Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Telangana) 24957
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Kanukuntla Shekar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.212 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor
Insufficient evidence regarding the age of the victim and corroborating testimony led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 366, 420, and 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Appellant convicted and sentenced by trial court; appeal filed against conviction. (Para 1)
(B) Criminal procedure - Burden of proof - Prosecution's failure to establish key evidence regarding the age of the victim and corroborating testimonies led to findings of insufficient evidence to support conviction. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
Appellant accused of kidnapping and committing sexual assault on a 17-year-old girl; trial court found him guilty based on limited testimonies. (Para 1)
Findings of Court:
Trial court erred in convicting the accused; insufficient evidence presented by prosecution; appeal allowed. (Para 21)
Issues: 1) Was the age of victim established? 2) Was the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused? (Para 5)
Ratio Decidendi: Conviction not supported by adequate evidence; reliance on witness statements critical, and failure to substantiate claims about abduction and sexual assault rendered prosecution's case weak. (Paras 20, 21)
Result: Appeal allowed, judgment set aside, and the appellant released forthwith.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeal challenging conviction under ipc and pocso. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments surrounding the evidence presented. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. prosecution failed to provide corroborative evidence. (Para 19) |
| 4. court found insufficient proof leading to judgment reversal. (Para 21) |
| 5. final ruling and release order for the appellant. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 20.04.2021 in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)-cum-Special Court for POCSO Act cases, Karimnagar, whereby, the appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 366 , 420 of IPC and Section 376 of IPC alternatively Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. and STs. (POA) Act. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonments of different counts, the maximum being rigorous imprisonment for a period of Seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 376 of IPC alternatively Section 4 of POCSO Act.
2. The facts as culled out from the prosecution case are that on 05.01.2015 at 2.40 p.m., a report was preferred by the mother of the victim girl i.e. PW-1, stating that the accused induced her younger daughter aged 17 years, with a promise that he will marry her after attaining majority and took her from the house on 04.06.2013 to Desharajpalli, kept her in a house, used her sexually and when the victim asked him to marry her, he dodged it from time to time. It is further complained that about three months prior to lodging of complaint, when the victim asked the accused about their marriage, the accused abused her in filthy language saying, “Kulam Thakkuva Mala Lanjevi” and drove her out of the house, upon which, the victim returned to her parents’ house. Therefore, they waited for the accused to come for talks and later preferred the report.
3. Basing on the report of PW-1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, LMD Colony P.S. has registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 , 366, 417 and 420 of IPC, Section 3 r/w. 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. and STs. (POA) Act, 1989. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer went to the scene of offence, observed the scene, prepared the crime detail report, recorded the statements of witnesses. On 06.02.2015, in order to effect the arrest of the accused, served Notice under Section 4 1-A Cr.P.C. asking him to appear before them on 07.02.2015. As the accused failed to do so, he apprehended the accused and on interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed the guilt and later, the accused was produced before the Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. The trial Court framed aforesaid charges against the accused, read over and explained to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence against him. The accused denied the evidence and reported no evidence in defence.
5. The trial Court framed the following points for consideration:
“1. Whether the prosecution has established that the victim was a minor as on the date of offence?
2. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 4 17, 420, 366, 376 of IPC, Sec. 3 r/w. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of SCs./STs.(POA) Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?”
6. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 16 were examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-21. There was no defence evidence.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
8. The points for consideration in this appeal are:
1. Whether the judgment of t
