Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Ade Krishna Kumar on 16 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.476 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
The State has preferred the present appeal questioning
the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accussed Nos.1
to 7 for the offence under Section 376(2)n, 294(b), 323 IPC &
Sec.6 of POSCO Act-2012 against A1, under Section 376(2)(n)
r/w.109 IPC and Sec.6 r/w 17 of POCSO Act-2012 against A2
to A4 and under Section 323, 294(b) of IPC against A5 to A7.
2. The case of PW1/victim is that on 01.09.2017 around
9 P.M while she was alone, A2 asked her to come to Ganapathi
temple. On the way PW1 stopped in front of A2's house and A2
asked her to go inside the house and bring water. When Pw.1
went inside the house, A2 immediately locked the doors from
outside. A1 was already inside the house and A2 switched off
the lights from outside. A1 committed rape on her. After 1
hour, A2 opened the doors and both of them threatened to kill
PW1, if she discloses about the rape committed on her.
Thereafter complaint was filed after nearly one year i.e., on
CRLA No.476 OF 2024
16.9.2018 alleging that rape was committed by A1 in the
house of A2 one year prior.
3. The police having registered the case for the offences
under POSCO Act and IPC, investigated into allegations leveled
against the accused and charge sheet was filed against
respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 7.
4. The learned session Judge having framed charges for the
alleged offences, examined PW1 to PW18 on behalf of the
prosecution. Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 were also marked by the
prosecution. In defense the accused mark D1 to D7 of which
D1 is the part of 161 statement of the mother of victim that is
PW2 and D2 to D7 are the voters list for the years 2018 to
2023.
5. The learned Session Judge, having considered the
evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the following
grounds.
i) There is an inordinate delay of more than 1 year in
lodging the complaint.
CRLA No.476 OF 2024
ii) It was admitted during the trial that A1 and PW1 were
married in Jagadamba Temple and the marriage was
performed by PW7-priest.
iii) All the circumstantial witnesses did not support the
case of the prosecution.
iv) The medical evidence did not support the version of
rape nor any external injuries were found on PW1
pursuant to the medial examination of the victim.
v) Since marriage of victim and A1 was admitted and the
age of the girl was not conclusively proved, a complaint
ought to have been filed under 498-A of IPC, however
the complainant has deliberately invoked POCSO Act.
6. The learned public prosecutor submits that though there
was a delay of one year in lodging the complaint, however, the
victim has stated that she was assaulted and raped by A1 with
the help of other accused, in the said circumstances the victim
evidence can be relied on to reverse the order of acquittal. If
evidence of victim is convincing no further corroboratory
evidence is required.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
accused would submit that the delay of one year is not
CRLA No.476 OF 2024
explained, except stating that the incident happened on the
said day, one year prior, no evidence is forth coming from the
complainant regarding what transpired during the entire year.
8. As rightly found by learned Session Judge, since the
marriage was admitted between PW1 and A1 and the age of
PW1 was not proved by the prosecution that she is a minor,
the question of any conviction does not arise.
9. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi
Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another 1, held that while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial
Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly
when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is
that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court
has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court
rendering acquittal.
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
CRLA No.476 OF 2024
10. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding
the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court
in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other
appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles
crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or
otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise
disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and
compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court
would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard
the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling
reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is
palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view
of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave
miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the
evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and
unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying
declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not
exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and
consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads
to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate
courts must rule in favour of the accused."
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
CRLA No.476 OF 2024
11. Neither PW1 nor PW2 have given any reasons for the
delay of one year period in lodging the complaint. Both of them
have deliberately suppressed the factum of marriage between
PW1 and A1 and falsely implicated the accused. As rightly
found by learned Session Judge, the grievances if any, in the
marital life of the PW1 and A1 ought to have been taken up
before the concerned police. By suppressing the core
information of their marriage, false case of rape was filed and
accused were prosecuted. In the said circumstances, I do not
find any reasons to interfere with the well reasoned Judgment
of the learned Sessions Judge.
12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State fails and is
hereby dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 16.10.2024
SHA/SU
