Back
IN THE HIGH CO FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJ.
Boddula Shekar S/o Gopal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyd. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.853 of 2017
Decided On : 03-02-2026
Key Points: - The appellate court found serious contradictions in the prosecution's case and lack of medical corroboration, leading to overturning the conviction and acquitting the appellant of all charged offences. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Medical evidence showed no penetration or semen; final medical opinion indicated no medical evidence of recent intercourse, only possible congestion at the introitus, casting doubt on rape charges. (!) (!) (!) - There were significant delays and procedural lapses in reporting and investigation, including delay in lodging Ex.P1 and lack of seizure of the victim's garments, affecting the integrity of the prosecution case. (!) (!) (!) - The court emphasized the need for corroboration in testimony of child witnesses and cautioned about the reliability and demeanor of young witnesses, recommending careful scrutiny and corroboration. (!) (!) - The trial court’s misapplication of law regarding Section 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Act, including the absence of evidence that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste/Tribe or that the accused exploited in a position of trust, led to setting aside the conviction. (!) (!) (!) - The appellate court held that prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that benefits of doubt should favor the accused; consequently, the conviction and life/imprisonment sentences were set aside and the accused acquitted. (!) (!) - The rights to legal aid and the conduct of defense counsel in cross-examining key witnesses are noted as part of the due process considerations. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 12 , 22 , 24) |
| 2. arguments presented by both the appellant and the prosecution. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. legal standards for establishing abuse of authority under sc/st act. (Para 33 , 35 , 40 , 47 , 48) |
| 4. inconsistencies in witness testimonies and evidence. (Para 36 , 37 , 44 , 50) |
| 5. court's conclusion to allow appeal and set aside the conviction. (Para 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT :
K. Lakshman, J.
Heard Mrs. G. Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - accused and Mr. Syed. Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent extensively.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 09.06.2017 in S.S.C. No.41 of 2014 passed by learned Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Cases-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Warangal (hereinafter referred to ‘trial Court’).
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted the appellant - accused for the charges under Section - 376 (2) (f) read with 511 of IPC and Sections - 3 (1) (xii) and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act, 1989’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of TEN (10) YEARS and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the charge under Section - 376 (2) (f) read with 511 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the charge under Section - 3 (2) (v) of the Act, 1989. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of FIVE (05) years and to pay fine of Rs.1000 (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the charge under Section - 3 (1) (xii) of the Act, 1989. However, learned trial Court acquitted the accused for the charge under Section - 376 (2) (f) of IPC.
4. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
i) PW.2 - Siddaboina Samatha (victim girl) is the daughter of PW.1 and LW.2. She was 12 years old as on the date of incident. She belongs to the Scheduled Tribes (Koya) Community, while accused herein belongs to Backward (Padmashali) Community. Both are residents of same village i.e., Ayodhyapuram Village of Gudur Mandal.
ii) The victim girl is of tender age and mentally immature. She was studying 1st class and used to visit the house of the accused for various reasons along with some other children.
iii) The accused had an evil eye over the victim girl and waiting for an opportunity to fulfill his lust with her. Accordingly, on 03.12.2012, the accused took the victim girl into his house by inducing her with an offer of chocolate, removed her clothes and slept upon her and committed rape.
iv) PW.3 saw the accused taking the victim girl into his house and informed the same to the parents of victim girl. They enquired the victim girl and came to know the act of the accused. The said incident had brought to the notice of their caste elder (LW.5). They also went to the house of the accused to enquire, but on seeing them, the accused fled away.
v) Therefore, PW.1 gave report with PW.9, the Head Constable of Gudur Police Station, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.209 of 2013 and issued express FIR. He also referred the victim girl to the Government Hospital for examination. Thereafter, PW.10 took up investigation. During the course of investigation, she visited the scene of offence, examined the relevant witnesses and recorded their statements. On receipt of medical examination report and FSL report, she filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
5. Since the offences are triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the same to the learned trial Court which in turn had taken on file as S.S.C. No.41 of 20
The court emphasized that prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of medical evidence prohibited sustaining the conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the evidence supported the conviction for kidnapping, it was insufficient to establish the allegations of rape and sexual assault due to....
The court upheld the conviction of the accused for the offence of rape under Sec. 376(2)(f) IPC, emphasizing the reliability of the victim's testimony and the corroboration from medical evidence.
Point of law: POCSO Act - Testimony of the victim and her mother PW1 does not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to hold accused guilty of the alleged offence- while appreciating the evidenc....
The sufficiency of solitary evidence in cases of sexual offences and the requirement for consistency and trustworthiness in such testimony.
In a case of rape, conviction can be sustained basing on solitary testimony of prosecutrix – No undue leniency can be shown towards accused.
The conviction of the appellant for sexual offences under IPC and the Goa Children's Act was upheld based on consistent testimony of the victim, emphasizing the necessity of protecting child victims ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
