Telangana High Court

Dodda Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 15 September, 2023

Bench: K.Surender

                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.17 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.1

challenging the conviction recorded by the V Additional Sessions

Judge, Kothagudem, FAC, Fast Track Sessions Judge for

expeditious disposal of cases of rape and Protection of Children

Against Sexual Offences Act, Kothagudem, in Special Sessions

Case No.54 of 2021,l dated 27.08.2021, convicting and

sentencing the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a

period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the

offences under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The case of the prosecution is that Ex.P1 complaint was

lodged with the Laxmidevipalli Police Station by PW1 who is the

mother of one of the victim girls. She stated in the complaint

that she has two daughters who are studying in MPP School,

Vhinthavarre Village. In the school the appellant/A1 was

working as a teacher. During Covid period, the children of the

village were asked to attend the school since there was no online

facility. Her daughter complained that she was feeling pain in

her private parts and weeping. The child was taken to the

hospital, where she was treated and when enquired, she

revealed that the appellant/A1 used to take her daughter into

the class room and used to give his private part in her hands

and told her to keep it in her mouth. He used to remove clothes

and lay on her. The appellant/A1 also removed his clothes and

made her remove her clothes and sleep on her and try to insert

his private part into her private part. The complainant also

narrated that the appellant/A1 had done the same thing with

the other girls also.

4. The Police having investigated the case filed charge sheet

against this appellant/A1 and seven other teachers of the

school.

5. The victims are PW3-Thati Sathvika aged 6 years, PW4-

Korem Navitha aged 8 years, PW5-Payam Srilatha aged 8 years,

PW6-Banda Harika aged 10 years and PW7-Thati Pravallika

aged 8 years. All the victim girls stated that this appellant/A1

used to take one of them at a time into the room by sending

other children outside. He used to remove his clothes and keep

his penis in the hands and asked to rub it and also to keep it in

their mouth. He also used to keep his penis into the vagina of

the child and rub it with force. The children used to cry out in

pain. However, none of the other students were present in the

class. Further, the appellant used to threaten by showing knife

not to reveal the acts, failing which the child would face dire

consequences.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/A1 would

submit that a false case has been filed against the appellant.

There were political differences and the assistance of the

children was taken to falsely implicate the accused. Further, in

the cross-examination, the children admitted that the accused

used to threaten to conduct examination in mathematical tables

for which reason of his strict teaching methods, the victims have

stated false against the appellant.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the victims PW3 to

PW7 have narrated the incidents before the Trial Court, however

there is no corroboration from the medical examination. PW.18

who examined the victim girls PW3 and PW4, PW.19 who

examined victim girls PWs.5, 6 and 7, issued medical certificates

which are contrary to the evidence of the victim girls. Though,

swabs were collected from the victim girls, none of the victim's

swabs contained semen or spermatozoa which clearly indicates

that there was no sexual assault as alleged by the prosecution.

In the medical reports-Ex.P12 to P16, there is nothing to suggest

that the victim girls were subjected to any kind of sexual abuse.

In fact in the said Exs.P12 to P16, it is stated that semen or

spermatozoa were not found during the examination. In the said

circumstances, the conviction has to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would

submit that the offence committed by the accused is heinous in

nature and there is no necessity for so many girls to speak

against the appellant. The conviction has to be sustained in the

background of convincing evidence of the victim girls regarding

the acts of the appellant.

9. As seen from the medical reports, the case history is

written as rape of the minor girls by the appellant/A1. It is

mentioned that the children have narrated that D.Sunil Kumar,

teacher at MPP School had raped the minor girls by taking the

victim girls into the room and forcibly committed rape.

10. Victim girls have narrated what the appellant/A1 had

done. The acts of the appellant are narrated by PW3 in her chief

examination which reads as follows;

"I was getting pain from my vagina. When my mother asked me in convincing manner as to why I was getting pain from my vagina, then I told my mother (PW1) stating that accused No.1 used to take me alone in a room in the school by sending other children out side of the school for playing and accused No.1 used to keep his penis in my hands asked to rub his penis and also used to keep his penis in my mouth and asked me to chew (suck) his penis and he used to keep his penis on my vagina and used to rub on my vagina with force, for which I was getting pain. At that time, no persons including students were not present in the room except me and Accused No.1"

11. The acts of the appellant are narrated by PW4 in her chief

examination which reads as follows;

"Some days ago, accused No.1 took me to the class room by sending other students out side of the school for playing and accused No.1 removed his wearing clothes and keep his penis in my hands asked to rub his penis and also used to keep his penis in my mouth and asked me to chew (suck) his penis and some times kept his penis on my urinal part and some times on my back, for which, I was getting pain on my urinal part. At that time, no persons including students were present in the room except me and accused No.1. Accused No.1 threatened me by showing knife not to reveal his acts towards me to any person including my

parents, otherwise he would threaten me with dire consequences. He did towards me like above several times. Like wise accused No.1 did not the above said acts with other students namely Sathvika (PW3), Srilatha, Harika (LW6), Pravallika (LW7). When PW.3 was suffering from fever she was treated in the hospital and then I informed the acts of Accused No.1 towards me to my mother."

12. Similar evidence is also stated by other victim girls.

13. There is no necessity for the girls to speak against the

teacher if he had not done such heinous acts. The acts

committed by the appellant/A1 would leave an everlasting

adverse impact on the minds of the children. The evidence of the

victim girls is of sterling quality and nothing is elicited in the

cross-examination to discredit the evidence of victim girls. As

extracted above, the narration of the victim girls is specific

regarding the acts committed by the appellant. The acts of the

accused amount to aggravated sexual assault.

14. Not finding semen or spermatozoa on the wearing apparel

or swabs collected from victim girls is of no consequence. The