HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD *****

Criminal Appeal No.1745 OF 2009 Between:

Gopireddy Srinivas … Appellant/accused And The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

… Respondent/complainant DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 13.03.2024 Submitted for approval.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No the Judgments?

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Yes/No Reporters/Journals

3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No Judgment?

__________________

K.SURENDER, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER + Criminal Appeal No.1745 OF 2009 % Dated 13.03.2024 # Gopireddy Srinivas … Appellant/Accused And $ The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

… Respondent/Complainant ! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri C.Masthan Naidu, learned Senior Counsel ^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Suresh Goud, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor >HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1745 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant was found guilty for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide judgment in SC No.85 of

2009 dated 09.12.2009.

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1/victim lodged complaint by giving oral statement which was recorded by the police on 18.03.2008. According to the statement of the victim, about four months prior to lodging complaint, she was residing along with her parents and three brothers. She went out to search for her brother’s son. At that time, the appellant caught hold of her hands, closed her mouth, took her into a school premises and raped her. On 08.03.2008 when she was suffering from fever, her mother/P.W.2 took her to hospital and it was known that she was pregnant. Accordingly, P.W.2/mother and other family members including P.W.3/brother questioned as to who was responsible for the pregnancy. P.W.1 informed that she was raped four months prior, by the appellant. Abortion procedure was done on 13.03.2008. Thereafter complaint was lodged on 18.03.2008 requesting to take necessary action against the appellant.

3. Police examined witnesses and also sent the appellant and victim/P.W.1 for medical examination. Thereafter police filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 376 of IPC against the appellant. Having concluded examination of witnesses P.Ws.1 to 12 and marking Exs.P1 to P8 on behalf of the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant was guilty of committing rape on the victim/P.W.1 and sentenced him accordingly.

4. Sri C.Mastan Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is an inordinate delay of four months in lodging the complaint. The said delay is not explained. Only for the reason of P.W.1 becoming pregnant and she stated that the appellant had committed rape on her, conviction was recorded without any other corroboration. Even the recording by the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect. Chief examination of the victim/P.W.1 was conducted by the Public Prosecutor by putting leading questions which is impermissible.

5. Counsel submitted that the Learned Public Prosecutor requested the Court, since witness was not able to understand questions, he may be permitted to put leading questions. Learned Sessions Judge had mechanically permitted such procedure, which is contrary to law.

6. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala (1993 Supp(3) Supreme Court Cases 745), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the procedure adopted by the prosecution in recording the evidence in the form of questions put by the Public Prosecutor in Chief Examination which were leading in nature is incorrect. On the said basis, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the conv