The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.550 OF 2014 . ORDER Challenging the judgment dated 11.03.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2013 by the learned Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak (for short'learned Sessions Judge'), this Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned order, the judgment daled 28.102013 passed in S.C.No.535 of 2012 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Medak (for short 'trial Court'), was confirmed, modifying the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years for the offence under Section 354 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 to rigorous imprisonment of three years, while maintaining fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array before the trial Court.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.12.2011, when the victim along with her three children slept in the house, at about 23.50 hours, accused entered into her house by opening 2 the door, assaulted her and attempted to commit rape on her, with an intention to outrage her modesty. When she raised hues and cries, the accused bit her hands and fled away from the scene. The said incident was witnessed by her daughter. When the victim's husband returned from Hyderabad, she informed the same to him and lodged a complaint before the Police.

4. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.207 of 2011 was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medak, for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and the same was numbered as P.R.C.No.1 2 of 2012 I Thereafter, the case was committed to the trial Court and re-numbered as S.C.No.535 of 20'12.

5. During the course of trial, the victim herself was examined as PWI. ln support of her case, PWs.2 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked on her behalf. On behalf of accused, none of the witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6. On considering thd.oral and docurnentary evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence 3 I under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,0001, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against him, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal before the appellate Court. 7, On perusing the material available on record and hearing, the appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, however, modified the sentence of five years of rigorous imprisonment to three years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved further, the accused preferred the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court

8. $-gEmissions ot tne tea appearinq for the accused:

8.1. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court has committed a grave error while passing the impugned judgments. Pointing to the evidence on record, it is submitted that the trial and appellate Courts have failed to take into consideration the discrepancies in \ \ \ \ 4 the complaint, statement of PW1 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and her evidence, which would only lead to the acquittal of the accused. Yet another contention is that the prosecution has failed to produce the torn clothes allegedly worn by the victim on the alleged day of incident. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that there was any use of force by the accused which could be termed as an attempt to commit rape.

8.2. ln support of his contention, learned Legal Aid Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paruat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradeshl and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph No.15, wherein, it is held as follows:

15. For lhe reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the ftm opinion that in view of the material contradictions, ornlssions and improvements in the statement of PWg recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as wel/ as deposition before the Coud qua the appellants-accused nos.2 to 5 and that there was a prior enmity and no other independent wr?ness has suppofted the case of the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the appellants herein-original accused nos.2 to 5 are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Under the circumstances, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and ordei of conviction passed by the learned Trial Couft and confirmed by the High Courl convicting the appellants herein-accused nos 2 to 5 for the offenca under Sedion 302 r/w Section 149 of the IPC are hereby quashed and se, aslde and the appellants herein-original accused nos.2 to 5 are acquitted of the charges for which they t AIR Onl-ine 2O2O SC 27 I 5 were tried. The appellants herein-accused nos. 2 to 5 be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

8.3. Hence, prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the judgments of convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the accused attempted to commit rape on the victim. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court has rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and have arrived at a just and fair conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence alleged against him. Therefore, interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted and seeks to dismiss the present Criminal Revision Case.

10. Heard Mr. K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner-appellant-accused and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent Perused the material on record.

11. On an appreciation of the submission and contentions of the learned counsels for the rival parties, the facts and circumstances need not be reiterated as the same has been illuminative enough from the narrative noted above. However, I I 6 what is required to be considered by this Court is whether the trial Court as well as the appellate Court has considered all aspects of the matter while coming to the findings it has in the impugned judgments of convictions?

12. lt need not be reminded that the life and prospective future of a person is at stake here and it is therefore incumbent upon the Court, particularly in criminal cases to adhere to the time tested principle of criminal jurisprudence that conviction will follow only if there is evidence to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Of course, it is also well settled that the accused must be presumed innocent until he is proved to be guilty and the onus of the prosecution never shifts

13. As seen from the record, the alleged incident had happened on 22.12.2011, however, the present complaint was lodged on 26.12.2011 i.e, there is a delay of four days in lodging the complaint. The reason for such delay, as explained by the victim, is that she was refrained from lodging the complaint based on the assurance given by PWs.2 and 3 that the matter would be amicably settled. However, if the incident had genuinely taken place, it is highly improbable that any woman would have delayed reporting it in the hope of settlement. I I I I 7

14. The trial Court and the appellate Court has convicted the accused by mainly relying on the evidence of the victim/PW-1, which is said to have been duly corroborated by the other witnesses examined in the case i.e., PWs.2 and 3.

15. Let rne analyze the complaint and evidence of the witnesses

16. The r:ase of the prosecution, as narrated above, was reiterated in the complaint.

17. On the other hand, in her chief examination, the victim deposed that at about 1Tz years ago, on the night her husband went to Hyderabad, she awoke around midnight and found the accused lying beside her, torn her saree and blouse and tried to commit rape on her. When she caught the accused firmly, he bit her hand. Then, she locked the accused in a room and on the intervention of PWs.2, 3 and others, she released him

18. ln their evidence, PWs.2 and 3 also deposed on the similar lines as that of PW1 . They deposed that after locking the accused in a room, PWI called them and on their assurance, PWl released him. However, the names of PWs.2 and 3 were not even mentioned in the complaint by the victim. PW4, who is the ,,=-- I Investigation Officer, has deposed in his evidence that pW1 did not state before him that she locked the accused inside a room. ,l9. ln the complaint, the victim stated that when she raised hues and cries, the accused bit her hand and fled away from the scene. Whereas, in her deposition, she deposed that when she caught the accused firmly, he bit her hand. Thereafter, she locked the accused in a room. In the complaint, she has mentioned specific date and time of the incident. However, in her evidence, she deposed as about one and half years ago, the alleged incident had happened. ln the complaint and in her evidence, the victim clearly stated that she slept along with her three children in the house on the alleged day of incident and her daughter namely Latha has witnessed the incident. However, her three children, particularly Latha, were not examined as witnesses.

20. lt is deposed by the victim in her evidence that she has slept after bolting the door from inside. ln her cross examination, she admitted that if the doors are closed, there is no possibility for the accused to enter into the house. She again stated that the doors can be opened easily even bolted from inside. No conclusive finding was emerged from the investigation as to how the accused opened the doors. lt is evident from the record that I / / /, I the torn saree and blouse were not seized by the Police nor was it exhibited by the prosecution during the course of trial. ln such a situation, the version of the victim cannot be solely relied upon. To prove the injuries suffered by the victim, the prosecution has not produced any medical certificate. ln his cross examination, PW4 admitted that he referred the victim to the Doctor, but he did not collect wound certificate. lt creates a doubt regarding the injuries suffered by the victim.

21. As noticed above, on careful examination of the complaint and deposition of the victim, it appears that the statement of victim is self-contradictory and there are discrepancies as far as the accusation of attempt to rape is concemed.

22. Even otherwise, if the victim's statement that she has locked the accused in a room is believed, the question of the accused forcing himself on the victim in an attempt to rape appears to oe highly improbable. This has cast a big doubt on the veracity of lhe victim's version of the incident.

23. ln the light of the above discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the ( t I 10 prosecution tn" has not suc of proof necessary ,or'*o"o beyond reasonabb appeilate court have failed rn ":":_'. record. Therefore, the be accused. in discharging the onus of burden to a'ive at a finding of guilt tlre .flal court and the to properly appreciate the evidence on nefit of doubt has to be extended to the ubt and both the trial "o'* oo, "t''inal

24. According,y, this Revision case is allowed and the judgrnent dateo , ,.0a., passed in criminal Appear No.90 of 20fi bythe rearned ,u',l'o District and Sessions Judge at Medak), modifying ,n"'ooo"'o'"1 s c No s35 or 2012r,;"':J;::H:::ll1-,.,:* , -.-* tt oeSSroos Judge at Medak, is hereby set asirp .^^ - and quashed Bail bonds of the accused shalt stand ca"Jx As a seguel, pendi, shall stand closed. rg miscellaneous applications , if any, SD/- I,.LAKSI{MT BABU I'PTIT}' REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER I I I To,

1. The Vlll Additional Diskict and Sessions Jduge at Medak. 2. The Assistant Sessions Judge at Medak. 3. The Station House Officer, Medak Rural Police Station, Medak District. 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies {A- HIGH COURT DATED:2310712025 ORDER CRLRC.No.550 of 2014 11lE S '!:1j 7 o I I r{0l, 2[6 \ o * \- T l-1C rt) l ALLOWING I-HE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE 0 (A \0 t0 I I