Telangana High Court
Sale Prabhakar, Marpully Mandal, ... vs The State Of Ap., Rept. By Pp., High Court ... on 27 September, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Revision Case No.1442 OF 2011
Between:
Sale Prabhakar ... Petitioner
And
The State of A.P.,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 27.09.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
+ CRL.R.C. No. 1442 OF 2011
% Dated 27.09.2024
# Sale Prabhakar ... Appellant
And
$ The State of A.P.,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1442 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under
Sections 363 and 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years and seven years
respectively vide judgment in S.C.No.142 of 2006 dated
25.02.2008 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad.
The said conviction was confirmed by the VI Additional Sessions
Judge (FTC) at Vikarabad vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.4
of 2008 dated 01.07.2011.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the victim, who
was examined as P.W.1, filed complaint with the police stating
that P.W.1 and the accused are residents of Komisettipally
village. While she was returning home from Kirana shop on
19.04.2006 at 8.00 p.m, the accused caught hold of her and
gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth, tied both hands with her
chunny and forcibly made her to sit in an auto. She was
threatened with dire consequences, if she did not follow accused.
She was taken to the fields and raped by the accused. When the
accused took her out to outskirts of the village, another person
was also present, who travelled along with them in the auto. The
accused threatened not to disclose the incident, otherwise, she
would be killed. The accused committed rape on P.W.1 till 2.00
a.m and thereafter, dropped at her house and went away. The
issue was reported to her parents, P.Ws.2 and 3. Then, around
8.00 a.m, P.Ws.1 to 3 went to the police and lodged Ex.P1
complaint.
3. The police, during the course of investigation, sent the
victim/P.W.1 for examination by the Doctor/P.W.9. P.W9, having
examined the victim collected swabs and sent them to FSL for
analysis and report. Accordingly, on the basis of Ex.P6 FSL
report, P.W.9 gave Ex.P5 opinion stating that sexual intercourse
occurred.
4. Charge sheet was filed for the offence of abduction and
committing rape punishable under Section 366 IPC and Section
376 IPC.
5. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge having framed charges
for the said offences, examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1
to P8 on behalf of the prosecution. The auto, which was seized,
marked as MO2 and the wearing apparel of P.W.1 was marked as
M.O.1.
6. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, having examined the
evidence on record found that the victim girl/P.W.1 was forcibly
taken in the auto and subjected to rape. Accordingly, accused
was convicted. The said conviction was confirmed by the learned
Sessions Judge in appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner/accused would submit that P.W.1/victim girl and the
accused are known to each other. In fact, the marriage proposal
was also taken up. However, refusal by the accused to convert
into Muslim religion was the reason for the marriage not taking
place. Learned counsel further argued that there was mention of
a second person when the incident has taken place. However, the
said second person has not been identified during the course of
investigation nor the details are given by the victim. When
medical examination does not reveal that there was any kind of
force that was used by the accused, collectively, it can be seen
that P.W.1 has wrongly framed the accused.
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
would submit that the solitary testimony of P.W.1 coupled with
the medical evidence is enough to infer that rape was committed.
There needs no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 since it is
reliable and convincing.
9. P.W.3 who is the mother of the victim girl stated during
cross-examination that the elders proposed marriage in between
P.W.1 and the accused. However, P.Ws.2 and 3 did not accept.
She further stated that she does not know whether the accused
informed that he will marry P.W.1, but he was not willing and
prepared to convert into Muslim religion. P.W.8, who was also
resident of the very same village, was taken as a witness for
seizure of the auto. During his cross-examination, he stated that
he filed complaint against the accused after being released on
bail in the case on the allegation that the accused threatened to
kill him. He further stated that the accused proposed to marry
P.W.1 according to Hindu religion, but proposal was refused and
it was decided by the elders that marriage can be performed only
if the accused converts himself as a Muslim. However, the
accused did not accept the said proposal.
10. The version given by both P.Ws.3 and 8 is not disputed by
the prosecution.
11. The victim, in fact, suppressed the fact that she was long
acquainted with the accused and their relationship was accepted
by the elders and proposal was made for marriage, however, on
account of religious differences, the marriage could not take
place. The entire back ground of the relationship in between
P.W.1 and the accused marriage proposal was not stated to police
or before Court by P.W.1 for the reasons best known to her.
12. However, the mother of P.W.1 and also P.W.8, an
independent witness who belongs to Muslim religion, clearly
stated that the accused refused to convert into Muslim religion
when proposal was taken up for the marriage of P.W.1 and
accused.
13. The Doctor/P.W.9 who examined P.W.1 stated that there
were no external injuries on her body. P.W.1 during trial
introduced another person, who was allegedly present when the
incident has taken place and he was in the auto. However, she
failed to give any descriptive particulars of the said person nor
stated about his identity in any manner. It appears that for the
reason of P.W.1 going home around 3.00 a.m, resulted in lodging
complaint Ex.P1. It can be fairly assessed in the background of
relation between P.W.1 and accused and the refusal by accused
to convert before marriage, relations were strained with elders,
leading to the complaint.
14. The circumstances of the case when viewed in its entirety, it
is admitted that there was relationship in between P.W.1 and the
accused. No injuries were found on the body of P.W.1. In the
background of the version of P.W.1 that her mouth was gagged
and forcibly rape being committed till 2.00 a.m after abduction at
8.00 p.m, creates any amount of doubt. The back ground of a
case cannot be lost sight of. In cases such as the present case,
Court cannot brush aside the background and confine only to the
allegations of rape. Such an approach would cause grave
prejudice to the accused.
15. The findings of both the Courts below have to be reversed.
In fact, the Courts below have not considered the very crucial
aspect of the relationship in between P.W.1 and the accused and
the proposal of marriage in between them and deliberately
suppressed by witnesses during investigation.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Since
the revision petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
cancelled.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 27.09.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
