused u/S. 7(2) where no Board or Juvenile Court has been constituted for any area, the powers conferred on the Board or the Juvenile court by or under this Act shall be exercised in that area only by (a) the District Magistrate, (b) the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and (c) any Metropolitan Magistrate of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class as the case may be. The ordinary criminal courts have no jurisdiction. He relies upon certain provisions of the Act in support of this argument and also places reliance upon a few decisions. As regards the merits he contends that the Doctor did not find any external injuries on the girl. Hence it cannot be said with certainty that the girl has been raped in the field. This is a case which has been foisted due to factious politics. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 should not have been believed.
4. On behalf of the State the Addl. Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution case proceeded on the foot that the accused is aged 20 years. In every one of the documents the age of the accused is given as 20 years. When P.W. 4 the Medical Officer was giving evidence no suggestion was made to him to the effect that the accused is aged less than 16 years on the date of the offence. Only at the later stage of the case a xerox copy of the date of birth extract is filed and now it is claimed that the accused was born on 2-12-72 and hence he is a juvenile offender when the offence took place and when the trial took place. If the defence was particular to challenge the age of the accused as revealed by the prosecution records they should have asked the court to get him medically examined for determination of the age. No such effort was made by the defence. The Juvenile Justice Act 53/86 has no application, to the accused-appellant. As regards the merits, the Addl. Public Prosecutor points out that there is abundant medical evidence to establish the fact that this young girl aged 10 years was raped in a forceful manner. The evidence of the Doctor, P.W. 5 and the wound certificate Ex. P-4 clinchingly establish that the girl was raped in a very violent manner causing severe damage to her genitals. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 clinchingly establishes the fact that it was the accused who raped P.W. 2. There is absolutely no justification to doubt the findings of the Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. Considering the way in which the accused raped the girl the sentence is amply justified. No indulgence should be shown to an accused of this type.
5. The points for consideration are (1) Whether the Juvenile Justice Act (53/86) applies to the present appellant and whether the trial and conviction are vitiated on the ground that the trial was conducted in violation of the provisions of Act 53/86 ?
(2) Whether the prosecution evidence establishes the guilt of the accused for an offence u/S. 376, IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?
6. Point (1) :- It is interesting to see that this theory of the accused being a juvenile was brought into the picture at a very late stage. In Ex. P-1 report given at 11 p.m. on 12-5-88 to the Circle Inspector of Police at Narasaraopet it is clearly mentioned that the accused is aged about 20 years. In Ex. P-2 wound certificate it is clearly mentioned that the accused is aged 20 years. The Doctor clearly indicated that the hair over the mustache is black. No hair over the chin. Pubic hair is black. No smegma was present around corona glandis. When the Doctor who gave Ex. P-2 was examined as P.W. 4 he clearly stated that the age of the accused is 20 years as noted in Ex. P-2 certificate and that the said statement was furnished by the accused. He also indicated that the pubic hair will grow when the person is aged 15 years. The Doctor denied the suggestion that the accused did not state before him that he is aged 20 years. He also denied the suggestion that the accused is aged 15 years. No questions were asked to the Doctor to examine the accused who was in the dock and determine his age. If the defence contention that he is a juvenile is correct they would have certainly asked the Doctor to examine the accused and determine his age. A request also would have been made to the court to get the accused examined regarding determination of age. No such thing was done in this case. In the charge sheet filed in the case the age of the accused was mentioned as 20 years. Though P.W. 1 is the author of Ex. P-1 report wherein he specifically mentioned that the accused is aged 20 years, no questions were put to P.W. 1 to dispute the age given in Ex. P-1. When the Investigating Officer P.W. 9 gave evidence and when he specifically stated that he sent the accused before he was arrested to the hospital for medical examination, no questions were put to him regarding the age of the accused nor was any suggestion made saying that the accused was a juvenile or a delinquent juvenile and that his age is less than 16 years. Considering the fact that all the prosecution documents mentioned his age as 20 years I am fully convinced that the accused is aged 20 years, as certified in Ex. P-2 by the Medical Officer. There is no basis to doubt the allegation that he was aged about 20 years. Even the mediatornama Ex. P-7 clearly mentions that the accused is aged 20 years. It is my considered view that this theory of the accused being a juvenile is invested at the later stages of the trial with a view to avoid punishment. No credence can be given to this theory which is based upon the very slender evidence of a xerox copy of the date of birth extract produced at the time of S. 313, Cr.P.C. examination. I hold that the accused is not a juvenile as defined in S. 2(h) of the Act, Act 53/86. Act 53/86 has no application to the accused.
7. I shall also consider this argument from another angle. It is the claim of the defence counsel that as the accused was a juvenile on the date of the offence viz., 12-5-88 he should not have been tried by the normal criminal courts and that he should have been tried under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. A reading of the Act clearly indicate that the crucial date for determining whether an accused is a juvenile or not is the age of the accused on the date of the enquiry or trial and not the age at the time of the offence. S. 3 of the Act mentions that where an enquiry has been initiated against a juvenile and during the course of such enquiry the juvenile ceases to be such, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the enquiry may be continued and orders may be made in respect of such person as if such person had continued to be juvenile. The language of the section makes it clear that the date of enquiry is relevant to find out whether he is a juvenile or not. Chapter IV which deals with delinquent juveniles gives some other indications to show that the crucial date on which the age is to be reckoned is the date of trial. For instance S. 18 mentions of a person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence and apparently a juvenile, is (if) arrested how he should be dealt with. S. 22 mentions the orders that may not be passed against delinquent juveniles. It clearly mentions that no delinquent shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment or committed to prison. The proviso to S. 22 deals with the juveniles who had attained the age of 14 years and who had committed a serious offence and as to how to deal with such persons. S. 24 prohibits a joint trial of a juvenile and a person who is not a juvenile. A reading of the provisions of the Act clearly indicates that the age of the accused at the time of trial is relevant for application of this Act. In this case if we assume for a moment that he was really born on 2-12-72 then he would come within the category of a juvenile on the date of the offence. The investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed on 22-10-88. The Sessions Court took the case on file on 8-2-89 by which time the accused has ceased to be a juvenile because he would have completed 16 years of age by 2-12-88. A charge was framed by the Asst. Sessions Judge on 16-5-89 long after he ceased to be a juvenile even according to his contention. On the date of judgment and sentence i.e. on 5-9-89 the accused was not a juvenile. This is not a case where a juvenile was tried or convicted. Even assuming for a moment that his date of birth is 2-12-72 he is certainly not a juvenile at the time of commencement of the trial and at the time of sentencing him. The provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act do not apply to the accused. I make it clear that in this case there is abundant evidence to show that even at the time of the offence the accused was aged 20 years and this fact was not disputed by the accused till the last stages of the trial. I hold on point No. 1 that the Juvenile Justice Act, Act 53/86 has no application to the facts of this case and the trial is not conducted in violation of the provisions of the Act.
8. Point No. 2 :-
The evidence of the tender victim girl P.W. 2 clearly shows that when the girl was in the field the accused came to the field and raped her by introducing his penis into her vagina. She fell unconscious and her clothes were bloodstained. Ten minutes after the incident she became conscious and she was weeping. She clearly stated that Chamundeswari and Venkayamma came to the scene of offence after the incident to answer calls of nature. They went home and sometime later they along with her father came to the scene and that she was taken to Narasaraopet Police Station where P.W. 1 gave a report to the police. In the cross-examination except suggesting that she does not know the meaning of the words ‘Atyacharamu’ and ‘Agam’ nothing else has been elicited to discredit her evidence. It was suggested to her that at the instance of her father she is deposing falsely because of village factions. No human being would descend to the level of sacrificing the future of his young daughter by allegations of a rape like this for the sake of party factions. In the very nature of things that suggestion is most unjustified. P.W. 1 the father of the victim girl clearly stated that on that day after he sent the girl to the Pillipesara field to keep watch over the crop at about 4 p.m. P.W. 3 and Venkayamma came to him when he was at the house and informed him that they saw P.W. 2 weeping at the field. Then he went along with them to the field. He saw P.W. 2 lying on a cot and weeping and he found that her clothes were bloodstained. On questioning P.W. 2 informed him that the accused raped her. Then he took her to the house and from there to Narasaraopet and gave Ex. P-1 report to the police. The police sent her to the Govt. Hospital. He stated that he got Ex. P-1 drafted, to his dictation. Except suggesting that due to village factions he has falsely foisted this case, nothing else has been elicited from this witness to discredit his evidence. P.W. 3 Chamundeswari a girl aged about 15 years clearly stated that at about 4 p.m. she and Venkayamma went to the field of P.W. 1 to answer calls of nature and there they saw P.W. 2 weeping and then came and reported the matter to P.W. 1. She also stated that they saw the accused going away from the field. She categorically admitted that before reporting to P.W. 1 they did not talk to P.W. 2. The evidence clearly indicates that the girl is an educated girl who studied upto 10th Class and she is giving straightforward version. P.W. 5 the Lady Medical Officer who examined the victim girl P.W. 2 at 2-30 a.m. on 13-5-88 clearly stated that the hymen was torn irregularly. Bleeding on vagina present. Monspul is red swollen and tender. Libia minora are red inflammed and tender. Tear present in the posterior commissure of the vaginal orifice and the posterior vaginal wall. Vagine admits index finger with difficulty. She clearly states that Ex. P-4 medical certificate clearly reveals that there was rape on P.W. 2.
9. In this case the rape took place in the afternoon of 12-5-88. P.W. 2 was found weeping at 4 p.m. by P.W. 3 and Venkayamma and immediately they reported the matter to the girl’s father P.W. 1 and she was brought from the field and taken to Narasaraopet and Ex. P-1 was given by about 11 p.m. and her medical examination was done. Even the accused was apprehended on the very night and he was also medically examined that very night. The absence of smegma on the glans penis also known as carona glandis is a clear indication that he must have committed rape and that is the reason why smegma was not present. The medical evidence of P.W. 5 and the medical certificate Ex. P-4 clinchingly establish that rape committed on P.W. 2. The clothes of the girl were bloodstained. There was bleeding present on the vagina. There is absolutely no justification for doubting the prosecution evidence. The trial court rightly accepted the prosecution evidence and found that accused guilty of an offence under S. 376, IPC.
10. This is a case of a young girl of ten years being raped by a youth aged 20 years. The young girl who was sent to the fields to keep watch over Pillipesara crop was raped in a most brutal manner. No sympathy can be shown to an accused of this type. It should be remembered that in the rural areas solitary women would be doing the normal agricultural chores in the fields. If this type of accused are not dealt with properly there is no safety or security for the single woman who would be doing work in the fields. The sentence of 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- are perfectly justified on the facts of this case.
11. In the result the criminal appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence are confirmed.
12. Appeal dismissed.