IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
G. Sri Devi, J.
Penukula Sadaiah Sadi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2965 of 2018
Decided On : 30-04-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 (2) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 376 (2) - Any person convicted held by a session judge – Punishment for rape - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 - Accused committed sexual assault on victim girl - Backdrop, factual position that recovery of these two material objects would be made by police was a matter of common knowledge well before confessional statement was made - Whether complaint was lodged by P.W. 1 herself or it was filed by someone else other than P.W. 1 - Whether it is Right or Left thumb impression of P.W. 1. During course of trial, written complaint was got exhibited and not thumb impression - Whether in facts and circumstances of case, learned trial Court is justified in passing order of conviction whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of accused person should be considered –
Finding of the court : Prosecution case, said written complaint was lodged by P.W. 1 herself, it bears thumb impression, which shows that she is an illiterate lady - Court as P.W. 1 and her signature appears on deposition form, but not thumb impression - Evidence produced by the prosecution during the course of trial, will accordingly have to be evaluated to substantiate credibility of charges leveled against accused - Proved facts, each one of which reinforces conclusion of guilt and if combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing guilt of accused, conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive - Facts established should be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused and should exclude every hypothesis except one sought to be proved –
Result :Criminal Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
G. Sri Devi, J.
1. This appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused in S.C. No. 27 of 2016 on the file of the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The appellant/accused was tried for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (I) of I.P.C. and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the said offences and since the punishment envisaged in both the offences is one and the same, the trial Court sentenced the appellant/accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.08.2015 at about 10.00 A.M., P.W. 1 lodged a complaint stating that on 03.08.2015 she went to coolie work by keeping her husband in their house to take care of their younger daughter, Bukkala Komalatha, (hereinafter referred to as "the victim"), who is deaf and dumb and also mentally challenged, and when she returned home at 6.30 P.M., she found the victim was sitting in front of the house of one Buchi Mallamma, who is her neighbour. P.W. 1 went inside their house, attended routine works and went outside the house at about 7.00 P.M., and when she tried to see her daughter, she did not find in front of the house of the said Buchi Mallamma and she found the victim was coming out from the house of the accused without blouse and also noticed the injuries on the chest and backside of her body and also hayrick pieces on her tuft. P.W. 1 came to know through signs that taking advantage of mental and physical disability of the victim, the accused had committed sexual assault on the victim in the hayrick yard. Basing on the said complaint (Ex. P1), P.W. 13- S.I. of Police, registered a case in Crime No. 85 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (L) of I.P.C. and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and issued Ex. P10-First Information Report. On receipt of the F.I.R., P.W. 14-C.I. of Police, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statement of P.W. 1. Thereafter, he observed the scene of offence in the presence of P.W. 5 and one P. Rajesham, prepared Ex. P2-Crime Details Form and also drawn the rough sketch. Thereafter, he referred the victim to Government Hospital, Karimnagar, for medical examination. P.W. 14 also gave a requisition to the Principal, Deaf and Dumb School, Karimnagar, to depute one female Teacher to assist the Investigating Officer in recording the statement of the victim and thereafter P.W. 14 examined the victim girl with the help of P.W. 2 and P.W. 8, but he could not record the statement as the victim was not in a position to understand the signs given by P.W. 2. P.W. 14 also obtained date of birth certificate and Ex. P13-bonafide certificate of the victim from the concerned Schools. Later, he addressed a letter to the Superintendent, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Karimnagar, to examine the victim with a Psychiatrist doctor and thereafter P.W. 12 examined the victim and found that she is suffering from severe mental retardation and that the disability is 90%. On 10.08.2015, P.W. 14 apprehended the accused at his house and recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of P.Ws. 6 and 7. Ex. P3 is the confession-cum-recovery panchanama. Subsequently, P.W. 11 examined the accused and issued Ex. P8 Potency Test Certificate. He got recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W. 1. After obtaining all the material papers and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division. On committal, the same came to be numbered as S.C. No. 27 of 2016.
3. On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 376 (2) (I) of I.P.C. an
Point of law: Fact that the recovery and confessional statement made by the accused, which is the main linking factor in the circumstantial evidence of the prosecution version, being inadmissible as ....
In criminal cases, burden of proof on prosecution is one of proof beyond reasonable doubt as opposed to principle of preponderance of probabilities.
Onus of prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious facts to inculpate accused nor falsity of defence could take place of proof which pro....
Circumstantial evidence must establish a conclusive chain consistent with the accused's guilt; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal convictions.
The victim's testimony alone can suffice for conviction in rape cases, as corroboration is not mandatory if the testimony is credible.
Sexual assault on girl child – If evidence of witness is cogent, consistent and unwavering she qualifies as a sterling witness upon whose evidence conviction of perpetrator can be based.
The court held that convictions under sexual assault statutes require robust proof beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the significance of consistent witness testimony and corroborative medical evid....
The presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is not absolute and requires the prosecution to establish foundational facts before the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumptio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.