Telangana High Court

Nallapothula Krishnaiah, Medchal Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 21 January, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
                      AND
  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

      CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1117 and 1186 of 2017

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble Justice Sri K. Surender) Criminal Appeal No.1117 of 2017 is filed by accused

No.1 and Criminal Appeal No.1186 of 2017 is filed by

accused No.2.

2. Heard Ms. Kandala Siri Vennela, learned

counsel representing Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned

counsel on record for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar

Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

the respondent.

3. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted vide

Judgment dated 19.07.2017 in Spl.S.C.No.158 of 2015 by

the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar. Since both the appeals arise out of one

Sessions Case, both the appeals are disposed off by way of

this common judgment.

4. PW3 is the victim. PW1 is the maternal aunt of

PW3. Since the mother of PW3 died, the victim was staying

along with PW1. Their livelihood was by selling Honey ::2::

collected from Beehives in the Forest area. Both the

appellants who are accused Nos.1 and 2 were brothers of

PW1's deceased husband namely, Muthyalu. They were

staying in the house of PW1 and were also doing the work

of collecting Honey from the Beehives.

5. On the date of incident i.e., 05.03.2015, there

was a quarrel in between the appellants and PW1 about

partition of the honey, which was collected by them from

beehives. At about 10:00 p.m, the appellants went to the

house and gave arrack to the grandmother of PW3. After a

short while, both the appellants forcibly took the victim-

PW3 to the nearby haystack in the land of one Laxmamma.

Victim was forced to consume arrack, and then accused

No.1 committed rape on her. She shouted for help and

accused No.2 gagged her. Thereafter, accused No.2 also

committed rape on her. Accused No.1 closed the mouth of

the victim, when accused No.2 was committing rape. The

next day morning, PW3 went to her house and informed

PW1 about the incident. PW3 was suffering from severe

stomachache and was taken to the Government Hospital

by PW5 and PW16. PW16 questioned as to what happened, ::3::

then PW3 stated that she was raped by both the

appellants. PW1 who is the maternal aunt of the victim

lodged a complaint which is Ex.P1. PW1 put her right

thumb impression on Telugu Written Complaint which was

received by the Police Station at 00:45 hours on

07.03.2015. The case was registered under Sections

376(D), 376(2) (I) of IPC and Sections 5(g) r/w 6 of the

POCSO Act, 2012.

6. The victim was then sent for medical

examination. PW11-Dr.D.Swarnalatha examined PW3 on

07.03.2015 at 1:10 p.m. According to PW11, PW3

complained of pain in the lower abdomen. On examination

of the body, PW11 found a contusion 5 x 5 cms over the

left eye. On observation of genitalia, found abrasion over

the right side of labia minora ½ x ½ and ½ x ½ c.ms.

According to the Doctor, the examination was painful since

the patient was crying and abrasions were found on her

private parts. PW11 issued Ex.P8/Certificate regarding the

preliminary examination and the clothes of the victim were

also seized and sent for the purpose of FSL examination.

The vaginal swabs which were collected from the ::4::

victim/PW3 were sent to FSL and the report received from

the FSL reflected that the vaginal swabs contain semen

and spermatozoa. On the basis of the FSL report, final

opinion was given by PW11. PW11 finally opined that there

was recent forceful and painful sexual intercourse and also

there were genitalia injuries.

7. During investigation, charge sheet was filed

against the appellants for the said offences under Section

376(D) of I.P.C and Section 6 of POCSO Act. Learned

Special Judge, having framed charges, found favour with

the version of the prosecution and accordingly, convicted

the appellants.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants would submit that there was inordinate delay in

both lodging the complaint and also PW3 being examined

by the Doctor. Though the alleged incident happened on

the night of 05.03.2015, the complaint was filed in the

earlier hours of 07.03.2015. Thereafter, the Doctor

examined her at 1:30 p.m on 07.03.2015. Due to the long

lapse of time, no samples would have been found by the

Doctor which would facilitate testing by the FSL.

::5::

9. Learned counsel further argued that in PW3's

cross-examination, she admitted that she became

unconscious, as such, the question of identifying the

appellants as the assailants does not arise. The false

implication was on account of quarrel in between PW1 and

the appellants in respect of the partition of honey that they

collected from the beehives in the area.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the

findings of the learned Special Judge and further stated

that the testimony of PW3 can be relied upon without any

further corroboration. However, medical evidence also

corroborates with the version given by the victim.

11. The argument of the learned counsel that there

was a delay in lodging the complaint has to be looked into.

The complaint was filed at 00:30 hours on 07.03.2015,

though the incident happened on 05.03.2015 in the night.

The victim girl was aged around 13 years and staying along

with PW1 who is her maternal aunt since her mother died.

PW1 stated in her complaint that when she was in the

house, then PW3 came there and informed about the rape

committed by appellants. The incident was informed to ::6::

their caste persons and there after PW3 was taken to the

hospital.

12. After the complaint was filed, PW3 was

examined by the Doctor/PW11. As already narrated,

according to the Doctor, she found abrasion over the right

side of the labia minora which was a result of forceful and

painful sexual intercourse that happened. The vaginal

swabs were sent for FSL examination and the report

showed that, swabs contained semen and spermatozoa.

13. The delay in lodging the complaint in the

present case is of no consequence. The night of 05.03.2015

was the time when the incident happened and the next day

after the dreadful incident, PW3 went home and informed

PW1 about the incident. PW1's husband died and there

were no other male persons in the family to support them,

apart from the appellants who are the brothers of PW1's

late husband. Information was given to village elders and

from there, the victim was taken to the hospital. In the

present factual scenario of the case, no adverse inference

can be drawn for the delay that was caused in lodging the

complaint and the delay stands explained.

::7::

14. The motive for false implication as suggested by

the appellants is that the appellants used to frequently

fight with PW1 about sharing of the honey that they collect

from the beehives. The said fight cannot form basis to

falsely implicate the appellants. The injuries were visible to

the Doctor who examined the victim. Doctor found forceful

and violent acts of sexual intercourse as such, the said

defense taken by the appellants is of no avail.

15. There are no grounds to interfere with the

findings of the learned Sessions Judge while convicting the

appellants. However, the sentence of Life Imprisonment is

reduced to 20 years.