Telangana High Court
Nallapothula Krishnaiah, Medchal Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 21 January, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1117 and 1186 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble Justice Sri K. Surender) Criminal Appeal No.1117 of 2017 is filed by accused No.1 and Criminal Appeal No.1186 of 2017 is filed by accused No.2.
2. Heard Ms. Kandala Siri Vennela, learned counsel representing Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
3. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted vide Judgment dated 19.07.2017 in Spl.S.C.No.158 of 2015 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Since both the appeals arise out of one Sessions Case, both the appeals are disposed off by way of this common judgment.
4. PW3 is the victim. PW1 is the maternal aunt of PW3. Since the mother of PW3 died, the victim was staying along with PW1. Their livelihood was by selling Honey ::2::
collected from Beehives in the Forest area. Both the appellants who are accused Nos.1 and 2 were brothers of PW1's deceased husband namely, Muthyalu. They were staying in the house of PW1 and were also doing the work of collecting Honey from the Beehives.
5. On the date of incident i.e., 05.03.2015, there was a quarrel in between the appellants and PW1 about partition of the honey, which was collected by them from beehives. At about 10:00 p.m, the appellants went to the house and gave arrack to the grandmother of PW3. After a short while, both the appellants forcibly took the victim- PW3 to the nearby haystack in the land of one Laxmamma. Victim was forced to consume arrack, and then accused No.1 committed rape on her. She shouted for help and accused No.2 gagged her. Thereafter, accused No.2 also committed rape on her. Accused No.1 closed the mouth of the victim, when accused No.2 was committing rape. The next day morning, PW3 went to her house and informed PW1 about the incident. PW3 was suffering from severe stomachache and was taken to the Government Hospital by PW5 and PW16. PW16 questioned as to what happened, ::3::
then PW3 stated that she was raped by both the appellants. PW1 who is the maternal aunt of the victim lodged a complaint which is Ex.P1. PW1 put her right thumb impression on Telugu Written Complaint which was received by the Police Station at 00:45 hours on 07.03.2015. The case was registered under Sections 376(D), 376(2) (I) of IPC and Sections 5(g) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
6. The victim was then sent for medical examination. PW11-Dr.D.Swarnalatha examined PW3 on 07.03.2015 at 1:10 p.m. According to PW11, PW3 complained of pain in the lower abdomen. On examination of the body, PW11 found a contusion 5 x 5 cms over the left eye. On observation of genitalia, found abrasion over the right side of labia minora ½ x ½ and ½ x ½ c.ms. According to the Doctor, the examination was painful since the patient was crying and abrasions were found on her private parts. PW11 issued Ex.P8/Certificate regarding the preliminary examination and the clothes of the victim were also seized and sent for the purpose of FSL examination. The vaginal swabs which were collected from the ::4::
victim/PW3 were sent to FSL and the report received from the FSL reflected that the vaginal swabs contain semen and spermatozoa. On the basis of the FSL report, final opinion was given by PW11. PW11 finally opined that there was recent forceful and painful sexual intercourse and also there were genitalia injuries.
7. During investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants for the said offences under Section 376(D) of I.P.C and Section 6 of POCSO Act. Learned Special Judge, having framed charges, found favour with the version of the prosecution and accordingly, convicted the appellants.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that there was inordinate delay in both lodging the complaint and also PW3 being examined by the Doctor. Though the alleged incident happened on the night of 05.03.2015, the complaint was filed in the earlier hours of 07.03.2015. Thereafter, the Doctor examined her at 1:30 p.m on 07.03.2015. Due to the long lapse of time, no samples would have been found by the Doctor which would facilitate testing by the FSL.
::5::
9. Learned counsel further argued that in PW3's cross-examination, she admitted that she became unconscious, as such, the question of identifying the appellants as the assailants does not arise. The false implication was on account of quarrel in between PW1 and the appellants in respect of the partition of honey that they collected from the beehives in the area.
10. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the learned Special Judge and further stated that the testimony of PW3 can be relied upon without any further corroboration. However, medical evidence also corroborates with the version given by the victim.
11. The argument of the learned counsel that there was a delay in lodging the complaint has to be looked into.
The complaint was filed at 00:30 hours on 07.03.2015, though the incident happened on 05.03.2015 in the night. The victim girl was aged around 13 years and staying along with PW1 who is her maternal aunt since her mother died. PW1 stated in her complaint that when she was in the house, then PW3 came there and informed about the rape committed by appellants. The incident was informed to ::6::
their caste persons and there after PW3 was taken to the hospital.
12. After the complaint was filed, PW3 was examined by the Doctor/PW11. As already narrated, according to the Doctor, she found abrasion over the right side of the labia minora which was a result of forceful and painful sexual intercourse that happened. The vaginal swabs were sent for FSL examination and the report showed that, swabs contained semen and spermatozoa.
13. The delay in lodging the complaint in the present case is of no consequence. The night of 05.03.2015 was the time when the incident happened and the next day after the dreadful incident, PW3 went home and informed PW1 about the incident. PW1's husband died and there were no other male persons in the family to support them, apart from the appellants who are the brothers of PW1's late husband. Information was given to village elders and from there, the victim was taken to the hospital. In the present factual scenario of the case, no adverse inference can be drawn for the delay that was caused in lodging the complaint and the delay stands explained.
::7::
14. The motive for false implication as suggested by the appellants is that the appellants used to frequently fight with PW1 about sharing of the honey that they collect from the beehives. The said fight cannot form basis to falsely implicate the appellants. The injuries were visible to the Doctor who examined the victim. Doctor found forceful and violent acts of sexual intercourse as such, the said defense taken by the appellants is of no avail.
15. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge while convicting the appellants. However, the sentence of Life Imprisonment is reduced to 20 years.
16. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are partly allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ K. SURENDER, J _______________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date: 21.01.2025 Smk/ds