Ramisetty Jampaiah , Sai vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2737 Tel

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.312 of 2021

JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant was tried for the offences under Sections 376-

AB, 323 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act of 2012'). However, the

learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences

under Section 376-AB r/w 511 of IPC and he was acquitted for the

offences under Sections 376-AB, 323 IPC and Section 6 of the Act of

2012 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

of ten years vide judgment in SC POCSO No.111 of 2020, dated

26.04.2021 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases

under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I

Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, who is the

mother of victim girl/P.W.2 went to the house of the appellant while

searching for daughter and saw that the appellant has removed his

clothes and also removed the clothes of the girl and the appellant

slept on girl. Accordingly, she questioned the appellant. The

appellant beat her and ran away. For the said reason, she lodged

complaint Ex.P1 with the police. The police having investigated the

case filed charge sheet for the said offences.

3. Learned Sessions Judge during the course of trial examined

P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. Having considered the

evidence, learned Sessions Judge found that there was no offence of

rape, but there was an attempt to rape the victim girl/P.W.2,

accordingly, convicted the appellant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that the victim girl has turned hostile to the prosecution case. Even

the Doctor has stated that according to his opinion, there were no

injuries on the private parts of the victim girl and there was no sign

of sexual assault on the victim girl. In the said circumstances, when

no rape was committed, the prosecution has miserably failed to

prove any offence against the appellant.

5. Having gone through the record, the victim girl was examined

as P.W.2, who turned hostile to the prosecution case and stated

that the appellant had asked her to sleep on him. However, she did

not mention that either her clothes were removed or the clothes of

the appellant were removed. The Public Prosecutor had treated the

victim girl as hostile and cross-examined her.

6. In the cross-examination, the victim girl has stated that the

appellant removed his clothes and made her lie over him. However,

again when the cross-examination was conducted by the legal aid

counsel, it was stated by the victim girl that her mother asked her

to narrate against the appellant.

7. The medical evidence is not supporting any kind of rape.

Admittedly, no injuries were found on the body. The evidence that is

common amongst P.Ws.1 and 2 is that the victim girl was made to

sleep on the appellant. The said act amounts to getting into

physical contact without penetration and attracting the definition of

sexual assault under Section 7 of the Act. The evidence of the

doctor rules out any sexual assault or rape.

8. In the result, the conviction under Section 376-AB r/w 511

IPC is set aside and the appellant is convicted for the offence under

Section 8 of the Act of 2012 and sentenced to three years rigorous

imprisonment. Since it is stated that the appellant is in jail, he shall

be set at liberty after completion of sentence, if he is not required in

any other case.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.09.2023 kvs

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.312 OF 2021

Date: 26.09.2023

kvs