Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 368
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, JJ.
Bore Rajesh, Chinna, Adilabad Dt., - Petitioner
Versus
State Govt. Of Telangana, Rep PP., - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.356 Of 2015
Decided On : 26-09-2024
For the Petitioner: K. Vasanth Rao.
IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of rape and murder.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(f) and 302 – Rape and murder of a three-year-old child – Conviction of the appellant upheld based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies – The prosecution established a complete chain of evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt – No grounds for interference with the trial court's judgment. (Paras 1, 10, 15)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence – Five golden principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – The circumstances must be fully established, consistent with guilt, conclusive, exclude other hypotheses, and form a complete chain of evidence. (Para 14)
Facts of the case: The appellant was convicted for the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl, whose body was found in cotton fields after she was reported missing. The appellant was seen fleeing the scene and was apprehended later by the police. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court: The evidence presented formed a complete chain proving the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 15)
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the credibility of witness testimonies regarding the appellant's actions on the day of the incident. (Paras 11-12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, proving the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned. (Paras 15)
Result: Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(K. Surender, J.) :
1. The case is one of rape and murder of three year old child. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 376(f) and 302 of IPC and sentenced to ten years and imprisonment for life respectively vide judgment in S.C.No.278 of 2013 dated 20.03.2014 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. Sri K.Vasanth Rao was appointed as legal aid counsel. Heard the legal aid counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the victim girl was aged around 3 years. Victim girl and the brother were with P.W.1. On 22.01.2013, at about 1.30 p.m, the brother of victim girl went to P.W.1 and informed that the victim girl was not seen. Immediately, P.W.1 went near the Railway Station and searched for the victim girl and found dead body of the victim girl in the cotton fields. There were several other persons also. At the place, the appellant was seen running from the scene. The persons present therein near the railway station including P.W.1 caught hold of the appellant and beat him up and enquired as to who he was. Appellant revealed his name as Bore Rajesh from Kommududem village of Laxettipeta Mandal, Adilabad District. However, he escaped from the clutches of the public who had gathered there and fled. Immediately, police complaint was lodged by P.W.1. The police searched for appellant and found him around 7.00 p.m nearby the railway track and arrested him. The postmortem of the body was conducted at the scene by P.W.13. MO6 underwear of appellant was seized. MO4 pant of appellant was seized from scene.
4. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed. Charges under Section 376(f) and 302 IPC were framed.
5. During the course of trial, P.W.1, who is the aunt of the victim girl stated that when she and her husband P.W.2 went to cooli work, the victim girl/deceased and her brother were left in the house. Both the children left the house to go to her grandparents’ house. However, after some time, the brother of the deceased Deva Raj (not examined in Court due to witness being six years old) informed that the girl was not seen. When they went in search of the girl, they found victim girl without clothes, and injuries on body, in the cotton field adjacent to railway station. The appellant was found running from the scene, as such, he was caught. P.W.2 is the mother of the victim girl, who deposed that death of the victim girl was informed to her. P.W.3 is the maternal grandfather of the victim girl. According to him, around 1.00 p.m on 22.01.2013, he along with some other villagers found the dead body of the victim girl and the appellant was beaten.
6. P.W.5 is another witness who stated about her presence in the railway station on 22.01.2013 at 12.00 pm. She found the victim girl and her brother. She deposed that the appellant purchased chocolates and gave it to the children, who are deceased and her brother. He took the children with him. Around 1.30 p.m she heard noise from the cotton fields and when she went there, she found that the appellant was there and he was beaten up by the villagers. She also found dead body of the victim girl and it was apparent that the child was subjected to rape.
7. On similar lines, P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 deposed, who are the villagers, who caught hold of the appellant at the scene and beat him up.
8. The evidence of P.Ws.5 to 10 independent witnesses is clear that the appellant was caught at the scene and thereafter, escaped from them. All P.Ws.5 to 10 have identified the appellant in the District Jail, Karimnagar during test identification proceedings conducted by P.W.15.
9. P.W.13 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination of the victim girl at the scene. According to her, the cause of death was due to mechanical asphyxia. Death was about six hours prior to the postmortem examination. According to Ex.P7 report, semen and spermatozoa were detected o
