The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Assistant Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:75 OF 2012 Appeal filed under Section 37aQ) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 30-12-2011 in SC.No.101 of 2O1O on the frle of the court of the special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and srs(poA) Act-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar. Between:

1. Smt. Kommuru Satyamma Wo. Narsimulu, Aged 53 years, Occ: House Wife, 2. Smt.Vakiti Lalithamma, Wo. Hanumanthu, Aged 33 years, Occ: Tailor 3. Smt.Kavali Savithramma, Wo. Sayappa, Aged 26 years, Occ: Cook All are R/o. Nidjintha Vitlage, Maddur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...APPELLANTS/ACCUSED Nos. 3,4 and 5 AND The Stale of AP., Through Maddur Police Station, Mahabubnagar District,. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Aduri Chinna Srinivas Counsel for the Respondent: Assftstant public prosecutor The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JT'STTCE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.7 and 75 0F 20L2 COMTIOIt JIIDGMENT: Aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-Vll Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in SC' No' 1O 1 ot2O10, dated 3O.l2.2OLl, A2 fiIed Crl.A.No.7 of 2OI2 and A3 to A5 filedCrl.A,No.TSof2ol2.A2wasconrrictedfortheoffencesunder Sections 326(21(9l, 5O6 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act, 1989, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay hne of Rs-S,OOO/- for the offence under Section 376(21(9l of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay hne of Rs' 1,OOO/- for the offence under Section 5o6 of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of hve years and to pay fine of Rs' 1'OOO/- for the offence under Section 3{2)(v) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act' Further, the sentences against A2 shalt run concutrently' A3 to A5 are convicted for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the sc/sTs (PoA) Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs'SOO/-'

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellarts and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State' 2

3. PW. 1 is the victim. She stated before the Court that, in the 5rear 2OO8 she was studying in Zrlla parishad High School, Nidijintha village. On 23.12.2008 at about 9.OO A.M., she went to school and was returning home for lunch around 1.OO p.m. On the way she had to pass nearby the house of A l-Juvenile (who was tried separately by the Juvenile Court)- A1 questioned her and while she was proceeding to her house, Al forcibly took pW. 1 into his house. The appellant-A2 was already present in the house. A2 closed the doors frorn behind and A1 dragged her into room, threw her on the ground and committed rape on her. After A I committed rape of PW. l, A2 also commi.tted rape ori the victim girl. Her clothes were torn. Both appellants A2 and A 1 threateneci pW. 1 with ciire consequences if she informs the incident to her parents. On accoLrnt of the forcible rape, she sustained bieeding injuries on her private parts. PW. 1 went to her house and informed the incident to trer aunt-Kashamma (PW.3) and also Amruthamma {pW.S). Thereafter, the parents of victim returned home and incident was narrated to them. The victim along with her mother (pW.2) and father went to the house of A1. But, A1 and A2 were not present. Thereafter, they went to meet the Sarpanch and the matter was placed before the elders. In the Panchayat, elders of A1 and A3 to A5 were present. The mother of Al admitted the gu t and offered to touch the feet of 3 PWs.l ald 2. At that instance, A3 to A5 went there and abused them in the name of caste as 'Madiga Mund.alaraa rape chesthe cheshanu" (gou scheduled caste bitcLes shanld awpt rape).

4. Thereafter, they went to the police station and lodged a written complaint which is Ex.Pl. Victim was sent for medical exarnination. PW.8 is the doctor who examined PW. 1. The evidence of PW-8 is extracted hereunder: 'Accordingly I examined her- I found scratch ma,rks on the Iefi etbou.t joirut. Within 48 luurs, ort examination of her priuate parts I found that hgm.en uas ruptured, found fresh lateral tearness. Raw area present around hgmen tears. I fouruJ bleeding on touch of hgm.en area- I collected tuto swabs uaginal smears and. sent to FSL- Afier getting FSL report I gaue mg finat opinian. In mg opiruion tlrcre was sental assrtult and intercour* occurred on PW-I. I issued <rertiftcate. It i,s Ex.P7."

5. The Police, concluded inve stigating the case and filed charge sheet before Juvenile Court aga.inst A1, and before Special Court against A2 to A5.

6. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence of the witnesses and the corroborating medical evidence, convicted A2 for rape and A3 to A5 for abusing PWs. I and 2 in the name of caste' 4

7. [earned Counsel appearing on beha-lf of appellant-A2 submits that PWs.3 to 5 who are crucial witnesses and to whom the information was given by pW. 1 at the first instance, have turned hostile to the prosecutibn case and did not support the version of PW. l. The sarpanch who was the head of the panchayat, that was held after the alleged rape, was a_lso not examined. Though the incident happened on 23.I2.2O0g, however, the complaint to the Police was on the next day, with an inordinate delay of nearly I yz day. Further, the counsel argued that no proof was fiIed by the prosecution to show that the victim girl was a minor at the time of incident.

8. The evidence of \rictim, in a rape case can be considered if found to be truthful. There is no necessity of any corroboration to the evidence of the victim girl, if her evidence is of such a quality, which would convince the Court, and withstands the cross_ exarnination.

9. The evidence of pW. I is consistent. She stated that on that day, while she was coming back to school during lunch time, A1 dragged her into his house where A2 was already present. There, both of them committed rape on her. After she was taken to the doctor, PW.B examined pW. 1. As seen from Ex.pZ , during examination, semen was detected on the uniform skirt of the victim. 5 There were scratch marks over the left elbow and hymen was not intact. There were fresh Lateral tears of hymen ' PW'8 further found bleeding on the h5rmen area'

10. The medical evidence clearly indicates forcible intercourse' Though, semen that was found was not subjected to DNA examination, however, during the examination of private parts of the victim girl, doctor found fresh injuries' I 1. In the said circumstances, there is no necessit5l for any corroboration by any other witnesses' when the evidence of the victim-PW. I was proved to be truthful' undeterred during cross- exarnination and corroborated by PW'8-doctor' L2. The delay in lodging the complaint was clearly explained by PWs.l and 2- Trre incident happened in tl.e afternoon' The father of the victim returned home at 7'3O p'm' Though' there was a 'panchayat' that was held, according to the victim' no justice was done in the panchayat, for which reason, they approached police' As already discussed, ttre victim was sent for medical examination' which proved forcible sexual intercourse'

13. The allegation against A3 to A5 is that they have abused PW'l in the name of her caste' Such vague and omnibus allegation of A3 to A5 abusing the victim, cannot be considered to convict them "\ \ I ) 6 under Section 3(t)(x) of the SC/STs (poA) Acr. Norhing specific is na-rrated by pW. f or pW.2, insofar as the acts of ,q3 to A5 are concerned, on the day of panchayat.

14. In the said circumstances, beneht of doubt is extended to A'3 to A5. Insofar as A2 is concerrred, conviction under Section 376 (2Xg) and 506 of the Indian penal Code are confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment under Section 326 (21 (g) of IpC, is reduced to the minimum punishment of seven years. Conviction of A2 under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/STs (pOA) Act, is set aside. 15. Accordingly, criminal Appeal z of 2oL2 rrled by Accused No.2 is partly allowed and Criminal Appeal 75 of 2Ol2 filed by Accused Nos.3 to S, is allowed.

16. Since Accused No.2 is on bail, the concerned Court below shall cause appearance of Accused No.2 and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of sentence. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V. S. S.C.S. T,i.SARfrTA JOINT REGISTRAR To, ecial Sessions -vt I Additional Di SECTION OFFICER Judge for Trial of cases under SCs and STS(POA) Act- strict and Sessions Judge at Mahabub nagar. (with gal, Mahabubna

1. The Sp records, if any) The Judi istrate Kodan The Superintendent, Ce Prison, Chencha The Station House Officer Maddur Police Sta Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad tOUI One CC to Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate loPUCl One CC to Sri Aduri Chinna Sri cial First Class Mag a, Hyderabad tion, Mahabubnagar nivas, Advocate IOPUC] 2 3 4 E b. 7. 8 VH/plp Two CD Cty opres HIGH COURT DATED: 0510212025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.No.7 of 2012 AND CRLA.No.75 of 2012 R 1HE S 14 14: o( (-.;- !a o t 01 rqry zozj ,i l1 /] \ * Oi^ PATCHEg PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA.No.7 of 2012 AND ALLOW1NG THE CRLA.No.75 ot 2012 (p- q ,) 7