Telangana High Court
Mohd Jaffaruddin , Jaffar vs The State Of Telangana on 18 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1086 OF 2018
Between:
Mohd.Jafaruddin @ Jaffar.
Appellant/Accused.
VERSUS
The State of Telangana.
Respondent/Complainant.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:18.03.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________
EV VENUGOPAL, J
Page 2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1086 OF 2018
%18.03.2025
# Between:
Mohd.Jafaruddin @ Jaffar.
Appellant/Accused
VERSUS
The State of Telangana.
Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for Appellant : Sri Duggempudi Srinivasa Rao
^Counsel for the respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla,
learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the State
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
Page 3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1086 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
The present criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2)
of Cr.P.C., by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the
judgment dated 05.01.2018 in SC No.156 of 2017, on the file
of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad,
Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar.
2. Heard Sri Duggempudi Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel
for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
3. On 29.06.2015, at around 08.00 PM, the complaint was
lodged by PW1/mother of the victim girl. In the complaint,
PW1 narrated that the victim girl was mute by birth and was
around 17 years old, and she used to beg in the streets near
their house. On 29.06.2015, in the afternoon, after having
lunch, the victim girl went out of the house. Later they came
Page 4
to know that the victim girl was taken in an auto by one
person, and she was dropped back after some time. There
was blood on the body of the victim girl, and it was informed
by the people in locality that the victim girl was taken in an
auto by one person, viz. Jaffar. PW15/Inspector of Police
recorded the statements of PW1, PW2, and PW3. The victim
girl was sent for medical examination to Modern Government
Maternity Hospital. Thereafter, PW15 went to the scene of
offence and examined PWs.4 and 5. The wearing apparel of
the victim girl were seized, and were sent for examination to
the FSL.
4. The appellant was thereafter arrested by PW11 and
other police personnel at the auto stand near Sana Hotel, on
04.07.2015. After his apprehension, his confession was
recorded, and his samples were taken for the purpose of DNA
examination.
5. Ex.P16 is the FSL report that was received by the
Investigating Officer. After completion of the investigation, a
charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.
Page 5
6. The victim, being a mute girl, was not examined by the
trial Court. PW7, who is the Headmaster of Government High
School for Deaf and Dumb, Malakpet, deposed that the victim
girl was mentally retarded, and a certificate was issued to that
effect. Further, the victim girl was not even in a position to
understand the sign language. PW12 is the Rehabilitation
Psychologist, NIHM, Secunderabad. On the requisition given
by the police, PW12 conducted a psychological assessment of
the victim girl, and issued Ex.P11/report stating that the
victim girl was suffering from severe mental retardation with
an I.Q. of 21.
7. The evidence against the appellant is the statements of
PWs.4 and 5. Both PWs.4 and 5 stated that they saw the
victim girl being taken by the appellant, and the appellant
dropped her two hours thereafter. Seeing PWs.4 and 5, the
appellant tried to escape but he was caught. PW4 stated in
his cross-examination that the appellant left the victim girl
around 07.00 PM, and his statement was recorded on the
same day. PW5, in his cross-examination, stated that he
caught hold of the appellant in his house at around 08.30
Page 6
PM, and the locality people were also present. However, the
evidence of PW15 is that the appellant was arrested by PW11
and other police personnel on 04.07.2015.
8. The version of PWs.4 and 5, that they caught hold of the
appellant on the very same day, is contrary to the evidence of
the Investigating Officer that the appellant was arrested six
days after the occurrence of the incident on 04.07.2015.
9. The only evidence that could connect the appellant with
the alleged offence is the medical evidence. Though it was
stated by the Investigating Officer that they have collected the
wearing apparel of the victim girl and sent them for
examination to the FSL, no FSL report regarding any DNA test
on the wearing apparel is present. Ex.P16 is the FSL report
which states that no male DNA was yielded from Item No.2, a
maroon-coloured underwear. It further states that no proper
DNA profile was obtained from the wearing apparel sent to the
FSL. Further, the male DNA profile on the underwear was
insufficient to establish a conclusive DNA profile.
10. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 cannot be believed.
Neither the wearing apparel of the victim girl nor the
Page 7
specimen swabs collected from the private parts of the victim
girl, provided evidence of sexual intercourse, and they could
not connect the appellant to the crime.
11. There is absolutely no evidence on record which could
be relied upon to convict the appellant for the offence of rape.
Accordingly, the conviction against the appellant is liable to
be set aside.
12. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed, setting
aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the
appellant vide judgment dated 05.01.2018 in SC No.156 of
2017 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar. The appellant
shall be set at liberty forth-with if he is not required in any
other crime.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________
EV VENUGOPAL, J
Date :18.03.2025
Abb.
