The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...RespondenUComplainant Counsel for the Appellant: Ms.Thota Siva Parvathi Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT : *:.."*.'r,.!ry, THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUR]DNIIER AND THE, IICT,YOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENIUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.4 3O of 2O19r JUDGMEI[T,: Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) Th s Clri;linai Appeal is frled by the ap tell lntT accused aggrieverl ,x, Jre judgment and sentence date,l 0i,.06 2Ol9 tn S.C. PCfi Nc.35 of 2OIZ, on the Iile of the A<tditional Metropol.trrrL S;essions Judge cum_special Judge for Trial of Cases und,,r I)-otection of Children from Sexu,el Cfferces Act, 2072, Hyd, ra:ad, for the offences under Sec._ion 5 (<), (l) of the Prote,:tion cf Children from Sexual Offences r\ct pOCSO Act), punis iii rle under Section 6 of the PCCS() A:t. and Sections ti7 5(I )(i),(1),(n) of rpC. 2. Hea.-d lr: lrned counsel for the appellant ard Sri M'vivekarra,drr Reddy, rearned Assistant pul,iic pro ;ecutor for respondt:nt -- State. perused the record.

3. PW.i; s rhe victim girl and her hearing antl speaking capabilitie s r'. -r: i1np.i1sd. pw.4 is the mother of the victim girl. PW.4 narrated that she was working as a mard in the house of one i:. !'.V. Sat5ranarayana Murthy, whc is examined 2 as PW.6. On 11.O8.2015, she went to the house of PW'6 along with PW.5. PW.4 was sick and left PW.5 in the house of PW.6 and then went to the hospital. She came back to the house and asked about the whereabouts o{ PW'5' PW 5 was not found. At about 05.30 P.M., PW'6 brought PW'5 to the house and stated that she was found at the Police gate' PW'5 was weeping at that time. On the next day, PW'4 went to the house of PW.6 and there she found the appellant was coming. PW.4 went out and she saw PW 5 weeping' On enquiry made by PW.4, PW.S informed her mother in sign language that a person came and knocked on the door and opened it, ald took her to Krishnakanth Park' Further' PW'5 was taken to Krishnakanth Park, where the security guard informed that one person brought PW' 5 to the park and stayed there till 05.30 P.M. in the evening' PW'4 went to the house of PW.6 along with PW'5' PW'5 pointed at the appellant and informed in sign language that the appellant was the person who took her to the park on 11'08'2O15' They immediately went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. Based on the narration given by PW'4' a Telugu 3 written c()rn f ,laint was lodged. Then, PW.li wrs r;ent to a Doctor ib.. t.::irmination

4. PVr'. 1r:) is the Doctor who examined p\.4,.5. Acccrding to PW. 10, h, ,liri not find any external injuries; or he: genitai. However. th: hymen of pW.5 was not intrct. Su abs and smears',vr.rr: r:ollected from her private part and sent for FSL examinatiol . Alter receiving the FSL report, p,,I/. 1 ) opined that there ,r : s evldence of penetration of the va5,ina and possibly a a rttempt to rape, as the under5larrtenr s tested positive lb. se rnen and spermatozoa.

5. Aftr:r _lr: complaint was Iiled, the appellzrnt was arrested orL 1t.O8.2015. Then, the test ident.hcatior parade was also cr;niucted and the appellant was identifiecj rv pW.5 as the I)e -scrr who took her to Krishnakanth I,ark on 11.08.20 t5 at 15.30 p.M.

6. On t.rt: tasis of the evidence coliectr:d during the course of th,, rnvestigation, the Investigating Of{icer /pW. 13 hled the cheLrlle-sheet for the offences punishirble under 4 : Sections 376(2\, 366, 342, and 506 of IPC' and Section 5 read. with Section 6 of the POCSO Act' 7 . The learned Sessions Judge, placing reliance on the evid.enceofPWs.4,5,6,B,andalsothecorroborating testimony of the Doctor, convicted the appellant accordingly'

8. The learned. counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that: 1) The prosecution has failed to prove that the age of PW'5 was less than I B Years; 2) Since the hearing and speaking capabilities of PW'5 were impaired, her evidence cannot be relied upon' as the identification of the appellant is doubtful; 3) The appellant, during the test identification parade' informed that he had taken PW'5 to her house' however' the mother/PW.4 falsely implicated him in a case' 4) During the test identification parade ' the appellant stated that his semen was taken and put on the garments of PW.S, for which reason, the FSL report was positive for semen and sperrnatozoa' I 5 5) Thr l,r;:;istant Director of the FSL was not ex: mined to prove tle FSL report. Even the Doctor, who exzimirred pW.5 at the ,la rriesjt point of time, opined that th,:rc were no external ir rj:.1 .jss on the private parts of pW.5.

9. On the other hand, the learned A,ssistanr public Prosecutr>r iv tuid submit that whatever was state< [ at the earliest por 11 cf time was narrated before the Cotrrt. lhere is corrobora ti n[] ,:r,idence by the Doctor, and the FSI, report clearly srlslgeri _s that rape had been comrnitted by the appellant orr I\V.S. pW.5 was examined beforr_. tl_re C)urt on two occasi:rr s . Initially when pW.5 was examrr ed on 17.O5.2015 sle identified pW.6 and also the appellart who was prese t1 j :: the Court. pW.5 informed by r;rgn s tI at the appellant c:oln:rr tted rape.

10. Learne,.l lj,:ssions Judge recorded the cem:anour of PW.5, where: n she expressed fear on her face after Looling at the appellzLn _. On the subsequent date, i.e., O.t.07 207g when pW.5 r,,.r r; examined with the help of Educator fi-orr: I,IIEpID, Bowenpally, for her speech and hearing diseLb;lit r.s. pW.5 stated that the appell;ent ren oved S recial 6 her dress and tried to penetrate into her private part' PW'5 identified the appellant, as well as the vehicle on which she was taken to the Park.

11. In the cross-examination, suggestions were put to PW'5 stating that the appellant did not touch her dress, however, no such suggestion regarding the appellant not committing rape was made during the trial while cross-examining any of the witnesses, the mother/PW.4, victim/PW'5, and the Investigating Officer. The argument regard'ing the incompetence of the counsel before the Court below cannot form the basis to infer that the appellant, did not commit the crime, especially when it was not even the case of the appellant during the examination under Section 313 Cr'P'C' that the prosecution had failed to prove the age of the victim' The argument that the prosecution failed in its duty to file documentary evidence regarding the age of PW 5, cannot be accepted.

72. The appellant is the relative of PW.6' PW'6 narrated as foilows: "While tte TLere retuming home at about 5-3O to 6- OO pm we salD the uictim girl at the ploce uthere Put-4 r.ft. *. 7 ,:1nd. l-,:'li trer in the aftemoon and the uictim girl/ pLu_ j tuc s !1 t_ut t totu.ards to my house uitn a tii i;;;r'": ,'";::, ,. Lzr ttrd and she utas ,,,: ,,oo .oi tl)i;;';;i,12.1::ixf i"\r:;,, r1 t'r.:. ,tltd PW-4 enquired tuith heir. er',),), ,i^)' , 't . ,ut on mg u.tork and .returned. n"r"' ,i' oi,oji,,,r, t I n,,, - At that time tn" u"ii )'ii *Zi'ri,i,,i,iZ,,i,,, I t,, ,ts some place and on thai ttri,;;;;,:,;;i,1r,:,, tDenr atong *ith- pW ;';;; urii!".,r,,].Ij. r t t,tl 't v, , , .,1? dtrections shou,t,1 bg rh_e uictim gi,itr.r)'rii, tu t..: , t luble to shou.t the atrec on or location On rhn 'r'.. : i t\c.back home and pW_4 ,,^i- a, t. t, their house. onthe next *o*'ing I,r,r.)"",rJ I ).( rr" ,s^11ss4 called me ouer phone and askert nrc ,t t. t,t, t ruas and t replied that i uas a n ,.?, I , thot he Luant to tatk to me.j Afirii,iii, I'i," ^-, ", thttr tt itt be at home tiU IO_OO (o.nt\' t tng home till I j_OO am. At arortnrl. ,; ;:.^: "^'B;i;,,,'ii.,,,:,:, , ' , , .ctcru2ed agoin colid' m) ,r"iii.,. i,lir, j .t. tir.1, . r"t : i him that I taas r uines on ht,t .,i, , .,,"a "a;;;.*;;"i:":a.njara l,','k'F' ." Ic b;;; ;''; #;:;';:;::;::::';:'l;rorz 't USed ASked me r .- " i',1 iZi i'i,,il,*' ! o*,X! Ly,:;, : :,,,i:l ;,,,, ;,,,,, i , , ! gtn .ro tumfor uthich he ub me *or i|, ,.ou :, .' tr.( tt t.tn qirl near Kishnakanth park i; ;;;' ,,;;r;.i:, el,e, n ( 1t around 6 OO nm r t. t u * i t ;,;' ; ; ;:.!," #!il,.o!;,*,a "ra'ili-r"), ,i,',1, s s o i' n q o t,, 71 11 u.t ;

11.08.2015. a-lso identified the a ppe llair t who 1 3. The lje c rr - tv Guard took pW.S r : Jre park on PW.Ei, Fw 5, and complainar. t pe r ticipated in the test identification p arade that was c tl d r r:ted by the Magistrate/pW. 13 Drrrin g the course of t]..c :est identification parade, tlLe epp:llant informed.th: Mag;istrate that he did not commit any olfence and that he h;rrl only taken pW.5, who was at Krishnalanth park, and d:o:p,rl her at her house, and that a false case 8 had been {iled. He also stated that the poiice had taken the clothes of pW.5 and forced him to put semen on the clothes of PW.S. As stated by the appellant, he had seen pW.5 at the park, and his semen was taken forcibly by the polce and put on the clothes of pW.5. Basing on the record, the appellant was arrested on 1g.Og.2015, whereas the Doctor/pw. 10 examined pW.S on l2.Og.2O7S, and on the same day, the undergarments of pW.5 were collected and sent for FSL examination. Since the wearing apparels were sent for FSL examination prior to the arrest of the appellant, the version given by appellant, that his semen was collected forcibly by the police and put on the clothes of pW.S cannot be accepted

14. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. However, keeping in view the age of the appellant and the other circumstance that the appellant is having dependents, we deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to ten (10) years for the offences under Sectio n 326(2)(i)(l)(n) of IPC and also Section 6 of pOCSO Act . ..1 .: : .:,). i I 9 15 Acccr 1irL1;1y, the Criminal Appeal is partly allow,:d, Mis:c l1a teous petitions, pending if an_v, ,rhall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/ f\+ B. SATYAVATHI INT REGISTRAR St.cflcN oFFtcER

1. The I Additional lr4etropolitan sessions Judge-cum-Spr:cial Judrle for Trial of cases unrler prltection of chirdren from sexuai offe ncer.' Act, 2012, Hyderabad (,,v11t- .ecords,

2. The Statior l rott;r: Officer, Jubilee Hills police Station. liyderaba d. 3. Two CCs t,; ,ne: F,ublic prosecutor, High Court for the Stat: of Telangana at Hyderabad [(. ) t-, 4. One CC to Nas Irota Siva parvathi, Advocate tOpUCl 5 Two CD Cc pi::s; '. if any) Kam/gh I I I I I l i I I i ' r,;*.-:.i \ { HIGH COIJIR'I DATED:291A,412025 JUDGMENI' CRLA.No.4:10 of 2019 Ji. r,'t l, 4;',: .r4: -) ) '\' 1 g JUN 2U5 I n -, . Crra ( {+ PARTLY ALtoWING THE CRIMII\IAL. APPEAL b E-t: