Telangana High Court
Gujja Nagaraju , Raju, Manuguru And 2 ... vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp., Hyd., on 21 February, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.123 OF 2013
Between:
1. Gujja Nagaraju @ Raju
2. Md.Waseem Akram
3. Shetty Sai Teja ....Appellants/A1 to A3
And
The State of A.P. ... Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 21.02.2025
Submitted for approval.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
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 Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.123 OF 2013
% Dated 21.02.2025
# 1. Gujja Nagaraju @ Raju
2. Md.Waseem Akram
3. Shetty Sai Teja ....Appellants/A1 to A3
And
$ The State of Telangana,
... Respondent/complainant
! Counsel for the Appellants 1 and 3 : Sri C.Sharan Reddy
! Counsel for the Appellant No.2 : Smt.A.Krishnaveni.
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy,
Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 123 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants/A1 to A3 aggrieved by
the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases
under SCs and STs (PoA) Act-cum-Addl.Sessions Judge,
Khammam, in S.C.No.20 of 2012, dated 04.01.2013, for the
offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 384 and 506 r/w.34 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the
offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the
offence under Section 384 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years for the
offence under Section 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Further, all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants 1 and 3 and Smt.Avula Krishnaveni, learned counsel
for appellant No.2; learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.9.2011, at
3:30 PM, PW.1, the victim, lodged a complaint in Telugu (Ex.P1) at
P.S Edulla Bayyaram. In her complaint, PW.1 stated that she was
studying in Intermediate 2nd year at Khammam. On 9.9.2011, at
about 4:30 PM, she boarded an RTC bus from Khammam and
reached Manuguru at around 12:30 AM. Upon inquiry, she
learned that there were no buses available to Eturnagaram, so she
decided to go to her relative Durgam Ravi (PW.4) at Jaggaram. She
engaged an auto, bearing number AP 20 Y 8925 with top No. 349,
and was the sole passenger. During the journey, two other
persons boarded the auto. As they proceeded towards Jaggaram,
the auto was diverted towards Rajupet road. When PW.1 objected,
the auto driver and the other two occupants threatened her with
dire consequences and took away her China-made Gild cell phone
with SIM No. 9603944133, a rolled gold chain, rolled gold ear
studs, and Rs.1,200/- in cash. The accused then stopped the auto
and committed rape on her one after another. After the assault,
they brought her to Illapur stage, dropped her off, and threatened
her not to disclose the incident to anyone before fleeing towards
Manuguru. PW.1 subsequently went to the house of Chappidi
Padma Rao in Jaggaram and stayed there for the night. The next
day, she informed Chappidi Padma Rao (PW.3) about the incident,
who advised her to report the matter to the police. PW.1 stated
that she could recognize the accused and described them as
follows: one was stout and dark-complexioned, aged about 22
years; the second was fair-skinned, aged about 18 years; and the
third was lean, aged about 18 years. She also mentioned that
during their conversation, they addressed each other as Nagaraju
and Teja. PW.1 further stated that the offense occurred around
midnight.
4. Upon receiving the complaint, a case was registered as
Crime No. 57/2011 by PW.14 under Sections 376(g) and 384 read
with Section 34 of IPC, and FIR (Ex.P19) was issued. PW.14 then
informed PW.17, who was holding additional charge of Edulla
Bayyaram Circle.
5. PW.17 took up the investigation, examined PW.1 and her
relatives (PWs.2 to 4 and LWs.3 and 5), and recorded their
statements. PW.17 then proceeded to the crime scene, as pointed
out by PW.1, and in the presence of mediators PW.13 and LW.10,
conducted a scene of offense panchanama in CDF, drew a rough
sketch, and seized one torn panty of the victim. Further, in the
presence of mediators PW.7 and LW.13, PW.17 seized the semen-
stained clothes of PW.1--MO.4 (pant) and MO.5 (top)--under a
cover of seizure panchanama. PW.1 was thereafter referred to Area
Hospital, Bhadrachalam, for medical examination by the Lady
Medical Officer (PW.11), who issued reports (Ex.P15 and Ex.P16).
6. On 12.9.2011, at 9:30 AM, A1 to A3 were apprehended at
Ambedkar Centre, Manuguru, along with the crime vehicle, and
were brought to Manuguru PS. A1--Gujja Nagaraju (22 years old),
A2--Md. Waseem Akram (18 years old), and A3--Shetty Sai Teja
(18 years old)--confessed to committing the offense and taking
PW.1's cell phone (SIM No. 9603944133), rolled gold chain, rolled
gold ear studs, and Rs.1,200/- in cash.
7. During the investigation, it was revealed that PW.1 belonged
to the Nethakani caste, which falls under the SC category,
whereas A2 and A3 belonged to non-SC/ST communities.
Consequently, PW.17 added Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sent a memo to the Hon'ble
Court requesting the addition of relevant provisions of the Act
alongside Sections 376(2)(g) and 384 read with Section 34 IPC.
PW.17 then informed PW.15 over the phone, and PW.15 apprised
the Superintendent of Police, Khammam, of the case details,
requesting authorization to take up the investigation. PW.15 was
subsequently instructed to proceed with the investigation.
8. Upon verification, PW.15 found PW.17's investigation to be
on correct lines. PW.15 then examined A1 to A3 and, in the
presence of PW.8 and LW.15, recorded their confessional and
recovery statements. Based on A1's confession, semen-stained cut
drawer of A1 and a rolled gold chain (MO.3) were seized from A1's
possession. From A2's possession, a China-made Gild cell phone
with SIM No. 9603944133 (MO.1) and a cut drawer were seized.
From A.3's possession, an auto (AP 20Y8925, top No. 349), gold
ear studs (MO.2), and a cut drawer were seized. PW.15 also
examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 6 and LWs.3,
5, and 9.
9. Thereafter, A1 to A3 were arrested and referred to Area
Hospital, Bhadrachalam, for potency tests and preservation of
their blood and semen samples for FSL examination. PW.9, the
Surgeon, examined A1 to A3 and forwarded their blood and semen
samples for FSL testing. Upon receiving the FSL report, PW.9
opined that there was nothing to suggest that A1 to A3 were
incapable of performing sexual acts.
10. PW.11, another Surgeon, who examined PW.1, opined that
the FSL report suggests sexual assault. Subsequently, on
4.11.2011, PW.16, the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate,
conducted a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for A1 to A3 at Sub-
Jail, Bhadrachalam.
11. PW.12, the Tahsildar of Eturnagaram Mandal, issued PW.1's
caste certificate, confirming that she belonged to the SC
(Nethakani) category. As per the school study and conduct
certificate, PW.1 was 17 years old at the time of the offense, with
her date of birth recorded as 21.6.1994. PW.10, the Tahsildar of
Manuguru, issued caste certificates for A1 to A3, confirming that
A1 belonged to the SC (Mala) community, A2 to the Muslim
community, and A3 to the BC community.
12. Upon completion of the investigation, charges were framed
under Sections 376(2)(g), 392, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC
against A1 to A3, and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act
against A2 and A3.
13. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the evidence of PW.1
and the subsequent identification of the appellants, convicted
them accordingly.
14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
would submit that there are any amount of discrepancies in the
testimony of PW.1. What she stated at the earliest point of time in
the complaint was given a go by, and she came up with a new
version in the Court below. The said development made during the
course of trial would have any amount of impact on the version of
the 'victim', since there is a delay in lodging the complaint, which
is unexplained. PW.1's mother was examined as PW.2 and she
contradicts the version of PWs.1 and 3 regarding the timing of the
complaint before the police. Though, PW.2 stated that the
complaint was drafted in their house, however, PW.1 states that
the complaint was drafted in the police station. The claim that the
date of birth of the 'victim' was 26.06.1996, was proved to be false.
Ex.D1-education certificate was marked, which shows her date of
birth as 21.06.1994 and PW.1 did not provide any document to
the police to substantiate that she was born in the year 1996.
15. Learned counsel further argued that according to the Police,
the arrest of appellants A1 to A3 was on 12.09.2011. However, the
'victim' PW.1 in her cross examination stated that one day after
giving the complaint, the Police called her to Manuguru Police
Station and was asked to identify the assailants. She identified the
appellants as the persons who were mentioned in the complaint.
The said admission of PW.1 creates any amount of doubt
regarding the case projected by the prosecution. The complaint
was lodged on 10.09.2011 and if the accused were already in the
police station on 11.09.2011, the version that A1 to A3 were
arrested on 12.09.2011, is false. Further, no credibility can be
attached to the Test Identification Parade conducted by PW.16-
Magistrate, on 24.10.2011.
16. The learned counsel further argued that the accused had
given their version in the 313 Cr.P.C. examination. The said
version probablizes the defence, that the appellants were falsely
implicated in the case and they were arrested and kept illegally in
the Police Station.
17. In view of the said discrepancies, which go to the root of the
case, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellants.
18. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand
submits that, once the evidence of the victim PW.1 is consistent
and believable, no further corroboration is necessary to find the
accused guilty. The appellants were strangers and they committed
rape of the 'victim' girl. She went to the house of PW.14 and
informed about the incident. Thereafter, complaint was lodged
with the police. The delay in lodging the complaint is explained
convincingly by the prosecution. Since the findings of the learned
Sessions Judge are based on record, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
19. Having gone through the record, during the course of 313
Cr.P.C examination, A1 stated that on 10.09.2011, he was taken
to the police station. There, the Police questioned him and
detained him illegally for three days. On 12.09.2011, A1 was
shown A2 and A3 and all of them were produced before the Court
on 13.09.2011.
20. A2, in the statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C
examination, stated that early morning of 10.09.2011, constable
went to his house and took him to the police station. All the
policemen questioned about where he was on 9th September and
he was tortured. When A2 questioned as to why he was being
detained, the Police informed that they entertained doubt that he
was involved in a rape case. On the same day at 11.30 A.M.,
parents of A2 and some politicians went to the police station and
questioned regarding the detention of A2. One police constable
asked for sperm sample and threatened that if sample is not
given, he will be killed. A false case was fabricated against him
and he was only an auto driver. He further stated that he wanted
to go to the U.K to pursue his studies and his life was spoiled by
the police.
21. A3, in his 313 Cr.P.C examination stated that, on
10.09.2011, the police came to his house and took him to the
police station. There, they made him wait and showed A1. In the
evening of 12.09.2011, he was taken to Bhadrachalam hospital.
From there he was taken to Bhadrachalam jail and the Court
Constable pointed at him and showed him to a girl who identified
them in the jail. A3 stated that he was not aware as to who A1 and
A2 were.
22. The incident happened on 09.09.2011, in the night. The
victim-PW.1 was taken in the Auto and her rolled gold chain, ear
rings and Rs.1200/- cash were stolen. Thereafter, A1 and A2
committed rape on her. PW.1 stated in the complaint that she
could recognize three persons and gave the descriptive particulars.
One person was 22 years and the other two were 18 years. In the
conversation, two of the accused addressed themselves as
Nagaraju and Teja, identified as A1 and A3.
23. In the complaint filed by PW.1, A1 and A3 were named and
also the descriptive particulars of A2 were given. The delay in
lodging the complaint was explained by PW.1. After the accused
committed rape on her, she was dropped at Ilapur cross roads and
threatened not to reveal to anyone about the incident. From there,
PW.1 went to Jaggaram by walk in the night to her grand mother's
house. The next day morning PW.1 narrated the incident to her
grand-mother-Ademma (not examined) and Ch.Padma Rao-cousin
brother (PW.3). PW.3 then informed the parents of the victim. They
went to police station and filed complaint. Auto number was also
mentioned in the complaint. PW.1, having given the descriptive
particulars in the complaint, also mentioned that she can identify
the assailants if shown to her.
24. PW.17-Inspector, who was informed about the incident by
PW.14-Sub-inspector, went to the police station and from there to
the scene of offence, along with the victim girl and others. Sketch
and scene of offence panchanama were prepared. From there, the
police returned to the police station and the clothes of the victim
were seized. PW.1 was referred to the Government Hospital. On
12.09.2011, all the three accused were apprehended by PW.15-
DSP, Manuguru and PW.17-Inspector of Police.
25. Learned Counsel submitted that initially the version of the
victim girl-PW.1 was that all the three persons raped her, however,
she confined the allegation of rape to A1 and A2 only, during the
course of trial. The said deviation from her earlier statement would
go to show that she is speaking false and the incident did not
happen the way it was projected by the prosecution. Further, in
the evidence of PW.1, during her cross-examination, she stated
that one day after giving the complaint, Police called her to
Manugur Police Station to identify the assailants. Since the
complaint was lodged on 10.09.2011, it is clear that the accused
were arrested and shown to PW.1 on 11.09.2011 itself. The said
admission of PW.1 falsifies the version of prosecution that the
accused were arrested on 12.09.2011, and supports the version of
the accused given in their 313 Cr.P.C. examination, about them
being arrested on 10.09.2011 itself and being illegally detained.
26. The details of the auto in which the victim was abducted and
also the descriptive particulars of the accused were narrated in
the complaint itself. The victim was cross-examined nearly one
year after the incident. In her cross-examination, she stated that
on the next day she was taken to the police station to identify the
assailants. The said admission cannot form basis to completely
discredit the version of PW.1. The specific date of the accused
being shown in the police station is not stated by the victim. The
said admission of seeing accused in the police station and also
narrating only about A1 and A2 committing rape on her before
Court, will not effect the version of the victim girl in its entirety.
The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' cannot be applied in
a criminal case. The victim had undergone a traumatic experience
of being raped and such incident would leave an everlasting
impact on her mind. The version given by victim at the earliest
point of time was repeated in the Court. The FSL examination
suggested sexual assault. Her wearing apparel were found stained
with semen and spermatozoa. There is no reason why the
appellants would be falsely implicated in the case by PW.1. In
cases such as these, minor discrepancies creep in during the
course of evidence. Such minor discrepancies cannot be magnified
in the manner of rejecting the entire prosecution case, when the
core version of the victim is reliable and supported by medical
evidence. During cross-examination of PW.15-Investigating
Officer, it was suggested that the sample of semen taken from
them was applied to the wearing apparel of PW.1. The said defence
cannot be believed.
27. The accused claimed that they were illegally detained in the
police station on 10.09.2011 itself. The parents of A2, his
relatives and politicians visited the police station. However, not a
single person was examined in defence during trial, for the Court
to believe the alleged illegal detention. Further, no petitions were
filed either before the High Court or any complaints were lodged,
with any of the authorities, complaining about the alleged illegal
detention. No record is filed by the accused to show that they have
complained to the Magistrate about illegal detention, when they
were produced before the Magistrate. The version of illegally
detaining the accused on 10.09.2011, appears to be on the basis
of the admission of PW.1 in her cross-examination, that the
accused were shown one day after the incident in the police
station. A1's defence as suggested to PW.15 is that, the wife of A1
was sick and he was in the hospital on the day of incident. A1 did
not produce any evidence about his wife's hospitalization. Further,
he did not state the said defence during 313 Cr.P.C. examination.
28. The learned counsel for appellant had also pointed out that
PW.7, in his cross-examination, stated that the accused were
present in the police station on 10.09.2011, at 5.30 p.m. The said
admission by PW.7, will not in any manner effect the case of the
prosecution. Such vague statement made during the cross-
examination of the witness, cannot form basis to believe that the
accused were arrested on 10.09.2011, when there is overwhelming
evidence of arrest of accused on 12.09.2011.
29. Keeping in view that no specific allegation of rape was made
against A3, during the course of trial by the victim, benefit of
doubt is extended to A3. Insofar as A1 and A2 are concerned, the
conviction is confirmed.
30. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, confirming
the conviction of A1 and A2, and setting aside the conviction of
A3. Since Appellants 1 and 2/A1 and A2 are on bail, the trial
Court is directed to cause appearance of appellants 1 and 2/A1 &
A2 and send them to prison to serve out the remaining part of
sentence. Since A3 is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 21.02.2025
tk
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 123 OF 2013
Date: 21.02.2025
tk
