The High Court · 2025

Judgment

THE; HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINALAPPEAL No. 123 OF 2()13 JUDGMENT: This appe al is liled by the appellants/Al to A3 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs zurd STs (PoA) Act-cum-Add1. Session s Judge, Khammam, in S.C.No.20 of 2012, dated 04.01.201|i, for the offences under Sections 376(2)(9), 384 and 506 r/vr'.34 of the Indian Penal C,rrle and sentenced to Rigorous Imlrrisoninent lor a period of sr:ven years and to pay a fine of Rs 3,00O,/ - for the offence under Siection 376(2)(9) of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under iiection 384 r /w.34 of Indian Penal Code; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two yei,rs for the offence uncler Siection 506 r /w.34 of the Indian Pe nal Code Further, all the sentences shall run concurrently

2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddiu, learned c,sunsel for the appellalts L alri 3 and Smt.Avula Krishnaveni, learnr:d counsel for appellant I',1o.2; learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the respondent Statr: 2

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on IO.9.2O11, at 3:30 PM, PW. 1, the victim, lodged a complaint in Telugu (Ex.pl) at P.S Edulla Bayyaram. In her complaint, PW. 1 stated that she was studying in Intermediate 2nd year at Khammam. On 9.9.2011, at about 4:3O PM, she boarded an RTC bus from Khammam and reached Manuguru at around 12:30 AM. Upon inquiry, she learned that there were no buses available to Eturnagaram, so she decided to go to her relative Durgam Ravi (PW.4) at Jaggaram. She engaged an auto, bearing number AP 20 Y 8925 with top No. 349, and was the sole passenger. During the journey, two other persons boarded the auto. As they proceeded towards Jaggaram, the auto was diverted towards Rajupet road. When PW.1 objected, the auto driver and the other two occupants threatened her with dire consequences and took away her China-made Gild cell phone with SIM No. 9603944133, a rolled gold chain, rolled gold ear studs, and Rs.1,20O/- in cash. The accused then stopped the auto and committed rape on her one after another. After the assault, they brought her to Illapur stage, dropped her off, and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone before fleeing towards Manuguru. PW. 1 subsequently 'uvent to the house of Chappidi Padma Rao in Jaggaram and stayed there for the night. The next day, she informed Chapp idi Padma Rao (PW.3) about the incident, r.i&:.:'{*:'.. 't&ixr:::i&,?::,1'rii' . who advised her to report the matter to the police. P1M.l stated that she coulrl recognize th,e accused and describetl them as follows: onr3 $ as stout and dark complexionecl, aged about 22 years; the second was fair-skinned, aged about 18 year-s; and the third was learL, aged about 18 years. She also mentioned that during their ccnversation, they addressed each.other as Nagaraju and Teja. PW. I further stated that the offense occurred around midnight.

4. Upon re<:e:iving the complaint, a case was registered AS Crime No. l;7 l:2()71 by PW.14 under Sections 376,(9) an'd 384 read with Sectior-r 3.1 of IPC, and FIR (Ex.P19) was issued. F'W. 14 then informed PW.l7', who was holding additional charge of Edulla Bayyaram Circle

5. PW. 1?' took up the investigation, examined PW. 1 and her relatives (PWs.2l to 4 and LWs.3 and 5), anct reco.rded their statements. PVI .17 then proceeded to the crime scene, as pointed out by PW. l, and in the presence of mediators P\M. 13 and LW. 1O, conducted a so€ne of offense panchanarna in CDIF, drerw a rough sketch, and seized one torn panty of the victim. Further, in the presence of mediators PW.7 and LW. 13, PW. 17 sr:ized the semen- stained clothe:; of PW.1-MO.4 (pant) and MO.li (top)-under a 4 .,: cover of seizure panchanarna. PW. 1 was thereafter referred to Area Hospital, Bhadrachalam, for medical examination by the Lady Medical Officer (PW. 11), who issued reports (Ex.P15 and Ex.P16).

6. On I2.9.2OI1, at 9:30 AM, A1 to A,3 were apprehended at Ambedkar Centre, Manuguru, along with the crime vehicle, and were brought to Manuguru PS. Al-Gujja Nagaraju (22 years old), A2-Md. Waseem Akram (18 years old), ald A3-Shetty Sai Teja ( 18 years old)-confessed to committing the offense and taking PW. 1's cell phone (SIM No. 9603944133), rolled gold chain, rolled gold ear studs, and Rs. 1,200/- in cash 7 . During the investigation, it was revea-led that PW. 1 belonged to the Nethakani caste, which falls under the SC category, whereas A2 and A3 belonged to non-SC/ST communities. Consequently, PW. 17 added Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sent a memo to the Hon'Lrle Court requesting the addition of relevant provisions of the Act alongside Sections 326(2)(9\ and 384 read with Section 34 IPC. PW.17 then informed PW. 15 over the phone, and PW. 15 apprised the Superintendent of Police, Khammam, of the case details, requesting authorization to take up the investigation. PW. 15 was subsequently instructed to proceed with the investigation. 5 B. Upon ver:.frcation, PW. 15 found PW. 17's investiga.tion to be on correct line:s. PW.15 then examined A1 to ,A.3 arLd, in the presence of P\V.S and LW.15, recorded their confess;ional and recovery staterrrents. Based on A1's confession, semen-stained cut drawer of A1 and a rolled gold chain (MO.3) were seized from A1's possession. From A2's possession, a China-made Gild ce1l phone with SIM No. 9503944 133 (MO. 1) and a cut dra.*'er \\.r:)re seized. From A.3's possession, an auto (AP 20Y8925, top No. 349), gold ear studs (MO.2), and a cut drawer were seized. P\il.15 also examined and .rr:corded the statements of PWs.1 to 6 and LWs.3, 5, and 9.

9. Thereafter, A1 to A3 were arrested and referrerl to Area Hospital, Bhadrachalam, for potency tests ancl prese rvation of their blood ancl semen samples for FSL examination. PW.9, the Surgeon, examined A1 to A3 and forwarded their trlood zrnd semen samples for Ftll, testing. Upon receiving the FtiL rep,ort, PW.9 opined that there vuas nothing to suggest that A 1 to A3 were incapable of perf,rrming sexual acts lO. PW. 11, alother Surgeon, who examined PW.l, opined that the FSL reporl. suggests sexual assault. Subsequently, on

4.11.2011, PW 16, the Honbie Judicial First Ctass N{agistrate, 6 conducted a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for A1 to A3 at Sub- Jail, Bhadrachalam. 1 1. PW. 12, the Tahsildar of Eturnagaram Mandal, issued PW. 1's caste certihcate, confirming that she belonged to the SC (Nethakani) category. As per the school study and conduct certificate, PW. I was 17 years old at the time of the offense, with her date of birth recorded as 21.6.1994. PW. 10, the Tahsildar of Manuguru, issued caste certificates for A1 to A3, conlirming that A1 belonged to the SC (Mafa) community, A2 to the Muslim community, and A3 to the BC community.

12. Upon completion of the investigation, charges were framed under Sections 376(2)(9), 392, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against Al to ,\3, and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act against A.2 and A3

13. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the evidence of PW. 1 and the subsequent identification of the appellants, convicted them accordingly.

14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that there are any amount of discrepancies in the testimony of PW.1. What she stated at the earliest point of time in 1 the complaint u,as glven a go by, and she calne up vi.ith a new version in the (lourt below. The said development made during the course of trial would have any amount of impact. on the.version of the Victim', sir.ce there is a delay in lodging the complzrint, which is unexplained. PW.l's mother was examined as PW..2 ald she contradicts the rzersion of PWs. 1 and 3 regarding the tinring of the complaint befrtle the police. Though, PW.2 stated that the complaint was clrafted in their house, however, ,PW.1 States that the complaint rvrrs drafted in the police station. The clair-n that the date of birth of the (uictim'was 26.06.1996, lr,as p.roved ..o be false. Ex.Dl educaticn certificate was marked, which shou,s tLer date of birth as 2LO6.1994 and PW. 1 did not provide aly dor:ument to the police to substantiate that she was born in the year 1.996.

15. Learned counsel further argued that accorcling to r,he police, the arrest ol- appellants A1 to A3 was on 12.O9.2O 11. However, the tictim' PW. 1 in her cross examination stated that one day after giving the complaint, the Police called her to I\{anugr.rru police Station and was asked to identify the assailants. She ide.ntified the appellants a,s the persons who were mentioned in the r:omplaint, The said admission of PW. 1 creates any amount of doubt regarding the c:ase projected by the prosecution, The complaint was lodged on [O.09.2011 artd if the accused were already in the 8 (, police station on 11.09.2011, the version that A1 to A3 were arrested on 12.O9.2O1 1, is false. Further, no credibility carr be attached to the Test Identification Parade conducted by PW. 16- Magistrate, on 24.lO.2Ol I .

16. The tearned counsel further argued that the accused had given their version in the 313 Cr.P.C. examination. The said version probablizes the defence, that the appellants were falsely implicated in the case and they were arrested arrd kept illegally in the Police Station.

17. In view of the said discrepancies, which go to the root of the case, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellants.

18. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that, once the evidence of the victim PW.1 is consistent and believable, no further corroboration is necessary to find the accused guilty. The appellants were strangers ald they committed rape of the \rictinr' girl. She went to the house of PW. 14 and informed about the incident. Therea-fter, complaint was lodged with the police. The delay in lodging the complaint is explained convincingly by the prosecution. Since the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are based on record, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9

19. Having gone through the record, during the course of 313 Cr.P.C examinzrtion, A1 stated that on 10.09.20 11, he was taken to the police station. There, the Police quesl-ioned him and detained him iltegally for three days. On 12.O9.2O1 [, A1 was shown A2 and A3 and all of them were produced before the Court on 13.09.2O 1 1.

20. A2, in the statement made under Section 3 13 Cr.P.C examination, stated that early morning of 10.09.201 1, constable went to hisi house ald took him to the police staticn. A11 the policemen questioned about where he was on gth Sept(',mber and he was torture d . When A'2 questioned as to \4 kry he was being detained, the F'olice informed that they entertained doubt that he was involved in a rape case. On the same day at 1l .3O A.M., parents of A2 zrLd some politicians went to the police station and questioned regarding the detention of A2. One police constable asked for sper nr sarnple and threatened that if is not "2rn:ple given, he will be killed. A false case was fabrica.ted a1:;ainst him and he was only an auto driver. He further statecl that he wanted to go to the U.l( to pursue his studies and his life n,as spoiled by the police. a;:', 6 10 2r A3 in his 313 Cr.P.C examination stated that, on

10.09.2011, the police came to his house and took him to the police station. There, they made him wait and showed A1. In the evening of 12.09.2011, he was taken to Bhadrachalam hospital. From there he was taken to Bhadrachalam jail and the Court Constable pointed at him ald showed him to a girl who identifred them in the jail. A3 stated that he was not aware as to who A1 and A2 were.

22. The incident happened on 09.09.2011, in the night. The victim-PW. 1 was taken in the Auto and her rolled gold chain, ear rings and Rs.I2OO/- cash were stolen. Thereafter, A1 and 42 committed rape on her. PW.1 stated in the complaint that she could recognize three persons and gave the descriptive particulars. One person was 22 years and the other two were 18 years. In the conversation, two of the accused addressed themselves as Nagaraju and Teja, identified as A1 arrd A3.

23. In the complaint filed by PW. 1, Ai and 43 were named and also the descriptive particulars of ,{2 were given. The delay in lodging the complaint was explained by PW. 1. After the accused committed rape on her, she was dropped at Ilapur cross roads and threatened not to reveal to anyone about the incident. From there, 11 PW.1 went 1-o Jaggaram by walk in the night to her gral,C mother's house. The ne;<l day morning PW.l narrated the incident to her grand-mother-.,\rlemma (not examined) and Ch.Padma lilao cousin brother (PW.3). I'}W.3 then informed the parents o1'the i,ictlm. They went to polrce sr-ation and filed complaint. Auto numbe r was also mentioned in '-LLe complaint. PW. 1, having giverr the rlescriptive particulars in the complaint, also mentioned tha.t she can identify the assailants if shown to her.

24. PW. 17'Inspector, who was informed about the incident by PW.14 Sub inspector, went to the police station and from there to the scene of of'ence, along with the victim girl and othrrrs. Sketch and scene of olTence panchanama were prepared. From there, the police returned to the police station and the ciothes of the victim were seized. P"fu.1 was referred to the Government Hospitai. On

12.09.2011, all the three accused were apprehended by PW. 15- DSP, Manugurrr arrd PW.17 Inspector of Police.

25. Learned ll,runsel submitted that initially tlre version of the victim girl PW. I was that all the three persons raped her', however, she confined ttre, a-llegation of rape to ,,{1 and A2 only, during the course of trial. The said deviation from her earlier statenrent would go to shour thzrt she is speaking false and the incide.nt did not 72 6 happen the way it was projected by the prosecution. Further, in the evidence of PW. 1, during her cross-examination, she stated that one day after giving the complaint, Police called her to Manugur Police Station to identify the assailants. Since the complaint was lodged on 1O.O9.2011, it is clear that the accused were arrested and shown to PW. 1 on I 1.09.201 I itself. The said admission of PW. 1 falsifies the version of prosecution that the accrrsed were arrested on l2.O9.2Ol1, and supports the version of the accused given in their 313 Cr.P.C. examination, about them L I being arrested on 10.09.2011 itself arrd being illegal1y detained.

26. The details of the auto in which the victim was abducted and also the descriptive particulars of the accused were narrated in the complaint itself. The victim was cross-examined nearly one year after the incident. In her cross-examination, she stated that on the next day she was taken to the police station to identify the assailants. The said admission cannot form basis to completely discredit the version of PW. 1. The specific date of the accused being shown in the police station is not stated by the victim. The said admission of seeing accused in the police station and also narrating only about A1 and A2 committing rape on her before Court, will not effect the version of the victim girl in its entirety. The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'cannot be applied in \ \ 13 a criminal case. The victim had undergone a traumatic experience of being rape<l arld such incident would leave an r:verlasting impact on her rnind. The version given by victrrn at the earliest point of time i.vas repeated in the Court. The IrSL e>ramination suggested sexual assault. Her wearing apparel r.r,ere found stained with semen ar-ld spermatozoa. There is no reason why the appellants wotrld be falsely implicated in the case b1' PW. 1. In cases such as these, minor discrepancies creep in r.luring the course of eviden,:e. Such minor discrepancies cannot be magnified in the manner c,f rejecting the entire prosecution case, when the core version ol the victim is reliable and supported 1:,y medical evidence. Duri ng cross-examination of PW. 15-Inrrestigating Off,rcer, it was s;uggested that the sample of semen taken from them was applierl to the wearing apparel of PW.1 The szrid defence cannot be befievr:d.

27. The accus;r,d claimed that they were illegally. detained in the police station cn 10.09.20I 1 itself. The parents of 42, his relatives and p,:liticians visited the police station, Hou't:ver, not a single person v,as examined in defence during trial, for the Court to believe the a.lleged illegal detention. Further, no petit.ions were hled either befc,re the High Court or any complaints werre lodged, with any of the authorities, complaining about the alleiged illegal l' t4 (' detention. No record is filed by the accused to show that they have complained to the Magistrate about illegal detention, when they were produced before the Magistrate. The version of illegally detaining the accused on 10.09.201 1, appears to be on the basis of the admission of PW.l in her cross-examination, that the accused were shown one day a-fter the incident in the police station. Al's defence as suggested to PW. 15 is that, the wife of A1 was sick and he was in the hospital on the day of incident. A1 did not produce aly evidence about his wife's ho spit alization. Further, he did not state the said defence during 313 Cr.P.C. examination.

28. The learned counsel for appellant had also pointed out that PW.7, in his cross examination, stated that the accused were present in the police station on 10.09.2011, at 5.30 p.m. The said admission by PW.7, will not in any manner effect the case of the prosecution. Such vague statement made during the cross- examination of the witness, cannot form basis to believe that the accused were arrested on 10.09.2011, when there is overwheLming evidence of arrest of accused on l2.O9.2Oll.

29. Keeping in view that no specific allegation of rape was made against A3, during the course of trial by the victim, beneht of 15 doubt is extended to A3. Insofar as ,A1 arrd A2 are con(lerned, the conviction s c:rrhrmed.

30. Accordingr_r', Criminal Appea1 is partly all,rwed, confirming the conviction of A1 and A2, and setting aside the conviction of A3. Since .Appellalts I and 2lAl and A2 are on bail, the trial Court is directed to cause appearance of appellants 1 emd 2/A1 & A2 and send ttrem to prison to serve out the remain ing part of sentence. Sincr: A3 is on bail, his bail bonds s.hall stand discharged. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO \ JPINT REGISTRAR I I I \ ECTION OFFICER I

1. The Special fie,ssrons Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act- cum-Addition;:l Sessions Judge, Khammam. 2. The Judicial l\Iagistrate of First Class, Manugur 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Warangal 4. The Station Ho:se Officer, Edulla Bayyaram Police Station, Khammam 5. One CC to Sri (l Sharan Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Snrt. Avula Krishnaveni, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies VH/shw HIGH COURT DATED: 2110212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.123 ot 2013 rHE SLq 16: ( i,i ?4 llAf, 2m5 ( ! a lt i){i5p1, r', ''i1'' 2- {* a. PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL e{