The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant :Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri, legal aid Counsel Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment ..lf THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1O37 OF 2O1O JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused, challenging the conviction recorded by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, in SC.No.165 of 2OO7 dated

28.O6.20LO, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appeliant/accused for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1O,000/-

2. PW. 1 is the father of the victim girl-G.Latha, examined as PW.3. He lodged a complaint on 0 I .O I .2007 stating that on

29.12.2006, at about 12.30 P.M., while PW.3 was in the house, the appellant, who was his neighbor, called her to his house, and committed rape on her. The matter was taken before the elders, thereafter, a complaint was frled with the Police. Then, PW.3 was sent to the doctor for medical examination.

3. PW. 1 I is the doctor who examined the victim girl, and PW. 1 1 stated as follows: -:i 2 "The said girl has not attained her pubertg. I did not find ang external injuries either on her bodg or on her piuate pants. But I found that her hgmen utas ruptured in posteior mid line intemallg and the uagina uas admitted one finger. Tendentess was also present in the uagino apart from reddish black bleeding from the uagina. As such I haue taken the uaginal suabs and smeors and preserued the same to send to the FSL. I receiued the FSL report uide Ex.P6 and on the basis of the report of the FSL i.e. Ex.P6 and my examination of the said uictim, I opined that "the rape cannot be ntled out in connection uith the said uictim girl, i.e., PW.3."

4. The appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence of rape, and the charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge for the said offence. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on the basis of the evidence of PW.3 and other corroborating evidence.

5. Learned Legal Aid Counsel, Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri, appearing for the appellant, would submit that the complaint was frled with a delay of 3 days, and the reasons for the delay were not explained. The medical evidence does not support the version given by PW.3. No semen or spermatozoa was found on the swabs that were collected from the PW.3. PW.f admitted that there were disputes between them, and that on account of the long pending 3 disputes, a false case was Iiled- Further, PW. 1 admitted that they were not on good terms, as such, the question of PW.3 going to the house of the appellant does not arise.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that there is no reason why a false complaint would be filed against the appellant. Involving the victim girl, who was around 11 years old, in such a case only to take revenge against the appellant cannot be believed

7. The incident happened on 29.72.2006, and the complaint was lrled three days thereafter, i.e., on OI .OL.2OO7 . According to PW. I on the date of the incident, the family members had discussed the issue, and on 30.12.2006, the caste elders were informed. Since on 31.12.2006, it was the Yellamma festival, the complaint was fiIed on the next day, i.e., on O1.01.2007.

8. PW. 11-doctor, who examined PW.3, stated that the girl had not attained her puberty and her hymen was ruptured. There was reddish black bleeding from the vagina. The opinion of the doctor was that rape could not be ruled out. Since 3 days had passed before the examination, the question of finding semen or spermatozoa on the swabs collected from PW.3 does not arise. The doctor further stated that PW.3 had not attained her puberty; as 4 such, the question of bleeding from the vagina on account of menstrual cycle does not arise.

9. Though, it is admitted that there were disputes between the families, however, such disputes cannot form basis to infer that PW. t had lodged a false complaint only to take revenge. The reason for the dispute, according to PW. 1, is the land that lies between the houses of the appellant and the accused's family. It was a iong-pending dispute, and for the reasons of this ongoing dispute, it cannot be said that PW. t has fabricated a false case against the appellant involving his 1 1 years old daughter

10. The version of PW. 1, stating that the incident occurred on

29.12.2006 and the complaint was filed three days thereafter, in fact, lends credibility to the version of PW. 1 and PW.3, supported by medical evidence. If PW.l wanted to falsely implicate the accused, he would not have stated the date of incident as three days prior to lodging the complaint. The complaint and the evidence of PWs.l and 3 would reflect that the appellant had raped the victim girl. The delay was properly explained, and the reason for not finding any semen or spermatozoa on the swabs collected from PW.3 is of no consequence. It is not necessary that :-:?--=I=t4= *7 5 ,/ there should be ejaculation of semen to make out an offence of rape.

11. Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: "375. Rape.-A man is said to commit "rg.pe" if he- (a) penetrates his penis, to anA extent, into the uagina, mouth, urethro or anus of a woman or makes her to do so tuith him or ang other person; or (b) inserts, to anA ertent, any object or a part of the bodg, not being the penis, into the uagina, the urethra or anus of a u)omon or makes her to do so utith him or any other person; or (c) manipulates onA part of the bodg of a utoman so as to couse penetration into the uagina, urethra, anus or ang part of bodg of such woman or makes her to do so u-tith him or any other person; or (d) opplies his mouth to the uagina, anus, urethro of a woman or makes her to do so tuith him or ang other person, under the circrumstonces falling under any of the following seuen desciptions:- First.-Again.st her uill Secondly.-Without her consent Thirdlg.-With her consent, tuhen her consent hos been obtained by putting her or anA person in u.thom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthlg.-With her consent, uhen the man knouls that he is not her htsband and that her consent is giuen because she belieues that he is another man to uLhom she is or belieues herself to be lawfully morried. i4 6 *ffi Fifihlg.-With her consent uhen, at the time of giuing such consent, bg reason of unsoundness of miid or intoxication or the administrotion by him personallg or through another of ang stupefging or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she giues consent. Sirthly.-With or uithout her consent, when she is under eighteen gears of age. Seuenthly.-When she is unable to communicate consent Explanation l.-For the purposes of thi-s section, "uagina" shall olso includc labia majora. Explanation 2.-Consent means an unequiuocal uoluntary o.greement when the woman bg uords, gestures or ang form of uerb al or non-u erbal co mmunication, commu nicate s uilling ne s s to participate in the specific sexual act: Prouided that a woman u.tho does not phgsicallg resist to the act of penetrotion shall not bg the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual octiuity. Exception 1 .-A medical procedure or interuention shall not constitute rape. Exception 2.-Sexual intercourse or sexual acts bg a man u.tith his own u-tife, the uife not being under fifieen Aears of age, is not rape."

12. The evidence of the doctor (PW.11) is consistent and corroborates the evidence of PW.3 regarding the actions of the appellant. 7

13. There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. The conviction of the appellant/accused in SC.No. 165 of 2OOZ d.ated 2g.06.2010 is confirmed. I4 Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Kamareddy 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy, Nizamabad 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlaplly, Medchal-lVlalkajgiri District 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. One CC to SRI RAVI KUMAR VELURI, Legal aid Counsel [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ADKJ?SI- Vtr HIGH COURT DATED:0210412025 I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1037 of 2010 iriE S;. ,l , f ,, luL ?ots .-.., a/ '(.P -z P .-,--. DISMISSING THE CRLA I ,?qd &(',