Telangana High Court
Maddur Sailoo vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp on 24 November, 2023
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt Justice K.Sujana) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy in S.C/S.T.S.C.No.31 of 2011, wherein the appellant/accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 366, 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC. He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 376 (1) of the IPC. He is also sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 2 the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The appellant filed this appeal stating that the trial Court committed grave illegality by convicting the appellant under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and under Sections 366 and 376 (1) of the IPC, without there being any evidence and there is no iota of evidence to show that Pw.2 raised hues and cries. Admittedly, Pw.2 and accused were inmates in the house of one Srinu, but no one was informed nor raised cries, when they went in auto she did not raise cries which clearly show that Pw.2 voluntarily went with the appellant and consented for sexual intercourse. The trial Court ought not to have noted that there is no consistency in the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 and Pw.7 with regard to rape committed by the appellant, so also there is variation in the evidence of Pws.2 and 12 with regard to place of occurrence and time. As such, their evidence is not believable. Further there is no evidence to show that on what date the victim was examined by Pw.8 and how many days after the incident she was examined, whether she sustained injuries on her private parts but simply relied on the report of FSL concluding that there is evidence of sexual intercourse and convicting the appellant is against the law.
KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 3
3. He therefore, prayed the Court to set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the appellant.
4. Heard Sri B. Vengal Reddy, learned counsel representing Smt A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the accused. His first contention is that the victim is major and she voluntarily went with the accused. As such it does not amount to abduction and the conviction under Section 366 of the IPC is not tenable. His second contention is that the victim is major, she voluntarily went with the accused and consented for sexual intercourse. Therefore, it does not come under Section 376 (1) of the IPC. His third contention is that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is aware of the caste of victim and knowingly he committed offence against her. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquit the accused.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the guilt of accused and the bonafide certificate filed by the prosecution proves that victim is a minor on the date of commission of offence.
KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 4 As such the accused is liable for punishment and there are no infirmities in the judgment of the trial Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
7. To prove the case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 documents and M.Os.1 to 8. Basing on the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial Court convicted the appellant as stated supra.
8. Now, the points that arise for consideration are :
1. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 366, 376 (1) of the IPC and under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 ?
2. Whether there are any infirmities in the judgment of the trial Court and it needs interference ?
POINT NOs.1 & 2 :
9. The facts of the case are that on 04.04.2011 at 9.00 hours Pw.1 lodged a complaint stating that he belong to SC Mala caste and on 01.04.2011 at about 9.00 hours his daughter Pw.2 aged about 16 years studying X th class went to Jyothi School at BHEL Township to attend science examination, but she did not return home and on enquiry with the friends of his daughter he came to know that accused took his daughter to Jeedimtla area and kept her in the house of Srinu's brother upon which he went there and KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 5 found his daughter therein. His daughter informed him by weeping that the accused took her to the house of his friend Srinu situated at Ameenpur Village and committed rape on her. Later, the said Srinu and his wife Hari Bai took her to the house of Swamy, elder brother of Srinu, there also the accused committed rape on her during night hours and on the next day i.e., on 02.04.2011 the accused left her alone at that place by saying that he would come back after attending duty and threatened her not to reveal the same to anyone.
10. Basing on the said complaint, the investigation officer registered a crime, examined Pw.1 and recorded the statement of victim girl and sent her to medical examination. Basing on the statement of witnesses, he filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 366, 376 (f) of the IPC and under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
11. Pw.1 is the father of victim. According to him, on the date of incident, the victim was studying Xth class and he know the accused as he is working as the driver of a DCM van which belongs to their villager. On 01.04.2011 at about 9.00 a.m., his daughter went to attend examination but did not return home. Then he went to school and enquired with her friends and came to know that accused took her to Jeedimetla. He searched for his KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 6 daughter and after two days he came across the accused in Jeedimetla, caught hold of him and enquired about the victim girl. The accused took him to his friends room where the victim girl was found and he brought the victim along with him. His daughter informed him that the accused committed rape on her.
12. Pw.2 is the victim girl and her evidence is that at the time of incident she was studying X th class and was aged about 16 years. She got acquaintance with the accused as he was driver of DCM van and they got hired the DCM van when they went to Komaravelli. On 01.04.2011 at about 9.00 a.m., she went to attend X th class Physical Science examination at BHEL Jyothi School. After completion of examination when she came out, the accused was waiting for her and she went along with him to Ameenpur to the house of his friend Srinu. She further stated that she does not know what the accused told to the inmates of the house, closed the door and committed rape on her forcibly and from there he took her to Jeedimetla to the house of one Swamy and there also he committed rape on her. On 03.04.2011 her parents came there along with the accused and took her to the police station and Pw.1 gave complaint.
KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 7
13. Pws.3 and 4 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence and seizure of clothes of victim girl. Their evidence is that on 04.04.2011 at Ramchandrapuram the police took them to one house at Ameenpur. The police prepared scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch and they seized M.Os.1 to 5.
14. Pws. 5 and 6 are panchas for confession statement and seizure panchanama. Their evidence is that on 05.04.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., they went to the police station Ramchandrapuram. The accused was present in the police station. On instructions of DSP, they enquired with the accused and he confessed about commission of offence on the victim girl and stated that he kept his clothes in his house. The police seized M.Os.6 to 8 at the instance of accused.
15. Pw.7 is the Tahsildar who issued caste certificate of accused stating that he belongs to Backward class. Pw.8 is the medical officer. She examined the victim girl and collected smears from the vagina and sent to FSL for detection of semen and spermatozoa and she received FSL report on 14.07.2011 and opined that semen and spermatozoa are detected.
KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 8
16. Pw.9 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Sangareddy. On requisition from the SDPO, R.C puram sub division, he examined the accused and found him physically and mentally sound and he gave fitness certificate. Pw.10 is the Tahsildar and he issued caste certificate of the victim stating that she belongs to SC Mala caste.
17. Pw.11 is the ASI of R.C. Puram who received complaint and issued FIR. Pw.12 is the investigating officer who investigated the case and filed charge sheet. Pw.13 is the head master, ZPHS, Tellapur wherein the victim girl studied in the said school at the time of incident. She deposed that victim studied X th class in their school and as per the school records the victim joined in their school in the year 2006 and completed X th class in the year 2011. As per the school records the date of birth of the victim is 05.01.1996.
18. Basing on the above evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences stated supra.
19. Now, the first contention of the appellant is that on the date of incident, the victim was major and she herself went with the accused and consented for sexual intercourse.
KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 9
20. Going through the said contention and the evidence on record is that the victim was studying X th class on the date of incident and as per the evidence of Pw.13-head master the date of birth of the victim is 05.01.1996. The incident occurred on 01.04.2011. As per the evidence available on record, the age of the victim was 15 years and as per the evidence of Pw.1, the victim was 16 years old. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the victim was minor on the date of incident. Therefore, her willingness to go with the accused and consented for sexual intercourse cannot be considered and there is no force in the said contention.
21. The second contention of the appellant is that as the victim is major, she consented for sexual intercourse and therefore, she has not raised hues and cries though she was taken in an auto on national highway for second time and has not informed to anybody hence, it does not amount to rape.
22. After going through the said contention, and as per the ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC when the victim girl is under 16 years of age, her consent is immaterial even though she had sexual intercourse at her will. Consent given by minor girl is not KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 10 valid. In Iqbal Vs State of Kerala 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.8 observed as under :
8. Clause "sixthly" clearly stipulates that sexual intercourse with a woman with her or without her consent when she is under 16 years of age, amounts to rape. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the victim was less than 16 years of age and, therefore, the conviction for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC cannot be faulted.
23. Therefore, the contention of appellant that there is consent and it does not amount to rape is not tenable.
24. The third contention of the appellant is that though the appellant belongs to BC community, he does not know about the caste of victim. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant committed the offence against the victim on the ground that she belongs to SC community.
25. Having considered the said contentions, the evidence on record would show that the victim belongs to SC community and Pw.10 certified that the victim belongs to SC community but no where in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 stated that the offence was committed by the accused as she belongs to the SC community.
Prosecution has to prove that accused committed rape on the victim girl on the ground that she belongs to SC community. 1 (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 724 KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 11 There is no evidence on record to show that accused and victim are residing in same locality or they are known persons. As per the prosecution story accused was a DCM van driver and the father of victim engaged his services to go to holy places. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused committed offence on the ground of her caste. In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court in Patan Jamal Vali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh 2 held as under :
"65. The issue as to whether the offence was committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of a SC or ST or such property belongs to such member is to be established by the prosecution on the basis of the evidence at the trial. We agree with the Sessions Judge that the prosecution's case would not fail merely because PW1 did not mention in her statement to the police that the offence was committed against her daughter because she was a Scheduled Caste woman. However, there is no separate evidence led by the prosecution to show that the accused committed the offence on the basis of the caste identity of PW2. While it would be reasonable to presume that the accused knew the caste of PW2 since village communities are tightly knit and the accused was also an acquaintance of PW2's family, the knowledge by itself cannot be said to be the basis of the commission of offence, having regard to the language of Section 3(2)(v) as it stood at the time when the offence in the present case was committed. As we have discussed above, due to the intersectional nature of oppression PW2 faces, it becomes difficult to establish what led to the commission of offence - whether it was her caste, gender or disability. This highlights the 2 2021 SCC Online Sc 343 KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 12 limitation of a provision where causation of a wrongful act arises from a single ground or what we refer to as the single axis model.
66. It is pertinent to mention that Section 3(2)(v) was amended by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, which came into effect on 26 January 2016. The words "on the ground of" under Section 3(2)
(v) have been substituted with "knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe". This has decreased the threshold of proving that a crime was committed on the basis of the caste identity to a threshold where mere knowledge is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Section 8 which deals with presumptions as to offences was also amended to include clause (c) to provide that if the accused was acquainted with the victim or his family, the court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim unless proved otherwise. The amended Section 8 reads as follows:
"8. Presumption as to offences. - In a prosecution for an offence under this Chapter, if it is proved that (a) the accused rendered [any financial assistance in relation to the offences committed by a person accused of], or reasonably suspected of, committing, an offence under this Chapter, the Special Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such person had abetted the offence; (b) a group of persons committed an offence under this Chapter and if it is proved that the offence committed was a sequel to any existing dispute regarding land or any other matter, it shall be presumed that the offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention or in prosecution of the common object. [(c) the accused was having personal knowledge of the victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the contrary is proved.]"
KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 13
67. The Parliament Standing Committee Report on Atrocities Against Women and Children has observed that, "high acquittal rate motivates and boosts the confidence of dominant and powerful communities for continued perpetration" and recommends inclusion of provisions of SC & ST Act while registering cases of gendered violence against women from SC & ST communities . However, as we have noted, one of the ways in which offences against SC & ST women fall through the cracks is due to the evidentiary burden that becomes almost impossible to meet in cases of intersectional oppression. This is especially the case when courts tend to read the requirement of "on the ground"
under Section 3(2)(v) as "only on the ground of". The current regime under the SC & ST Act, post the amendment, has facilitated the conduct of an intersectional analysis under the Act by replacing the causation requirement under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act with a knowledge requirement making the regime sensitive to the kind of evidence that is likely to be generated in cases such as these.
68. However, since Section 3(2) (v) was amended and Clause
(c) of Section 8 was inserted by Act 1 of 2016 with effect from 26 January 2016 these amendments would not be applicable to the case at hand. The offence in the present case has taken place before the amendment, on 31 March 2011. Therefore, we hold that the evidence in the present case does not establish that the offence in the present case was committed on the ground that such person is a member of a SC or ST. The conviction under Section 3(2)(v) would consequently have to be set aside."
26. In this case offence took place on 01.04.2011 that is before commencement of Act 1 of 2016 which came into force on 26.01.2016. As such, to attract Section 3 (2) (v) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989, prosecution has to prove that accused KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 14 committed rape on the ground of victim belongs to scheduled caste whereas, in the present case neither Pw.1 nor investigating officer deposed about the caste of minor girl. Further, the evidence of Pws.11 and 12 is silent about the fact that accused committed rape on the ground that victim belongs to scheduled caste. Pw.12 also not deposed that Pws.1 and 2 stated to him while recording their statement that accused committed rape on the ground that victim belongs to scheduled caste. Therefore, the finding of trial Court against the appellant for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) is without any evidence. As such, the conviction under Section 3 (2) (v) is liable to be set aside.
27. In view of the above discussion, the accused is found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 366 and 376 (f) of the IPC. The appellant is found not guilty for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The trial Court awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 376 (1) of the IPC and also five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered.
KL,J &SKS,J Crl.A.No.1167 of 2013 15
28. IN THE RESULT, the appeal is partly allowed by acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and conviction of the appellant/accused for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 (1) of the IPC is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence awarded for the offence under Section 376 (1) of the IPC is reduced to seven years. The appellant/accused was convicted by the trial court on 04.10.2013 and he got released on interim bail on 26.02.2019. The appellant/accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court within fifteen days from today, for serving out the remaining sentence. In case, the appellant fails to surrender, the trial Court shall take steps to secure the presence of accused for serving out the remaining sentence.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.
_________________ K.LAKSHMAN, J ______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :24.11.2023 Rds