Telangana High Court
Chirra Lakshman Rao vs The State Of A.P., on 22 January, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.116 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the
appellant/accused No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and
sentence dated 14.11.2012 in S.C. No.45 of 2011 on the file of
the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and
STs (PoA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, for
the offences under Sections 366-A, 415 read with 417 and
376 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.'). The appellant was
not found guilty under Section 3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (POA) Act.
Initially, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 were
tried. However, accused Nos.2 and 3 were not found guilty by
the trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Perused the record.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that PW.1, who is the
victim girl, stated that she was working in the farm of one
Suraiah. Both appellants/accused No.1 and accused No.2
were also working in the said farm. Appellant expressed his
love for PW.1 and it was encouraged by accused No.2.
Further, appellant took PW.1 to Bhadrachalam, from there to
Vijayawada, from there to Sarapaka, and from there to
Yeravendi. PW.1 stayed in the house of Satyamma (A3). The
appellant promised that he would marry PW.1 and cohabited
with her for a period of one week. She was aged about 15
years, when the incident had taken place.
4. After PW.1 was taken by the appellant, she was traced
after 10 days and brought back to Bhadrachalam. Later,
PW.1 was sent for medical examination and she was
examined on 03.03.2010. According to doctor/PW.9, she did
not find any external injuries which were visible and there
were no signs of recent sexual intercourse. PW.9 noted down
the history as stated by PW.1, that she was taken to
Yeravendi and appellant had sexual intercourse with her.
The said examination of PW.1 was subsequent to the
complaint filed by the mother of the victim, however, the
mother of the victim was not examined.
5. The Investigating Officer collected the study and
conduct certificate of PW.1 which is marked as Ex.P1, dated
24.06.2004, issued by PW.7, who is Head Master in MPPS
Seethapuram, where PW.1 studied. According to PW.7, the
date of birth of the victim girl is 15.06.1994 as mentioned in
the records.
6. The conviction was recorded on the basis of evidence of
PW.1 and also considering the age of PW.1 being 15 years at
the time of incident. The trial Court concluded the age of the
victim girl as 15 years, based on the evidence of PW.7, who
issued Ex.P1, study and conduct certificate.
7. PW.7/Head Master was examined during the trial and
he provided only study and conduct certificate of
PW.1/victim i.e., Ex.P1, dated 24.06.2004. According to
PW.7, requisition was given on 10.01.2011 and it is not
known as to how the certificate was dated 24.06.2004. The
said discrepancy in the date was not explained by PW.7.
Further, though PW.7 stated that he verified the admission
register in the School, the said admission register was not
produced before the Court nor any copy was collected during
the course of investigation. PW.9 who is the Doctor,
conducted physical examination of PW.1 and stated that
there were no signs of any recent sexual intercourse and no
injuries were found on the private parts of the victim girl.
8. The case of the appellant is that PW.1 was a major. As
seen from the evidence of PW.1, it is said that the appellant
promised to marry her and cohabitated with her for a period
of one week. PW.9/Doctor did not find any signs of recent
sexual intercourse. It is evident that there was no force used
by the appellant against PW.1. The crucial factor is the age
that was projected by the prosecution as 15 years, when the
incident had taken place, on the basis of Ex.P1. The mother
of the victim girl was not examined and there are no
municipal records reflecting date of birth of the victim girl or
any hospital records. Though Ex.P1 certificate was given by
PW.7/Head Master on the basis of admission register, the
admission register's copy was not filed. The Doctor, who
examined PW.1 did not conduct any age determination test
or ossification test to determine the age of victim. However,
the Doctor stated that on the basis of physical appearance,
PW.1 appeared to be aged about 15 years.
9. The prosecutor's argument that the consent given by
PW.1 is of no consequence, since she was 15 years cannot be
accepted, since a duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the age of the victim was 15
years or less than 18 years. Merely filing a certificate which
is doubtful as already discussed, would not suffice and
ossification test was also not conducted to determine the age
of the victim.
10. In the background of the prosecution failing to prove
the age of the victim girl to be less than 15 years and the
Doctor not finding any signs of recent sexual intercourse or
rape, the question of sustaining the conviction for rape does
not arise in the present facts and background of the case.
11. The conviction recorded by the learned Special
Sessions Judge for the offence under Sections 366-A, 415
read with 417 and Section 376 of IPC, is hereby set aside.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Bail
bonds shall stand discharged.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 22.01.2025
Pns
