Telangana High Court: In an appeal filed by the convict against the impugned judgment wherein the Trial Court had convicted him under Sections and of the and Section read with Section of the and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, the Single Judge Bench of K. Surender, J., allowing the appeal acquitted the accused, holding that acceptance of the child witness evidence would be dangerous in the present circumstances of this case as the evidence appeared to be a result of tutoring. The Court also stated that the prosecution story appeared to be made up for falsely implicating the convict.
Background
The case of the prosecution was that on the day of the incident the complainant’s elder son, husband, minor daughter aged around 9 years, her other son, and father-in-law were sleeping side by side in a row. Around 11:30 pm, the complainant went to the temple right outside their house to chit-chat with the neighbouring ladies and slept in the temple for some time.
When the complainant reached home, she saw that the victim-daughter was awake. Upon inquiry, the victim informed the complainant that when she was asleep, the convict woke her up, threatened her not to make any noise while closing her mouth, and raped her. Due to this, there was a burning sensation and bleeding in the victim’s private parts. Consequently, the complainant woke up her family and neighbours and narrated the incident. Upon being confronted, the convict confessed to the crime and threatened the victim’s family.
Thus, a complaint was lodged the next day against the convict and the victim was sent for medical examination. In the medical examination, semen and spermatozoa were found in the samples from the private parts and clothes of the victim. Considering the evidence of the victim, the complainant, and her elder brother, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the convict.
The convict contended that the complaint against him was filed falsely, following a family feud over property. He contended that the convict’s father and complainant’s husband had a joint family agricultural land. When the convict asked for his share in the land after the death of his father, disputes arose between the complainant’s husband and the convict. He further contended that the present complaint was filed falsely.
Analysis
The Court stated that the prosecution failed to examine the father, grandfather, and also, another brother of the victim, who were sleeping in the very same room, beside the victim.
The Court further stated that according to the scene of offence panchanama, the complainant’s house had only one room, adjacent to which there was an open temple with one statue of the God. Anybody sitting in the temple would be at a distance of hardly 20 feet from the door of the complainant’s house. If anyone entered the house, it would be visible to the persons sitting in the temple. The Court also noted that none of the women with whom the complainant was chatting on the night of the incident were examined by the Police or identified during the investigation.
The Court observed that in a room-sized 27×17 feet with five people sleeping, it appeared to be highly improbable that the convict had entered the house without being seen by the complainant and committed rape on the victim without the other persons i.e., her father and grandfather waking up.
The Court noted that the doctor who conducted the medical examination of the victim did not find any injuries on the victim’s body namely her breast, back region, or the private parts. Though the doctor stated that blood stains were found on the frock of the victim, the FSL report does not reflect that there were any blood stains on the frock that was sent. Furthermore, no DNA test was conducted to ascertain the blood group of the semen found.
Regarding the relationship between the parties, the Court stated that the same was not disputed. When asked about the property dispute, the complainant and her elder son denied the same. On this issue, the father and grandfather of the victim were not examined.
The Court observed that the version projected by the prosecution wherein the convict, without being seen by the complainant, entered the house, forcibly committed rape on the victim in the presence of four other family members sleeping side-by-side and after coming out of the house, asked the complainant to go into the house, appeared to be made up and the convict was falsely implicated.
Regarding the evidence of a child witness, the Court said that “the evidence of a child witness can easily be influenced by the elders in the family. Acceptance of the child witness evidence would be dangerous in the present circumstances of the case as the evidence appears to be a result of tutoring. Not examining the father and grandfather of the victim, who were sleeping by the side of the victim girl is fatal to the prosecution case”. On this issue, the Court also referred to the cases Mangoo v. State of M.P., , Panchhi v. State of U.P., , and State of U.P. v. Krishna Master, .
Noting the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the accused while also directing his release from jail.
[Begari Ravi Kumar v. State of Telangana, Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2024, decided on 27-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: P Krishna Keertana
For the respondent: Public Prosecutor
Section of
Section of
The post appeared first on .