The High Court · 2025

2. Hearcl learned counsel for the appellar t :,nd Sri M.Viveka.rern Cz Reddy, learned Assistant Pubiic Prc secutor for resporrd:n. - State. Perused the record.

3. PW.S is the victim girl and her hearing and speaking capabilitir:s rvt::e impaired. PW.4 is the mothe:r o'thr: victim girl. PW.z- rarrated that she was working as a rnaic in the house of ore I'.V.V. Sat5ranarayana Murthy, who is e: amined 2 as PW.6. On 11.08.2015, 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 of PW.5. PW.S 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.S 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 lalguage that a person came and knocked on the door and opened it, and took her to Krishnakanth Park. Further, PW.5 was taten 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 appellalt and informed in sign language that the appellant was the person who took her to the park on 11.08.2015. They immediately went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. Based on the narration given by PW.4, a Telugu 3 written cornDl.lint was lodged. Then, PW.5 war; s€ nt to a Doctor for ':xr rnination.

4. PW.1il is the Doctor who examined PW.S. lrcr:c rding to PW. 10, L e Cirl not find any externai injuries on her genital However, h : hymen of PW.5 was not intact. Srv: ibs and smears v,ere r;,rllected from her private part and l;ent for FSL examinaticn. r\fter receiving the FSL report, PV/. 1C opined that thele r,,rr s evidence of penetration of the vag na and possibly a'r . t tempt to rape, AS the undergarrr ent; tested positive f )r s: nren and spermatozoa

5. Aftr:r tlr: complaint was Itled, the aplrella nt was arrested or' 13.O8.2015. Then, the test identificatior: parade was also cr:ndrLcted and the appellant was identifie<l ty PW.5 as the pe rsc 1r who took her to Krishnak.anth I'ark on 1 1.08.20 1.'i : t 15.30 P.M.

6. On ti-re basis of the evidence collected during the course oJ- r h,: investigation, the Investigating Of icer / PW. 1 3 filed the <:h,a rge-sheet for the offences punishabk under 4 Sections 376(2l,, 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 evidence of PWs.4, 5, 6, B, and also the corroborating 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.S was less than 18 years; 2) Since the hearing and speaking capabiiities 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 taten and put on the garments of PW.5, for which reason, the FSL report was positive for semen and spermatozoa. . F r'-:3F- r.' -*- 5 5) Th.- .{r;.;rstant Director of the FSL was not :xarnined to prove thr: IiSil, report. Even the Doctor, who exarin:d pW.5 at the earlir:;L point of time, opined that there .vere no exlernal :niur ('s on the private parts ol pW.5. 9 . On t hr: other hand, the learned As;sis, ant public Prosecutor rvrr rld submit that whatever was. st ltec at the earliest point :f time was narrated before the Cot rt. lhere is corroboratin5; ,:vidence by the Doctor, and the FSI. report clearly s'-t[lg(] I !s that rape had been comrrritt ec1 by the appellant otr I,rM.5. PW.5 was examined befor,: tLe Clurt on two occa s j ttr ; Initially when pW. S was exzimir red on 17.O5.2O18. r;lre identified pW.6 and also the appellent who was pres€ nr. rr the Court. pW.5 informed by sigtrs t tat the appellant corrLrr.itted rape.

10. Learnr,d liessions Judge recorded. the denrearour of PW.5, whe r:in:rhe expressed fear on her face alter looking at the appellan:. On the subsequent date, r.e., (t4.Ol .2OlB when PW.5 u'irs examined with the help of a ,ipecial Educator fr,trn *t""rr, BowenpaJly, for her sl)eec h and hearing dir;a bil ties, pW.5 stated that the appellant removed 6 her dress and tried to penetrate into her private part. pw.s identified the appellant, as well as the vehicle on which she was taken to the park. 1 1, 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 regarding the incompetence of the counsel before the Court below cannot form the basis to infer that the appeilant, 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.

12. The appellant is the relative of PW.6. PW.6 narrated as follows: 'While ute u'ere retuming home at about 5-30 to 6- OO pm u.te sanu the uictim girl at the place uhere Pu-4 7 te|t t t r in the afternoon and the uictim girl/ put 5 Lucts t,to -t,t ',,u..ards to my house uith a t"n"*p"", no:"',, lr', t.. 'rrd and. she u_tas buging a Kurkure tr,ock,.t ,n tllt .t , p On that u)e t ent to her, took h, r to mu I'o. .tnd PW4 enqutred utith her. et tn, t rli,r,""t L_t,te 1i ttut on mg u)ork and returned. home at arcund tt-(), Lnt. At that time the uictim gtrt u,as poirifng-otr:t I tL,.rt.,t; some place and on that t filtecj ietrtt ii mu t t l,c , oncl tuent along uith pW i and'pi ;i ,'"; ,:ii., grr t' 'i1q directions shoLun bA the uictim girt but <he ttta.; u,ttlble to shou.t th.e direction or location. O" -ii Lt,e cLt1? back home and pW_4 and pW_S/ ui:tim girl u,e',.t tti their house. On the nert moming ot aroun,i g, OO (7m o.ccused called. me ouer phone ird. orkl"d i. L.L'h, ri r tu.as and. I replied. tlut i u.tas """"n tc_la nu., that he uant to talk to me. t i"y.i,.i- -r:i" tl.cL i itilt be at home tilt 1O_OO om. Bui n aia c(trr) -! tt) rng home till I 1_00 am. At arouncl I I l ! or "..i I1 ..'Lt trn accused. again called. ^" ou", pn""i L, i't infom',tc l-tim that I uas at Banjara wiies. On tiar- ,,r_; ,-, U, come to Banjaro Luines Luent in ,ide i,, taht,t.t , tc beer and called me inside and. I Luent tlo Iti.n .,\trt.Lsed asked me as to uhA I wrrs look,no t1 t.: ,, r'ncl on that I informed tni mou., ,i i U1 .'\,/ v :t . r grrt to himfor which he told me that ..ie s,Lu the i ictt\L girl near Kishnakanth park i" tni pi" rir,l eLt?r it.t t t tt around 6-OO pm uLhile he was qoi'n,t a'Lr.i a u'rtt. L. t'tfc to purchase schnol bags.,, n"ii "t the appellar-r t who

13. The fier:r,u.itv Guard a]so identihed took PW.5 to rhe park on 11.0g.2015. PW.8, PW.S, and complainan 1 pa r ticipated in the test identific,etio n p arade that was c:lcllcrted by the Magistrate/pW. 13 D,rrrng the course of t}re test identification parade, tfre app rllant informed the Mr gistrate that he did not commil any olfence and that he harj r)nly taken pW.S, who was at Krisf:na1..anth park, and dr.pred her at her house, and that a frrrse case 8 had been filed. clothes of pW.5 of PW.S. As stat park, and his se He also stated that the police had taken the and forced him to put semen on the clothes ed by the appellant, he had seen pW.S at the men was taken forcibly by the police and put on the clothes o f PW.S. Basing on the record, the appellant was arrested on i8.08.201S, whereas the Doctor/pW. tO examined pW.S on 12.08.2015, and on the same day, the undergarments of pW.S were collected and sent for FSL examination. Since the wearlng apparels were sent for FSL examination prior to the arrest of the appellant, the version given by appellaat, that his semen was coliected 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 clrcumstance that the appellant is having dependents, we deem it appropriate to tto'"" the sentence of imprisonment to ten (10) years for ,n e offences under Sectio n 3Z 6(2) (1)(1) (nl of IPC and also Section 6 of pOCSO Act . :i}E I { 9 15 Accordir:5Jy. the Criminal Appeal is partly allower[. Misc :1 an 3ous Petitions, pending if any, sha11 stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. B. SATYAVATHI lprrur nectsrRan Secrroru oFFtcER U

1. The I Additiorral l/letropolitan sessions Judge-cum-special Judgre for Trial of Cases under prctection of Children from Sexual Sffe rces Act ' 2012, Hyderabad. (\,"ith rrcords, if any)

2. The Station Hous: Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station, l-',ydet aba l. 3. Two CCs tc t're rublic Prosecutor, High Court for the rStater of t-elangana at Hyderabad. [(]UT l

4. One CC to tVli; 5. Two CD Co : ir: s --lr,rta Kam/gh Siva Parvathi, Advocate [OPUC] HIGH COUF[1- DATED:29104rt?-025 -, - .- * .--lj-_ ,l \ I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.4li0 of 2019 ,-1'r=-- i: 1 1l: :r; l-4 'I5 19 JUN ilM f I It z' 1l ;' e' i ; i ,'i \.r\' PARTLY A.LL(}WING THE CRIMII\.IAI- APPEAL \)(6 [ 3304 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETI TION NO: 15888 OF 2025 Between: Vottepu Anjaiah, s/o Muthaiah, aged 58 years, occ. Dy.District Extension and Media Officdr Dy.DEMO O/o OtrlnO, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District at Bhuvanagiri' .....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad -

2. The Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare, Telangana, Koti, Hyderabad.

3. The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Telangana, Koti, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of fvlandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Health Education and Extension officer HEED in Multi zone-ll, as per the eligibility list prepared vide Rc.No.1 034/E4 -At2023, dated 6-5-2025, without reference to the. warning issued vide Proc. Rc.No.5869/VC-Dt2O24-162, dated 10-3-2025 by the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to various judgments of Honourable Court and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the feeder cadre of Dy.District Extension and lVledia officer Dy.DEI\/O to the post of Health Education and Extension officer HEED in - Multi Zone-ll, as rer the eligibility list prepared vide Rc. No.' 034lEkl-A12O23, dated 6-5-2O2!i. lrithout reference to the warning issued vide Proc. Rc.No.5869/VC Dt:\)24-162, dated 10-3-2025 by the 3rC re;pordent, as per the settled law. |-A-NO:1 OF 201.5 . Petition L niic' Section 'l 5'l CPC praying that in the cirr;umr.;tances stated in the affidavit f lerl irr support of the petition, the High Court ma / be pleased to direct the respo rc (:rlts herein, more particularly the 2nd res pon:jent to consider the petitioner's :ers e: for promotion from the post of fry.District Extension and Media Officer Dy lt:tMO] to the Health Education & Extension rffficer HEED in Multi Zone-ll, rs pr. the eligibility list prepared vide Rc.No.1034lE4-A12023, dated 6-5-2025, witl o . t r:ference to the "warning " issued vide P|oc. lc.No.5869/VC- D12024-162, (la,ed l0-3-2025 by the 3rd respondent, cencring disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Pelitioner : SRI M.R.TAGORE Counsel for the Rr:r;oondents : GP FOR SERVICES - | The Court marle the following ORDER TH HO N,BLE SRI ]US EN M VA HW RAO W PETITI No E ORDER: ThisWritPetitionisfiledbythepetitionerseekingadirection .the respondent authorities to consider his candidature for promotion from the post of Dy. District Extension and Media Officer (Dy. DEMO) to Health Education & Extension Officer (HEEO) in Multi Zone-lt, without reference to the "warning" issued to him by respondent No.3 vide proceedings Rc'No'5869/VC-Dl2024-162' dated 10.03.2025. 2 Heard Sri M.R. Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner' and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record' appointed as MPHA (Male) on Nalgonda District. He was

3. The Petitioner was initiallY 27.08.1997 at PHC Chandur, subsequently promoted as MPHS (Male) in 2006' then appointed by transfer as Health Educator in July 2oo7, and later promoted as Dy. DEMO on 17.10.2016. Presently, he is working as Dy' DEMO at the O/o DM&HO, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District' 4 the petitioner's services While serving at the O/o DMHO, Medchal-Malkajgiri District' were surrendered bY DMHO, Medchal- respondent No.3 on t2.O9'2024, on Malkajgiri District, to t 2 reposted to his current staticn allegation:; (:f r()grect of duties, verbar abuse, an(r otrer nisconduct. The petitio n er was Yadadri vide proceedings dated 2g.09.2024, and submitted I^is joining report on 03.ro.zo24. He resu ned duties according l,r. Bhuvanagiri I)ir;trict, i.e.,

5. Subsequertly, a charge memo dated 73.1,2.r'024, vide Rc.No.5869/\/()..D/2023-7164, was issued to the l)etit ioner with various allelgati.rrs, including demand for money frorr ar applicant, failure to nlaintiirn headquarters. and non-compriance witr agsigned duties. Tl.e letitioner submitted a detailed expla lation on 28.1,2.2024, clr:nying all allegations. Respondent No.3, upon considering the :xplanation, dropped further disciplin;lry rction and issued only a " nlarning,,, through proceedings vide Rc. No 5869/VC_ D/2024-162, dated lO.O3.2O2S, cautioning the petrtion_.r not to repeat such c()nc Uct in the Future.

6. Learnod (;ounsel for the petitioner submi:s that the respondents r-ray be directed to consider the case of :he letitioner for promotic,n t() the post of Health Education & Ext€rnsion officer (HEEO) in lrtu ti ,:one-II, in view of the order datect 21 .IL2OL6 passed in \V.,A. tJ,t. 1158 of 2016, which held that Cerrsure or Warning is norrn ally considered as a less penalty th;ln t1e p enalty of 0 / postponement of increments for one year, and pass appropriate J orders in accordance with law.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents,placedonrecordacopyofthewritteninstructionsand submits that the case of the petitioner is under consideration, and the Departmental Promotion Committee has not yet convened'

8. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Health Education & Extension Officer (HEEO) in Multi Zone-II, in view of the order dated 21.11.2016 passed in W.A'No'1158 of 2016' and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SDIMOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ To

2. J. 4 5 o Welfare DePartment' ana at Hyderabad. n unJ ruhirv welfare, Telangana, Koti, Public Health and Familv Welfare' Telangana' Koti' The PrinciPa I Secretary, Health, Medical and Fa Secretariat, State of Telang The Commissioner of Healt Hvderabad. iilI"o?llt"t +*1"5t3f; cp FoR sERVTcES-r, Hish court for the state of reransana at Hvderabad. [OUT] iti,L"bCi,idnr vrln rncone. Advocate toPUCI Two CD CoPies "r SA /1 tD & C.C. TODAY /, ( - :.i. (J I -; iBt 1EJ TA 2j ]l]N 2ffi ,F P !,1 :.;*z:,:2" HIGH COI.'IIT DATED:1Stlt}6l2025 ORDER wP.No.158gr3 0f 2025 DISPOSIN(S 3F THE W.P WITHOUT CoSTS. G)tT"' gc--- 6\cV