Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 8606

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJ
Maloth Rupla – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2016 | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Prabhakar Reddy
For the Respondents: Syed. Yasar Mamoon

In sexual offences against minors, a consistent and credible victim testimony is sufficient for conviction. Delay in FIR is not fatal if explained by trauma or threats, and a plea of alibi must be established by positive evidence and suggested during cross-examination to be considered credible.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 452, 347, 506, 323, 376D, 376(2)(l)(n) read with Section 34 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(g), 5(k), 5(l) read with Section 6 - Rape - Gang Rape - Minor victim - Burden of proof - Alibi - Delay in FIR - Evidence of hostile witnesses - Testimony of minor victim.

(B) Evidence/Procedure - The testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon by the prosecution to the extent it is found useful. Minor discrepancies in the statement of a victim due to lapse of time, trauma, or perception differences do not shake the prosecution case. In cases of sexual offences, the evidence of the victim is of utmost importance, and the delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal if it is reasonably explained by fear of social stigma or threats from the accused. (Paras 29, 35)

(C) Criminal Law - Plea of Alibi - The burden of proving a plea of alibi lies on the accused and must be established with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence under Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act. Raising alibi only at the defence stage without prior suggestion in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses weakens its credibility. (Paras 51, 52)

Facts of the case:
The case concerns an appeal against a Trial Court judgment convicting the accused for criminal trespass, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, and gang rape of a minor victim. The defence raised an alibi, and contended that the prosecution's case was inconsistent due to delays in lodging the complaint and alleged missing forensic evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of the victim consistent and reliable, supported by medical reports confirmative of sexual assault. The court rejected the alibi plea as it was an afterthought and not substantiated. The delay in reporting was held not to be fatal as it was attributed to fear and the trauma of the victim.

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court for gang rape and related offences are sustainable on facts and law, specifically regarding the reliability of the victim's testimony, the defence of alibi, and the delay in lodging the FIR.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the testimony of a victim in sexual offence cases is sufficient for conviction if found credible, trustworthy, and consistent. The court further held that a plea of alibi fails when it is not put to the prosecution witnesses during cross-examination and is not supported by credible evidence during the trial.

Result: Appeals dismissed; the conviction and sentence are confirmed.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual matrix and the prosecutrix's initial report of the crime. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
2. burden of proof and evidentiary requirements regarding the plea of alibi. (Para 11 , 12 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
3. effect of delayed reporting in sexual assault and pocso cases. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. reliability and evidentiary weight of hostile witness testimony. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
5. determination of victim's age and witness competency in sexual assault cases. (Para 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 53 , 54 , 55)
6. sufficiency of victim testimony and overall appraisal of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)

This Court delivered the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

1. Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants - accused Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Syed. Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent extensively.

2. Both the appeals are filed challenging the judgment dated 19.02.2016 in Special S.C. No.60 of 2015 passed by learned Special Judge for trial of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal (hereinafter referred to ‘trial Court’).

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted the appellants - accused Nos.1 and 2 for the charges under Sections - 452, 347, 506 read with 34 of IPC, 376D and 376 (2) (l) (n) of IPC and Sections - 5 (g), 5 (k) and 5 (1) read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘POCSO Act’). Learned trial Court also convicted accused No.1 for the charge under Section - 323 of IPC. Accordingly, learned trial Court sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of THREE (03) YEARS each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 (Rupees One Thousand Only) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the charge under Section - 452 read with 34 of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE (01) YEAR each 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 - 347 read with 34 of IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE (01) YEAR and to pay a 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 - 506 read with 34 of IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for LIFE for the charges under Sections - 376D and 376 (2) (l) (n) of IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for LIFE for the charges under Sections - 5 (k) read with 6 of the POCSO Act and Section - 5 (g) read with 6 of the POCSO Act and also under Section - 5 (l) read with 6 of the POCSO Act, and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three (03) months each. Accused No.1 was further sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE (01) YEAR and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one (01) month for the charge under Section - 323 of IPC.

4. The allegations levelled against the appellants herein are that on 16.03.2015 at Maloth Thanda the appellants herein along with accused No.3 criminally trespassed into the house of the victim girl (PW.1), removed her worn clothes, gagged her mouth and tied both hands with her chunni and thereafter they have forcibly one by one committed rape on her. They also threatened her with dire consequences to kill her if she reveals the matter to anyone. One week prior to the said incident, they have also committed rape upon her and also threatened her.

5. On 18.03.2015 at 13:30 hours, PW.2, mother of the victim being ST (Lambada) came to Narmetta Police Station an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 8606

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADK. Lakshman, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJMaloth Rupla – AppellantVersusState of Telangana – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2016 | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2019

In sexual offences against minors, a consistent and credible victim testimony is sufficient for conviction. Delay in FIR is not fatal if explained by trauma or threats, and a plea of alibi must be established by positive evidence and suggested during cross-examination to be considered credible.

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJ
Maloth Rupla – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2016 | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2019