Telangana High Court
Smt.Kommuru Satyamma And 2 Others vs The State Of A.P., Maddur Police ... on 5 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.7 and 75 OF 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Special Sessions
Judge-cum-VII Addl.Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in SC.No.101
of 2010, dated 30.12.2011, A2 filed Crl.A.No.7 of 2012 and A3 to A5
filed Crl.A.No.75 of 2012. A2 was convicted for the offences under
Sections 376(2)(g), 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act, 1989, and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC; to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for
the offence under Section 506 of IPC; and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act.
Further, the sentences against A2 shall run concurrently. A3 to A5
are convicted for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/STs
(PoA) Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. PW.1 is the victim. She stated before the Court that, in the
year 2008 she was studying in Zilla Parishad High School,
Nidijintha village. On 23.12.2008 at about 9.00 A.M., she went to
school and was returning home for lunch around 1.00 p.m. On the
way she had to pass nearby the house of A1-Juvenile (who was tried
separately by the Juvenile Court). A1 questioned her and while she
was proceeding to her house, A1 forcibly took PW.1 into his house.
The appellant-A2 was already present in the house. A2 closed the
doors from behind and A1 dragged her into room, threw her on the
ground and committed rape on her. After A1 committed rape of
PW.1, A2 also committed rape on the victim girl. Her clothes were
torn. Both appellants A2 and A1 threatened PW.1 with dire
consequences if she informs the incident to her parents. On account
of the forcible rape, she sustained bleeding injuries on her private
parts. PW.1 went to her house and informed the incident to her
aunt-Kashamma (PW.3) and also Amruthamma (PW.5). Thereafter,
the parents of victim returned home and incident was narrated to
them. The victim along with her mother (PW.2) and father went to
the house of A1. But, A1 and A2 were not present. Thereafter, they
went to meet the Sarpanch and the matter was placed before the
elders. In the Panchayat, elders of A1 and A3 to A5 were present.
The mother of A1 admitted the guilt and offered to touch the feet of
PWs.1 and 2. At that instance, A3 to A5 went there and abused
them in the name of caste as "Madiga Mundalaraa rape chesthe
chesharu" (you scheduled caste bitches should accept rape).
4. Thereafter, they went to the police station and lodged a written
complaint which is Ex.P1. Victim was sent for medical examination.
PW.8 is the doctor who examined PW.1. The evidence of PW.8 is
extracted hereunder:
"Accordingly I examined her. I found scratch marks on the
left elbow joint. Within 48 hours, on examination of her
private parts I found that hymen was ruptured, found
fresh lateral tearness. Raw area present around hymen
tears. I found bleeding on touch of hymen area. I collected
two swabs vaginal smears and sent to FSL. After getting
FSL report I gave my final opinion. In my opinion there was
sexual assault and intercourse occurred on PW.1. I issued
certificate. It is Ex.P7."
5. The Police, concluded investigating the case and filed charge
sheet before Juvenile Court against A1, and before Special Court
against A2 to A5.
6. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence of
the witnesses and the corroborating medical evidence, convicted A2
for rape and A3 to A5 for abusing PWs.1 and 2 in the name of caste.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-A2 submits
that PWs.3 to 5 who are crucial witnesses and to whom the
information was given by PW.1 at the first instance, have turned
hostile to the prosecution case and did not support the version of
PW.1. The sarpanch who was the head of the Panchayat, that was
held after the alleged rape, was also not examined. Though the
incident happened on 23.12.2008, however, the complaint to the
Police was on the next day, with an inordinate delay of nearly 1 ½
day. Further, the counsel argued that no proof was filed by the
prosecution to show that the victim girl was a minor at the time of
incident.
8. The evidence of 'victim' in a rape case can be considered if
found to be truthful. There is no necessity of any corroboration to
the evidence of the victim girl, if her evidence is of such a quality,
which would convince the Court, and withstands the cross-
examination.
9. The evidence of PW.1 is consistent. She stated that on that
day, while she was coming back to school during lunch time, A1
dragged her into his house where A2 was already present. There,
both of them committed rape on her. After she was taken to the
doctor, PW.8 examined PW.1. As seen from Ex.P7, during
examination, semen was detected on the uniform skirt of the victim.
There were scratch marks over the left elbow and hymen was not
intact. There were fresh lateral tears of hymen. PW.8 further found
bleeding on the hymen area.
10. The medical evidence clearly indicates forcible intercourse.
Though, semen that was found was not subjected to DNA
examination, however, during the examination of private parts of
the victim girl, doctor found fresh injuries.
11. In the said circumstances, there is no necessity for any
corroboration by any other witnesses, when the evidence of the
victim-PW.1 was proved to be truthful, undeterred during cross-
examination and corroborated by PW.8-doctor.
12. The delay in lodging the complaint was clearly explained by
PWs.1 and 2. The incident happened in the afternoon. The father of
the victim returned home at 7.30 p.m. Though, there was a
'panchayat' that was held, according to the victim, no justice was
done in the panchayat, for which reason, they approached police. As
already discussed, the victim was sent for medical examination,
which proved forcible sexual intercourse.
13. The allegation against A3 to A5 is that they have abused PW.1
in the name of her caste. Such vague and omnibus allegation of A3
to A5 abusing the victim, cannot be considered to convict them
under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act. Nothing specific is
narrated by PW.1 or PW.2, insofar as the acts of A3 to A5 are
concerned, on the day of panchayat.
14. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to A3
to A5. Insofar as A2 is concerned, conviction under Section 376
(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. However, the sentence
of imprisonment is reduced to the minimum punishment of seven
years.
15. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal 7 of 2012 filed by Accused No.2
is partly allowed and Criminal Appeal 75 of 2012 filed by Accused
Nos.3 to 5, is allowed.
16. Since Accused No.2 is on bail, the concerned Court below
shall cause appearance of Accused No.2 and send him to prison to
serve out the remaining part of sentence.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.02.2025
tk
