Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2009

SRIVALLA SRINIVASA RAO & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

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 under Section 354  

but convicted A1 to A3 under Section 376(2g) and imposed  

a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment whereas  a

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 2

fine of  `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 the  

High Court reduced the sentence awarded to A1 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 she was on her way she wa accosted by A1  

to A3 who were coming from the opposite direction.  They  

abused P.W. 1  and beat her thereafter.  They also took

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 3

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  

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 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 the presence of witnesses.  He also

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 4

arrested  the  accused  and  seized  the  clothes  they  had  

been wearing at the time of the incident and also sent  

A1 to A3 for their medical examination.   

2.2 On the completion of the investigation, a charge  

sheet 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.

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

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 5

that but for the self-serving evidence of P.W. 1, the  

complainant who as also the 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 particularly, as these injuries were no on the back  

of the victim.  It has also been urged that as the FIR  

had  been  lodged  belatedly  the  prosecution  story   had  

been created in suspicious circumstances.

4. The  learned  counsel  for  the  State  of  Andhra  

Pradesh Mr. D. Mahesh Babu  has, however, supported the  

judgment of the trial court and the High Court and has  

urged that no interference was called for as the courts  

below had found that the primary evidence against the  

appellants was that of the victim herself wherein she

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 6

had stated that she had been accosted by A1 to A3 who  

had then carried her to the fields close by and raped  

her and accused A4 to A8 had also arrived at the site  

thereafter and all the accused had caused injuries to  

her.  We, further find that the statement of P.W. 1 is  

corroborated by the statements of P.W. 2 and 6 who were  

attracted  to  the  place  of  incident  on  hearing  the  

shrieks  of  the  victim.   We  are,  therefore,  of  the  

opinion that the statement of these witnesses inspires  

confidence.   

5. It is true that there appears to be some delay in  

the lodging of the FIR but in a case of rape and that  

too  in  a  gang  rape,  some  delay  is  inevitable.   The  

incident is said to have happened at about 6:00a.m. and  

P.W. 1 had reached the police station at about 8:30p.m.,

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 7

the same evening and the formal FIR recorded a few hours  

thereafter.  She had also been subjected to a medical  

examination  at  about  11:30p.m.  and  P.W.  12  Dr.  C.  

Anantha Lakhsmi, the lady Medical Officer, found that  

the injuries on the victim had been caused during the  

commission of rape.   P.W. 12 also observed that the  

saree and blouse of the victim had been torn and that  

she had multiple injuries on her person including the  

arms, chest and breasts.  She also opined that injuries  

could have been suffered within 24 hours or so.  The  

time  factor  also  fully  supports  the  factum  of  rape.  

Moreoever, we see that the vaginal swabs taken from P.W.  

1 had been  sent for examination to the Forensic Science  

Laboratory, Vijayawada which in its opinion rendered on  

the  21st July,  1996,  found  semen  stains  thereon.  

Likewise, the police officer had picked up broken glass

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 8

bangles  from  the  place  where  the  rape  had  been  

committed.   In  this  background,  though  there  is  some  

delay in lodging of the FIR this can be over looked.  A  

victim of gang rape inevitably suffers acute trauma and  

it is some time before such a victim is in a position to  

make  a  lucid  and  sensible  statement.   Moreover,  rape  

itself brings enormous shame to the victim and it is  

after much persuasion that a rape victim goes to the  

police station to lodge a report  and if some delay if  

occasioned that cannot in any way detract from the other  

credible evidence.  

6. We  thus  find  no  merit  in  the  appeal  which  is,  

accordingly, dismissed.   

                       .........................J

Crl.A. No. 671 of 2009 9

    [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    .........................J      [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 14, 2011.