Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Vanguri Thirupathi Rao on 21 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.915 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T:
1. The State is questioning the judgment of acquittal of
the respondent/accused in SC (POCSO) No.80 of 2020 on
the file of the learned First Fast Track Special Sessions
Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act
Cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, for the
offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
appellant-State and also on behalf of the victim and learned
counsel for the respondent/accused. Perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case of PW.1, who is the de facto complaint
is that the victim girl is his daughter. She was a minor. The
respondent/accused was frequently talking with his
daughter-victim girl/PW.3. On 07.05.2019, PW.3 left the
house and did not return, he searched the locality and
thereafter lodged a complaint before police. Fifteen days
thereafter, PW.3 informed him over phone that she was at
Bonakal village. PW.1 went there and brought her back.
Thereafter, on the basis of the statement given by the victim
girl, the Section of Law was altered from missing girl to
Section 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and
investigated. According to the prosecution, the accused
gagged PW.3 and forced her to sit on motorcycle with the
help of another Juvenile and took PW.3 to Gudimalkapuram
village, Suryapet District. The accused had sexual
intercourse with PW.3 forcibly.
4. Learned Sessions Judge during the course of trial
examined PWs.1 to 19 and also Exs.P1 to P14 on behalf of
prosecution. PW.3, is the victim girl and Ex.P3 is her study
certificate dated 25.06.2014 which was relied on by the
prosecution to show that PW.3 was minor.
5. Learned Sessions Judge having examined the evidence
placed on record by the prosecution found that:
i) PW.3 admitted that she stayed in a rented house along
with accused for 15 days and she was moving freely.
ii) Though phone was available she did not call her
parents during the said period of 15 days and the accused
was going on with his job as a lorry driver from morning till
evening during the said 15 days.
iii) PW.3 admitted that there were farmers attending their
field works near the place where they stayed and it was a
busy road. She never tried to raise any alarm.
iv) While PW/3 was going on the motorcycle along with
the accused, she nearly crossed 10 police stations, but there
was never any attempt either to seek help of any person or
get down from the motorcycle. She had travelled freely from
Bonakal to Gudimalkapuram.
v) PW.6, who is the owner of the house, where PW.3 and
accused stayed, stated that both of them lived normally and
the accused was working as a lorry driver. In the absence of
accused, PW.3 was moving freely in the vicinity and there
were no disputes among them.
vi) Pw.16, who is the Gynecologist, stated that she did
not find any external injuries on the body or on the private
parts of the body.
vii) It is not the case of PW.3 that accused had committed
rape forcibly on her.
6. On the basis of the above said findings, the learned
Sessions Judge found that it cannot be said that PW.3 was
taken away by force from her legal guardian and it does not
amount to kidnapping. The accused did not compel PW.3 to
marry him or have illicit intercourse with any one, as such
none of the ingredients either of Section 366 of IPC or 376 of
IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act were made out.
7. 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
8. 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.
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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."
9. The circumstances in the case are that PW.3 stayed
along with accused for a period of 15 days in the house of
PW.6 and she was moving freely according to PW.6. In such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused had
compelled her to join him. Further, Ex.P3 is the Study
certificate dated 25.06.2014. Except date of birth, the
prosecution has not brought on record any material such as
municipal certificate or the certificate issued by the hospital
where PW.3 was born to prove her date of birth. Ex.P3 was
issued by the school and date of birth mentioned is on the
basis of declaration given either by the guardian or the
parents of PW.3. During investigation no steps were taken
to get the ossification test done to ascertain the age of PW.3.
10. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the
well reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of
admission.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 21.10.2024
mmr
