Page No. 1 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
IN THE COURT SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
CASES OF ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-
IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.
Present: Sri D.Durga Prasad, Court of Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Dated: 30th day of April, 2026
Sessions Case No. 206 of 2024
(Cr.No. 264 of 2023 of P.S Navipet) 1Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Circle-Inspector of Police, Nizamabad North Rural 2Name of the Accused personsDeme Sai Kiran S/o Gangadhar, A1:aged 25 years, Caste: Yadav, Occu: Hotel Management R/o H.No.1-32, Gandhari village and mandal. Cell No.9542559199
Deme Gangadhar S/o Balaiah, aged 50 years, Caste: Yadav, Occu: A2:Farmer, R/o H.No.1-32, Gandhari village and mandal. Cell No. 9490680048
Deme Sujatha W/o Gangadhar, aged 42 years,Caste: Yadav, Occu: A3:House-wife, R/o H.No.1-32, Gandhari village and mandal
Deme Krishna @ Sai Krishna S/o A4:Gangadhar, aged 27 years, Caste: Yadav, Occu: MRI Technician R/o H.No.1-32, Gandhari village and mandal, Cell No.8106920213
Page No. 2 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 3Offences charged Under Sections 376(2)(n), 342 and 506 of IPC against Accused No.1 and under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused Nos.2 to 4.
4Crime No.& Name of the PS264 of 2023 of P.S Navipet 5Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty 6Finding of the CourtA1 found guilty
A2 to A4 found not guilty 7Sentence or order In the result, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 342 and 506 of IPC and he is convicted under
Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the above said charges. The Accused Nos.2 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused
Nos.2 to 4 shall be in force for a period of 6 (six) months as under
Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
The Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of
Ten (10) years and also to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for
Six(6)months for the offence punishable
Page No. 3 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian
Penal Code.
The Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment of one (1) year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six(6) months for the offence punishable under
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment of Two (2) years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six(6) months for the offence punishable under
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period of the accusedfrom20-11-2023to 20-01-2024 is set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be confiscated to the State. MO2 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
The Accused No.1 is informed about
Page No. 4 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 his right of appeal to the Hon’ble High
Court and he is furnished with free copy of this judgment.
8Name of the prosecution Sri.G.Narsimha Reddy, counsel Special Public Prosecutor 9Name of the Defence counsel Sri. R.Ganga Prasad,
Advocate for All the Accused
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri G.Narsimha Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of
Sri. R.Ganga Prasad, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This case arouse out of the charge sheet filed by the Circle
Inspector of Police, Nizamabad North Circle in Crime No. 264 of 2023 of
Police Station, Navipet for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376 (2)(n), 506 of IPC against the Accused No.1 and under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused Nos.2 to 4.
GIST OF THE CHARGE SHEET:-
Succinctly stated, facts germane for adjudication of the present case are set out herein below:-
2. i. On 10.11.2023 at 16:00 hrs, the complainant/XXX went to
Page No. 5 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
Police station and lodged a complaint stating that about two years back, she made an acquaintance with Deme Sai Kiran/Accused No.1, who belongs to her relative and same caste member and they both used to talk over phone and the accused used to make phone calls to her.
ii. On 09.10.2023, the accused made a call to the complainant and stated that they both will do Dasara shopping in Hyderabad. Accordingly, the complainant believed him and went to Hyderabad and met the accused and at about 14:00 hours, the accused took her to his room for fresh up at Kompally, where he threatened her and without her consent forcibly participated in sexual intercourse. The complainant refused him, but the accused threatened and blackmailed her saying that, he will upload the photos in social media and also send the same to her parents and confined her in the said room for a period of two days and forcibly participated in sexual intercourse with her and also threatened her not to disclose the matter to his friends, if not he will not sent her to
Nizamabad and put a knife on her left hand and threatened her that, if she will not agree to participate in sexual intercourse, he will kill her parents, and caused bleeding injury to her left hand and also threatened her not to disclose the matter to others, if not he will upload the photos in social media and on 11-10-2023 the accused sent her to Nizamabad.
Page No. 6 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 iii. On the very next day, the complainant went to Palda village and in a state of fear she did not disclose the matter in her house. The complainant's parents seeing her health condition, gave her treatment with a RMP. Later, the complainant informed the entire episode to her parents.
When the complainant was at accused’s room, the accused informed the same to his mother namely Sujatha/A3, father Gangaram/A2 and brother
Krishna/A4 over phone. Further, the complainant submitted that they all well knew that she is their relative and took her to his room and forcibly participated in sexual intercourse and also pressed the complainant's throat with his hands and threatened not to disclose the matter before her family members. The complainant’s parents were informed the same to caste members to discuss the matter in presence of them, as such she did not approached the police. But till now they did not give proper response, as such today she went to police station and lodged a complaint against them and requested to take legal action against Accused No.1 who confined her in his room for a period of two days and forcibly participated in sexual intercourse as well as to take legal action on his family members who instigated to Accused No.1.
iv. As per the contents of the above petition, LW-19/C.Yadagiri
Goud, SI of police registered a case in Cr. No. 264 of 2023 under
Page No. 7 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
Sections 342, 376, 506 r/w 34 IPC and dispatched the Express FIR copies to all concerned and informed the same to LW-20/S.Sateesh Kumar, CIP,
North rural for further investigation into this case.
v. On receipt of the Express report, LW-20/S.Sateesh Kumar, Circle
Inspector of Police rushed to Navipet PS and took up the investigation in to this case and requested the Women PS SHO to send a Women Police
Officer to record the statement of the complainant/ victim. Accordingly,
Women PS SHO sent one WSI/Pw14/Smt.Padma to Navipet PS to record the statement of the PW-1. Pw14/the WSI secured the presence of the
PW-1/victim, examined and recorded her detailed statement and incorporated the same Part-II CD in detail. In which she added that, in the month of October 2nd week her parents called the A1’s family members i.e., A2 to A4 to Palda village to ask about the injustice done by the A1 before the caste elders. While asking A2 to A4 alleged that, not to involve A1 in this incident and that A1 is no way concerned with incident, otherwise they would kill the complainant's family members with dire consequences.
vi. During the course of investigation, Pw16/the Circle Inspector of
Police visited scene of offence situated at Palda village and secured the presence of the two respectable mediator's i.e, Pw10/Dunkena Sai Kumar
Page No. 8 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 and LW11/Pembari Rajender and conducted scene of offence Panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene and Geo-Tagged the scene as
Latitude: 18.4617, Longitude: 78.0448. During first scene of offence he secured the presence of the PW2/brother of the victim, PW3/mother of the victim, PW4/MaggidiDharmapuri, Pw5/Oddepally Mallaiah,
PW6/Munnuru Prabhakar, PW7/Jonnala Jaipal Reddy examined and recorded their detailed statements and incorporated the same Part-II CDs in detail.
Vii. On very next day i.e, on 11.11.2023 on his instructions the
Pw16/the Circle Inspector of Police sent the victim to Government General
Hospital, Nizamabad under the escort of WPC 2647 of PS Navipet with a requisition to the Lady Medical officer/Pw12 to conduct clinical examination of the victim and furnish opinion. Pw12/Medical Officer clinically examined the victim/PW-1, reserved her opinion by preserving the material objects for onward transmission to FSL Hyderabad for chemical examination and report.
Viii. During the course of investigation after completion all medical examination of the complainant/PW-1 on 16.11.2023, Pw16/the Circle
Inspector of Police along with the same Panchas i.e, Pw10/Dunkena Sai
Kumar and LW11/Pembari Rajendar and the victim rushed to Original
Page No. 9 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 scene of offence situated at Pochammagadda, Kompally at floor of middle portion in Smt. Sri. Mahalaxmi Gopi Yadav Residency and observed the scene of offence minutely, but there was no incriminating material found at scene of offence. Pw16/the Circle Inspector of Police conducted scene of offence Panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene before
PW10/Dunkena Sai Kumar and LW11/Pembari Rajendar and Geo-Tagged the scene as Latitude: 17.54126, Longitude: 78.49242. During 2nd scene of offence, Pw16/the Circle Inspector of police secured the presence of the
Pw8/Chinthala Abhinay Reddy and PW9/Male Vamshidhar Reddy examined and recorded their detailed statement and incorporated the same Part-II CDs in detail.
ix. While the investigation is in progress, on credible information on 19-11-2023, Pw16/the Circle Inspector of Police along with staff rushed to
Palda bus stand and apprehended the accused No.1 at 11:30 hours and interrogated the accused thoroughly, on interrogation he disclosed his identity particulars and when he about confess the guilt Pw16/the Circle
Inspector of Police secured the presence of the two mediators Pw11/Alal
Naveen and LW13/Salugari Mohan in their presence Pw16/the Circle
Inspector of Police got recorded confessional of the accused No.1 and seized his OPPO smart mobile phone from the possession of the accused
Page No. 10 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 which consisting one Airtel SIM with which he used to talk with the victim under cover of seizure Panchanama by pasting the Panch chits.
Further the accused confessed that, if they will come along with him, he will show his room at Kompally, where he confined the victim for a period of two days and forcibly participated in sexual intercourse with her and also he will show the knife which was used to threaten her and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence.
x. As per the confession of the accused Pw16/the Circle Inspector of police along with mediators Pw11/Alal Naveen and LW13/Salugari Mohan and the accused preceeded Pochammagadda, Kompally 3rd flood of Smt.
Sri Mahalaxmi Gopi Yadav Residency in Police Vehicle, Where, the accused shown his room which was used to confine the victim for a period of two days and forcibly participated in sexual intercourse and also shown a knife which was used to threaten her. Pw16/the Circle Inspector of police reconstructed the scene of offence in presence of the above mediators and seized one knife under cover of seizure Panchanama by pasting the panch chits. After seizure and reconstruction of the scene of offence the accused was taken to PS and effected his arrest by issuing arrest memos at 21:00 hrs duly informed the grounds of arrest him and his family members complied U/S 50 Cr. P. C. Thereafter he sent the
Page No. 11 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 accused to Government General Hospital /Medical College, Nizamabad under the escort of PC 380 with a requisition to the Medical officer to conduct Potency Test on the accused and furnish opinion. Pw13 who is the Medical officer, GGH Nizamabad conducted potency of the accused and opined his opinion that "there is nothing to suggest that Deme Sai
Kiran S/o. Gangadhar is not capable of performing the act of sexual intercourse". After potency test the accused was produced before the court for judicial custody. During the course of investigation on 22.11.2023
Pw16/the Circle Inspector of Police filed a requisition before the
Honorable court with a request to record 164 Cr. P. C statement of the
victim/PW-1. On 25/11/2023 LW-20/the Circle inspector of police deputed
PC 1712 with instructions to deposit the material objects preserved by the
Medical Officer/LW-14 at FSL, Hyderabad. Accordingly said PC 1712 has visited FSL, Hyderabad and deposited the material objects vide receipt No:
SFSL(TS)/10580/SER/2249/23, Dt: 25/11/2023.
xi. During the course of investigation, on 02.12.2023 the learned
Magistrate/LW-16 recorded the statement of the victim/LW-1. During the
course of investigation, Pw16/the Circle Inspector of police obtained FSL report from FSL, Hyderabad in which the expert/LW-17 opined that the
Page No. 12 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 item no's 1 to 8 are examined. Semen and Spermatozoa are not detected on item no. 1 to 8. Blood and foreign hair are not found in item no. 7.
Blood and Foreign material is not detected on item no.8.
xii. On 02.01.2024 Pw12, who is the Medical Officer, GGH
Nizamabad examined LW-1 clinically opined on the strength of FSL report that "Based on FSL report and clinical examination occurrence of rape cannot be ruled out.” Accused A2 to A4 were absconding and they approached the Hon’ble High Court seeking to quash the proceedings against them in this case. After going through the contents of the complainant, the Hon’ble High court prima facie found that no specific allegations are made against the Accused Nos.2 to 4. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, since the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the A2 to A4 is less than seven (07) years, the
Honorable High court deemed it appropriate to direct the A2 to A4 to
appear before the investigating officer on or before 29.01.2024 between 02:00 PM and 04:00 PM. and in turn, the investigating officer is directed to follow the procedure laid down under section 41-A of Cr. P. C and also guild lines formulated by the Honorable supreme court of India in
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar scrupulously. However the A2 to A4 shall co-operate with the investigating officer as and when required by
Page No. 13 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 furnishing information and the A2 to A4 shall produce all the relevant documents/material required for the purpose of the investigation and the investigating officer shall consider the same and if it is found that the A2 to A4 are not concerned with the actions of A1 delete their names from the crime.
Xiii. During the course of investigation, on 22.01.2024 A2 to A4 appeared before Pw16/the Circle Inspector of Police. Accordingly as per the directions of the Honorable High court, LW-20/the Circle Inspector of
Police issued notice U/sec 41-A CrPC and the same was served on the accused persons A2 to A4 with instructions to appear before him on 23.01.2024 at 1000 hour to ascertain the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly the accused persons A2 to A4 complied with the notice, appeared before Pw16/the Circle Inspector of Police, they voluntarily confessed to have committed offence. Pw16/the Circle
Inspector of Police instructed the accused persons A2 to A4 to attend
before the court whenever they are summoned.
Xiv. After completion of investigation, Pw16/the Circle-Inspector of
Police has filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 342, 506 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 and under Section 506 r/w 34 IPC against A2
Page No. 14 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 to A4.
PROCEDURE AT LEARNED MAGISTRATE COURT:-
3. On considering the entire record, this case was taken on file, for the offence Sections 376(2)(n), 342, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.1 to 4 and registered it as PRC No 15 of 2024.
4. On appearance of all the accused, the copies of all the documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently on perusal of the record, the committal court committed the case to the
Court of sessions, and in turn, this case is made over to this Court for disposal according to law.
CHARGE FRAMED BY LEARNED PREDECESSOR:-
5. On appearance of the charge sheeted accused before this court, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the offence, and upon consideration, charges under
Section 376(2)(n), 342 and 506 of IPC against Accused No.1 and charge under Section 506 of IPC against A2 to A4 have been framed, read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 to 4 in their own language, for which, they denied the charges, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried as per law.
PROSECUTION WITNESS:-
Page No. 15 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
6. In order to establish the accusations made against the accused, the prosecution during the course of trial, has got examined PWs.1 to 16 of which > PW1/XXX is the victim and defacto complainant, > PW2/XXX is the elder brother of the victim, > PW3/XXX is the mother of the victim, >PW4/Dharmapuri,PW5/OddepallyMallaiahand
PW6/M.Prabhakar are the caste elders/witnesses, > PW7/Jaipal Reddy is the RMP doctor who gave first aid to the victim, > PW8/Chinthala Abhinay Reddy, PW9/Mala Vamshidhar Reddy are the witnesses, > PW10/D.Sai Kumar is the panch witness for 1st and 2nd scene of offence panchanamas, > PW11/Alal Naveen is the panch witness for confession and seizure of A1, > PW12/Dr.Indu is the Medical Officer who examined the victim, > PW13/Dr.B.V.Naga Mohan Rao is the Medical Officer who conducted Potency test to Accused No.1,
Page No. 16 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 > PW14/D.Padma, WSI who recorded the 161 Cr.P.C statement of the victim, > PW15/C.Yadagiri Goud, SI of police is the Investigating
Officer who issued FIR and PW16/S.Sateesh Kumar, Circle
Inspector of Police who is 2nd Investigating Officer who laid charge sheet.
7. As seen from the record, it appears that the learned Special
Public Prosecutor has given up the evidences of LW11/Pembari Rajendar who is the panch witness for 1st and 2nd scene of offence panchanamas,
LW13/Salugari Mohan is the panch witness for confession and seizure of
A1, LW16/the learned Magistrate who recorded the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim, LW17/Dr.S.Vijaya Laxmi who furnished FSL report.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED:-
8. The prosecution also relied on the documentary evidence vide
Ex.P1 is the complaint given by PW1 to the police, Ex.P2 is the 161
Cr.P.C statement of PW8, Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW9,
Ex.p4 is the Crime Detail Form dated 10-11-2023, Ex.P5 is the Crime
Detail Form dated 16-11-2023, Ex.P6 is the relevant portion in confession proceedings of A1. Ex.P7 is the confession panchanama, Ex.P8 is
Preliminary Examination report issued by PW12, Ex.P9 is Final report
Page No. 17 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 issued by PW12, Ex.P10 is the FSL report, Ex.P11 is the Potency test report issued by PW13, Ex.P12 is First Information Report. Ex.P13 is the requisition given by CI of police to II Addl. JMFC, Nizamabad to record the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim and Ex.P14 is the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim.
MATERIAL OBJECTS EXHIBITED:-
Mo1 is Cell phone and MO2 is knife
9. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the charge sheeted accused are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the contents of incriminating evidence available against them, which they denied and reported no defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY PROSECUTION SIDE
10. Learned Prosecutor Sri B.Vasanth on behalf of the prosecution side argued inter alia that the evidence on record clearly establishes the case of the prosecution side beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the accused is required to be convicted of the offence alleged against him.
ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY DEFENCE SIDE
11. In oppugnation the learned legal counsel for the Accused mainly argued apart from arguing other aspects which this Court would discuss
Page No. 18 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 in the course of discussion that the story is cooked up and that the allegation made are false. The learned Counsel for accused vehemently contended that there is no iota of truth in the prosecution witnesses, as such the accused is entitled for acquittal. The learned counsel for all the accused filed the written arguments.
12. On rival contentions being made across the bar and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence on record the following point emerged for determination is :
(1)Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all the reasonable doubt for offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 342 and 506 of IPC ?
(2)Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.2 to 4 beyond all the reasonable doubt for offence under
Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC ?
13. Before embarking upon the fulcrum of the case, in the fitness of things it would be desirable to refer to Sections:
> Section 3 76(2)(n) of IPC Whoever,
(a)being a police officer, commits rape (i)within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or
(ii)in the premises of any station house; or
Page No. 19 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
(iii)on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or
(b)being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or
(c)being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the
Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or
(d)being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or
(e)being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(f)being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or
(g)commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or
(h)commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
(i)commits rape on a woman when she is under sixteen years of age; or(j)commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or
(k)being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits
Page No. 20 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 rape on such woman; or
(l)commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or
(m)while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or
(n)commits rape repeatedly on the same woman,shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
> Section 342 of IPC Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
> Section 506 of IPC Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc — and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for
Page No. 21 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
> Section 504 r/w 34 IPC Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
BURDEN OF PROOF:-
14. The Hon’ble supreme court in a decision reported in Bhagwan
Jagannath Markad & Ors Vs.State Of Maharashtra1, with regard to the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused, has held as under:
"It is accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is one which occurs to a prudent
Page No. 22 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 and reasonable man.
Thus, before weighing the evidence, this Court must reiterate the foundational principles governing criminal trials. The burden to prove the guilt of the accused rests entirely and unequivocally upon the prosecution.
This burden never shifts.
The standard of proof required is the highest known to law: proof beyond all reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative doubt, or a doubt based on fanciful conjecture. It is a doubt based upon reason and logic, arising from the evidence or the lack thereof, after a careful and impartial consideration of the entire record. If, upon such consideration, the Court is left with any reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt, the benefit of that doubt must ineluctably accrue to the accused, entitling him to an acquittal. The presumption of innocence is not a mere formality but a substantive right that clothes the accused until the prosecution discharges this onerous burden.
DISCUSSION PART & FINDING ON POINT NO:1
15. Let me start my discussion with medical evidence. The medical evidence of PW12 and PW13 assumes considerable significance, as it constitutes the scientific foundation upon which the prosecution seeks to
Page No. 23 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 corroborate the allegation of sexual assault.
16. PW12, the medical officer who examined the victim, categorically deposed that on examination she found a 3 x 1 cm injury on the left forearm and a teeth bite mark over the right breast. The presence of a bite mark on a sensitive part of the body is a significant circumstance, as per medical jurisprudence, indicating physical struggle and sexual aggression. Such an injury cannot ordinarily be explained in a routine or innocuous manner and probabilises the prosecution version of sexual assault.
17. The detection of injury on the forearm further corroborates the possibility of resistance offered by the victim. Even though the doctor did not specify the exact age of the injuries, the fact remains that these injuries were found during the medical examination conducted soon after the alleged incident. Minor omissions regarding colour or exact timing do not dilute the substantive fact that injuries existed and are consistent with the history narrated by the victim.
18. The testimony of PW7 (Jaipal Reddy), an RMP Doctor, assumes significance as an independent medical witness who provided immediate first-aid to the victim soon after the occurrence. His evidence, though limited in scope, lends corroboration to the prosecution case regarding the
Page No. 24 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 existence of injuries and the condition of the victim at the relevant time.
19. PW7 categorically deposed that the victim was brought to his clinic in the second week of October, 2023, accompanied by her mother, and that she had sustained an injury on her left hand and appeared weak. He administered first-aid treatment and dressed the wound. This part of his testimony remains unshaken and establishes that the victim had indeed suffered an injury requiring medical attention. The presence of weakness in the victim further supports the prosecution version that she had undergone a traumatic incident.
20. In cross-examination, PW7 stated that the injury was about one or two days old and that no prior treatment had been given. This aspect strengthens the prosecution case, as it indicates that the victim did not fabricate or medically manipulate the injury subsequently, but approached for treatment within a reasonable time frame. The description of the injury as a “laceration” is consistent with the nature of force alleged in such offences.
21. Though PW7 stated that he could not definitively say whether the injury was self-inflicted, such an answer is natural and expected from a medical practitioner who is not an expert in forensic determination.
Importantly, he did not affirmatively suggest that the injury was self-
Page No. 25 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 inflicted. His inability to give a conclusive opinion does not dilute the evidentiary value of his testimony regarding the existence and nature of the injury.
Further, his statement that blood would clot within 5 to 10 minutes in case of bleeding injury is a general medical observation and does not create any contradiction or improbability in the prosecution case. It neither discredits the injury nor the timing of the incident.
22. The defence suggestion that PW7 is deposing falsely due to acquaintance with PWs 1 to 3 was categorically denied. No material contradiction or motive for false implication has been elicited. Being a local RMP doctor, his acquaintance with villagers is natural and does not render his testimony unreliable.
23. Thus, the evidence of PW7 inspires confidence and corroborates the version of the victim and other prosecution witnesses to the extent that the victim sustained a recent lacerated injury and was treated soon after the incident. His testimony acts as an important link in the chain of circumstances supporting the prosecution case.
24. The testimony of PW7 is reliable and trustworthy. It corroborates the prosecution version regarding the injury sustained by the victim and the timing thereof. Though not conclusive on the cause of
Page No. 26 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 injury, it materially supports the prosecution case and there is no reason to discard his evidence. Hence, his evidence is accepted and it strengthens the prosecution case.
25. PW12 also conducted a detailed genital examination and noted that the hymen was not intact and admitted two fingers. While it is correct that rupture of hymen alone is not conclusive proof of rape, it is equally well settled that such a finding, when read in conjunction with other circumstances, including injuries and the history given by the victim, assumes corroborative significance. The medical evidence must be read as a whole and not in isolation.
26. Importantly, PW12 followed proper medico-legal protocol by collecting urethral, vulval, and vaginal swabs, smears, pubic hair, and nail clippings for forensic examination. This demonstrates that the examination was conducted in a scientific and systematic manner, ruling out any suggestion of perfunctory or casual examination.
27. The most crucial aspect of PW12’s evidence is her final opinion that “based on FSL report and clinical examination, occurrence of rape cannot be ruled out.” In medical jurisprudence, such an opinion is significant, as it affirms that the findings are consistent with sexual
Page No. 27 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 assault and do not contradict the prosecution case.
28. It is well settled that a doctor cannot give a definitive opinion of rape in all cases; therefore, an opinion that does not rule out rape strengthens the prosecution version when supported by other evidence.
29. The defence elicited certain admissions in cross-examination; however, none of them materially discredit the core findings. The doctor’s statement that she cannot opine whether the act was voluntary or forcible is in line with medical jurisprudence, as consent is a legal inference and not a medical determination. Hence, such an admission does not weaken the prosecution case.
30. Similarly, the suggestion that hymenal rupture can occur due to other activities is a general medical proposition. However, in the present case, the same must be appreciated in the factual backdrop, where the victim has given a specific history of sexual assault. Therefore, the medical findings, instead of being neutral, acquire corroborative strength.
31. Turning to PW13, the doctor who examined the accused, his evidence establishes that the accused is physically capable of performing sexual intercourse. In prosecutions of this nature, proof of potency is a relevant factor, as it eliminates any possibility of incapacity and supports
Page No. 28 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 the prosecution case that the accused could have committed the offence.
32. PW13’s examination further reveals that there were no abnormalities, diseases, or debility affecting the accused. His genital organs were well developed, and there were no impediments to sexual activity. This finding strengthens the prosecution case by affirmatively establishing the capability of the accused.
33. It is also pertinent that no suggestion of impotence or incapacity was even put to PW13 in cross-examination. The defence merely made a bald suggestion of false implication, which was denied. Thus, the evidence of PW13 stands unshaken and reliable.
34. The absence of injuries on the genitalia of the accused does not in any manner discredit the prosecution case. As per settled medical jurisprudence, injuries on the male organ are not a sine qua non for proving sexual assault, particularly when the victim is not in a position to offer strong resistance or where the act is completed without causing such injuries.
35. On a cumulative appreciation, the medical evidence clearly establishes the following: (i) the victim sustained injuries suggestive of physical struggle; (ii) the genital findings are consistent with sexual activity; (iii) the forensic examination was duly conducted; and (iv) the
Page No. 29 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 accused was capable of committing the act. These circumstances form a coherent chain supporting the prosecution version.
36. In the considered opinion of this Court, the medical evidence, far from being inconclusive, positively supports the case of the prosecution and rules out any hypothesis inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, when read along with the other evidence on record.
37. Pw15 and 16 are the investigating officers and they narrated the investigation process in chronological manner. PW15 stated that while working as Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Navipet (23.07.2023 to 15.08.2024), on 10.11.2023 at about 4:00 PM he received a report from
PW1, registered Crime No.264/2023, issued FIR (Ex.P12), dispatched it to the Court, informed the Circle Inspector (LW20), and handed over the CD file to him on the same day.
38. PW16 deposed that while working as Circle Inspector of Police,
North Rural (15.06.2023 to 20.11.2024), he received the CD file from
PW15 on 10.11.2023, got the victim’s 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded through PW14, conducted scene of offence panchanama (Ex.P4), examined
PWs 2 to 5, sent the victim for medical examination on 11.11.2023, seized material objects, conducted further scene panchanama (Ex.P5), examined PWs 8 and 9, apprehended A1 on 19.11.2023, conducted
Page No. 30 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 confession panchanama and seized mobile phone (MO1), recovered knife under seizure panchanama (Ex.P7), reconstructed the scene, arrested A1 and sent him for medical and potency test (Ex.P11), remanded him, filed requisition for 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.P13) which was recorded (Ex.P14), sent material objects to FSL and received report (Ex.P10), obtained final opinion (Ex.P9), served 41A Cr.P.C. notices to A2 to A4 pursuant to High Court orders, and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet and deposited case property before the Court.
39. Pw10 testified that on 10.11.2023, he went to Palda village on his work, police asked him to be mediator for panchanama of scene of offence, accordingly he attended proceedings of panchanama of scene of offence at Palda village, police obtained his signature after preparing the proceedings and he identified his signature in crime detail form dt.
10.11.2023 vide Ex.P4. Subsequently on 16.11.2023 again, he was called by police, police took him to an apartment at Kompally, and he was taken to third floor to a Flat, police conducted panchanama of scene of offence in his presence and obtained his signature and he also identified his signature on crime detail form dt. 16.11.2023 vide Ex.P5.
40. The evidence of PW10 (D. Sai Kumar) assumes significance as an independent mediator who participated in two crucial scene of offence
Page No. 31 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 panchanamas, i.e., Ex.P4 dated 10.11.2023 and Ex.P5 dated 16.11.2023.
His testimony establishes that the police followed due procedure by conducting panchanama proceedings in the presence of mediators, thereby lending credibility and transparency to the investigation process.
41. In his chief-examination, PW10 has clearly and categorically deposed that he was called by the police and that he was physically present at Palda village as well as at the flat in Kompally when the panchanamas were conducted. He has identified his signatures on Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, which corroborates the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. This identification reinforces the genuineness of the panchanama proceedings.
42. The presence of PW10 at two different locations on different dates shows continuity in the investigation and demonstrates that the police took steps to properly document the scenes connected with the offence. His consistent version that the proceedings were conducted in his presence supports the prosecution case that the investigation was carried out in a systematic and lawful manner.
43. The testimony of this witness substantially supports the prosecution case by establishing the authenticity and proper conduct of the scene panchanama under Ex.P4. The witness clearly states that the
Page No. 32 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 proceedings were conducted in front of the victim’s house in the presence of PW2, PW3, and neighbouring residents, indicating transparency and public observance. The presence of surrounding residential houses and inmates further reinforces that the proceedings were not carried out in secrecy. The witness also confirms that the house of Sai Kumar Goud, noted in Ex.P4, is correctly situated behind the victim’s house, thereby lending credibility to the accuracy of the scene description recorded by the investigating agency.
44. Further, the witness affirms that police personnel were present during the preparation of Ex.P4 and that the process took about half an hour, suggesting that due procedure was followed. Even though no written notice was issued to the witness for attending the panchanamas, this does not materially affect the evidentiary value of the proceedings, especially when independent witnesses were present. The acknowledgment that the Circle Inspector supervised and prepared Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 strengthens the reliability of the documents, as they were conducted under official authority.
45. Though the defence attempted to elicit minor omissions in cross-examination, such as his failure to note the house number or the absence of written notice, these aspects do not go to the root of the
Page No. 33 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 matter. It is well settled that minor discrepancies or procedural irregularities do not vitiate otherwise reliable evidence, particularly when the witness is a rustic villager engaged in agriculture and not expected to observe technical details with precision.
46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held:
Further, in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
“Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution cannot be annexed with undue importance.”
Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Mochi v. State of
Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, held:
“Normal discrepancies due to lapse of time, memory loss or mental disposition of witnesses cannot be treated as material contradictions.”
In C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated:
“Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground for rejection of evidence.”
47. Importantly, PW10 has withstood the suggestion that he signed
Page No. 34 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 the documents at the police station or that he was falsely deposing at the instance of the police. His firm denial of these suggestions strengthens his credibility and indicates that there is no material reason to disbelieve his testimony. There is no evidence of enmity or motive attributed to him for falsely implicating the accused.
48. The fact that other persons were present at the time of panchanama does not diminish the evidentiary value of PW10’s testimony.
It is not necessary for the prosecution to examine every person present; examining one reliable mediator is sufficient to prove the conduct of panchanama. His evidence, therefore, validly supports the preparation of
Ex.P4 and Ex.P5.
49. The testimony of PW10 inspires confidence and can safely be relied upon to hold that the scene of offence panchanamas were conducted in accordance with law. His evidence lends assurance to the prosecution version regarding the investigation and strengthens the chain of circumstances, thereby favouring the prosecution case.
50. The entire prosecution case, when viewed as a whole, revolves around the testimony of the victim (PW1), supported by her immediate family members (PW2 and PW3), village elders (PW4 to PW6), otherwise and the surrounding circumstances including medical
Page No. 35 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 examination and police investigation.
51. The defence, on the other hand, attempts to discredit the prosecution by pointing out inconsistencies, delay in lodging the FIR, alleged improvements in testimony, and suggesting a false implication arising out of a failed marriage proposal.
52. The testimony of PW1 assumes central importance. She is the star witness and victim cum author of the complaint. Her evidence narrates a clear sequence of events: acquaintance with A1, telephonic communication, inducement to travel to Hyderabad, confinement in a room, threats, physical assault including use of a knife, and repeated sexual assault over a period of two days. She further speaks about intimidation through photographs and threats to kill her family. Her version also explains her subsequent conduct returning home silently due to fear, later disclosing the incident to her parents, and eventually lodging the complaint after intervention of elders failed.
53. The defence has attempted to attack her credibility primarily on omissions and improvements between Ex.P1, her statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., and her deposition before the Court.
54. It is the contention of the counsel for all the accused that
Page No. 36 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 the testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from serious, material, and unexplained improvements, which go to the very root of the prosecution case. In her deposition before this Hon'ble Court, the prosecutrix alleged for the first time that immediately after freshening herself, Accused No.1 tied her hands and legs, gagged her mouth with a cloth, and confined her for two days without food or water. She further claimed that the accused bit on her breast during the alleged assault. None of these allegations find place either in Ex.P-1 complaint or in her statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr PC.
55. Further, contended that the allegations are not minor additions, but new, sensational, and materially different accusations which fundamentally alter the nature of the alleged offence. The omission of such grave facts from her initial version renders her subsequent improvements wholly unreliable and indicative of afterthought. It is settled law that when the prosecution introduces material improvements during trial, which were never mentioned in the earliest version, the testimony becomes doubtful and cannot be made the basis for conviction.
56. The defense relied on authority reported in Hon'ble Telangana
High Court where it is held that material improvements in sexual offence cases are fatal, as they cast a shadow on the credibility of the
Page No. 37 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 prosecutrix:. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court, K.
Srisailam vis State of Telangana, 2024 TS HC (Crl.) 112 (DB),- The
Division Bench held that allegations about tying limbs, gagging, or causing bite injuries, when absent in the earlier statement, constitute material contradictions, and the Court must apply greater scrutiny and cannot rely on such improved testimony. In the present case, the prosecutrix has failed to explain why such grave allegations-tying limbs, gagging with cloth, confinement for two days, starvation, and biting on the breast-were not disclosed at the earliest opportunity. These are not facts that can be forgotten or omitted inadvertently. The silence in Ex.P-1 and the Section 161 CrPC statement creates a fatal gap and raises a presumption of deliberate improvement for strengthening a weak prosecution case.
57. As per the version of the defence counsel, what is pointed out are additional details such as tying of hands, gagging, and biting. These are clearly in the nature of elaborations rather than contradictions. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh held that the
testimony of the prosecutrix must be given paramount importance. The
Court further observed that minor discrepancies do not render such testimony unreliable. Applying this principle, the additions in the present
Page No. 38 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 case do not discredit the prosecutrix.
The defence reliance on K. Srisailam v. State of Telangana is misconceived. In that case, the improvements were such that they altered the very nature of the prosecution case. The Court found that the later version was inconsistent with the earlier version on material particulars.
In contrast, in the present case, the substratum of the prosecution case remains unchanged. The allegation of rape is consistent from the FIR stage till deposition. Therefore, the ratio of Srisailam cannot be mechanically applied.
58. The defence argument ignores the well-established principle that
FIR is not expected to be exhaustive. In State of Himachal Pradesh v.
Raghubir Singh, it was held that FIR is not an encyclopedia. The purpose of FIR is only to set the criminal law in motion. It is not required to contain every minute detail of the incident. Therefore, omission of certain facts in FIR is not fatal and this principle applies with greater force in sexual offence cases as victims often hesitate to narrate the entire incident at the first instance and even Psychological trauma plays a significant role in such omissions.
59. The Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat recognized this reality. It was held that a victim of sexual
Page No. 39 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 assault is unlikely to falsely implicate someone due to social stigma. The
Court further observed that inconsistencies are natural due to trauma. In the present case, the prosecutrix is a rural woman. Social pressures and hesitation would naturally affect her narration. Therefore, later elaborations cannot be viewed with suspicion. The defence contention that such facts “cannot be forgotten” is unrealistic and human memory does not operate with mathematical precision. Even, the principle of sensitive appreciation of evidence has been reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. Om
Prakash.
60. So, the certain aspects such as tying of hands and legs, gagging, and bite marks were not mentioned in earlier statements. However, such omissions must be weighed against the overall consistency of her narrative. Though the medial aspects like bite marks are not whispered, yet the medical evidence through doctor proves the same.
61. The core allegation that A1 took her to Hyderabad, confined her, threatened her, and committed repeated rape remains unchanged throughout. Minor omissions relating to details of assault do not necessarily demolish the substratum of the prosecution case, particularly in offences of this nature where victims may not narrate every detail at the earliest opportunity due to trauma, fear, and social stigma.
Page No. 40 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
62. Pw1 cross-examination reveals certain admissions, such as not informing her parents prior to going to Hyderabad, absence of a personal mobile phone, and delay in lodging the report. These aspects, however, do not render her testimony unreliable. On the contrary, her admission that she voluntarily went to Hyderabad initially lends naturalness to her conduct, as the prosecution case itself is not one of abduction but of inducement followed by coercion and assault. The absence of a personal mobile phone is consistently stated across evidence and is not contradicted by any material.
63. According to Pw-1's version, the incident occurred on 09-10-2023. However, the complaint was lodged only on 10-11-2023 with delay of (32) days, without furnishing any cogent explanation for this inordinate delay. Delay in reporting, especially in sensitive matters, casts a serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case. First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence given at the trial. Delay in lodging FIR must be satisfactorily explained."
64. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Telangana
High Court, Shaik Shafi v. State of Telangana, 2022 (2) ALD (Crl.) 151 (Telangana HC). The Hon'ble Court held: "Unexplained delay in lodging
Page No. 41 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
FIR creates suspicion and affects the credibility of the prosecution case, particularly in sexual offence allegations."
65. Delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences is not uncommon.
Victims often hesitate due to fear of social stigma. Family honour and societal pressure play a significant role. In the present case, the victim first disclosed the incident to her family. Thereafter, a panchayat was convened which indicates an attempt at informal resolution.Such conduct is consistent with rural social realities. Therefore, delay stands reasonably explained. The reliance on delay to discredit the prosecution is unsustainable. The defence reliance on Telangana High Court judgment in
Shaik Shafi is distinguishable. In that case, delay was wholly unexplained.
In the present case, explanation exists on record.Therefore, the ratio does not apply.
66. The delay of approximately one month in lodging the FIR is undoubtedly a circumstance that requires careful scrutiny. However, the explanation offered by the prosecution is that the victim was under threat and the matter was first taken to elders for settlement. This explanation finds support in the testimonies of PW2 to PW6. In cases of sexual offences, especially in rural settings, delay in reporting is not uncommon due to fear, social stigma, and attempts at informal resolution. The delay,
Page No. 42 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 therefore, cannot be viewed in isolation but must be considered in the context of the surrounding circumstances.
67. PW2, the elder brother, corroborates the version of PW1 in material particulars. He speaks about her going to Hyderabad, returning after two days with injuries, and disclosing the incident. He also speaks about informing elders and calling A2 to A4, who allegedly denied the acts and threatened them. While PW2 admits certain limitations in his knowledge such as not knowing the exact phone used or specific details of the incident his evidence remains consistent with the broad prosecution narrative. His admission that no immediate police complaint was lodged also aligns with the prosecution explanation regarding delay. PW3, the mother, further corroborates the prosecution story. She confirms that PW1 went to Hyderabad after being called by A1, returned with injuries, and disclosed the incident. She also speaks about consulting elders and the subsequent confrontation with A2 to A4. Her cross-examination reveals certain omissions, such as not stating specific details in her police statement, but these do not materially affect the core of her testimony.
Her evidence reinforces the natural conduct of a parent dealing with such a situation.
68. The defence argument regarding conduct of PW-2 and PW-3
Page No. 43 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 is speculative. Human behaviour varies depending on circumstances.There is no fixed standard of reaction. Fear and social stigma often result in delayed reporting. Therefore, their conduct cannot be termed unnatural.
The alleged contradictions between PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 are minor and they do not affect the core allegation of sexual assault. The consistency on material particulars is what matters. The defence argument regarding caste elders is also untenable and non-mention of names initially is not fatal as names can emerge during investigation. The argument regarding non-examination of Kompally witnesses is misplaced. It is not necessary to examine every witness. The Court must evaluate the quality of evidence.
The testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient if credible.
69. The testimonies of PW4 to PW6, who are village elders, provide additional corroboration regarding the post-incident conduct. They consistently state that PW1 disclosed the incident to them, that they called A2 to A4 for a panchayat, and that the accused denied the allegations and issued threats. While there are minor discrepancies regarding dates and the exact sequence of events, the overall picture remains consistent. The defence suggestion that these witnesses are interested or biased due to caste or village relations does not, by itself, render their evidence unreliable, particularly when their testimony is
Page No. 44 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 consistent with that of the victim and her family.
70. The evidence of PW8 and PW9, who turned hostile, does not materially advance the defence case. Their denial of prior statements and claimed ignorance of the incident weakens the prosecution to some extent, particularly regarding corroboration from independent witnesses connected to the accused. However, hostility of witnesses is not uncommon, and their evidence does not negate the direct testimony of the victim and supporting witnesses.
71. The Investigating Officer (PW16) admits several lapses: failure to collect call data records, examination of neighbours, securing independent mediators, clarity regarding jurisdiction, and proper documentation in certain aspects. These deficiencies undoubtedly affect the quality of investigation. However, it is well settled that lapses in investigation do not automatically result in acquittal if the substantive evidence of the victim is credible and trustworthy.
72. A significant defence plea is that the case was foisted to compel A1 to marry PW1. This suggestion is consistently put to all witnesses. However, there is no substantive evidence to support this theory. Mere suggestion without proof cannot displace the prosecution
Page No. 45 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 case, particularly when the victim has subjected herself to the ordeal of reporting and deposing in Court.
73. Another important aspect is the conduct of the victim. The defence has highlighted that she did not raise alarm, did not approach neighbours, and did not immediately report the incident to police.
However, the victim has consistently stated that she was under threat and fear. In cases involving intimidation and psychological coercion, such conduct cannot be termed unnatural.
74. The issue of jurisdiction raised by the defence, particularly regarding the place of occurrence being Kompally while FIR was registered at Navipet, is a procedural irregularity.
75. As per the evidence of PW-1, she lodged complaint Exhibit P-1 with the police Navipet, in which she alleged the entire incident took place on 09-10-2023 at Kompally of Hyderabad, which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Pet Basheerabad Police station, Cyber Police
Commissionarate, Hyderabad. As per Ex.P-1 there is no offence took place at any place except Kompally, and the accused No.2 to 4 are not present at the scene of offence on the date of allegation. "Since the entire alleged incident of threatening, tying of hands and legs, gagging, illegal confinement, and repeated rape is stated to have taken place exclusively
Page No. 46 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 at Kompally, Hyderabad, the only court having territorial jurisdiction under Section 177 Cr.P.C is the Sessions Court, Ranga Reddy District (Cyberabad jurisdiction). The learned Sessions Court, Nizamabad, therefore lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance or conduct trial, as no offence or its consequence occurred within Nizamabad District." The argument regarding jurisdiction is purely technical. Even if there is some confusion regarding place, it does not affect the occurrence of the offence. Criminal law focuses on the act, not procedural technicalities. The Court has jurisdiction if part of cause of action arises within its limits. Therefore, the objection is untenable.
76. The law permits registration of FIR at a place where part of the cause of action arises or where the victim resides. Moreover, such irregularity does not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is shown, which is not the case here.
77. Pw11 stated that on 19.11.2023 himself along with
LW13/Salugari Mohan at about 12.00 p.m. proceeded to a Hotel near bus stand to have tea. Police apprehended A1 in this case near bus stand at
Palda, at request of police they enquired with A1 in this case, he voluntarily admitted his guilt in this case, police prepared panchanama of confession of A1 in their presence, they obtained their signature. Witness
Page No. 47 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 identified his signature on confession panchanama of A1, police seized cell phone from possession of the accused. Ex.P6 is relevant portion in confession proceedings of A1 in this case. MO-1 is cell phone. Basing on confession of A1 in this case he took them to Kompally, where he alleged to have committed offence against victim in this case, police prepared panchanama in our presence at Kompally in the Flat where alleged incident occurred. Police prepared panchanama in their presence i.e.,
Ex.P7. Police even seized a knife in our presence i.e., MO-2.
78. The recovery evidence, though attacked during cross-examination, still retains probative value. Even if the confession before police is inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the discovery of facts pursuant to the statement of A1 is admissible under
Section 27. The recovery of MO-2 (knife) and identification of the place of occurrence at the instance of A1 provide a connecting link in the chain of circumstances.
79. The argument regarding “stock witness” is not legally sustainable. A witness cannot be discarded merely because he acted as panch earlier. The defence argument regarding confession is partially correct. Confession to police is inadmissible except to the extent of
Page No. 48 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
Section 27. However, discovery pursuant to such information is admissible. Therefore, recovery cannot be ignored. The seizure of MO-1 (cell phone), though lacking technical particulars like IMEI or SIM number, cannot be outrightly discarded when supported by other evidence. Minor procedural lapses in seizure do not outweigh substantive evidence when the overall prosecution story remains intact.
80. PW11’s evidence, despite certain weaknesses, still supports the prosecution to the extent of proving presence of A1, his disclosure, and consequential recovery proceedings. His testimony cannot be rejected in toto merely because he had acquaintance with police. It is a settled position that evidence of a panch witness is not to be discarded solely on that ground unless strong reasons exist.
81. The non-examination of some independent witnesses or omission of minute details in panchanama are irregularities but not fatal defects.
Criminal trials are to be judged on the touchstone of probabilities and practical realities, not on hyper-technicalities.
82. Further, the conduct of A1, including his role in leading the police to the place of offence, is a relevant circumstance under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This conduct strengthens the prosecution case.
Page No. 49 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
The defence has not been able to probabilize any false implication or motive strong enough to discard the otherwise cogent prosecution evidence. Mere suggestions of false implication, stock witness, or procedural irregularities remain unsubstantiated.
83. It is the contention of the counsel for all the accused that the prosecution has failed to prove the foundational allegation that Accused
No.1 called PW-1, as no phone number, source of call, or supporting detail is disclosed in Ex.P-1 or the Section 161 CrPC statement. The alleged seizure of a mobile phone is evidentially worthless in the absence of IMEI, SIM details, CDRs, messages, or location data linking it to the incident. Consequently, the very basis of the prosecution case remains unsubstantiated and unreliable.
84. The defence argument regarding absence of call records is equally weak. Electronic evidence is only corroborative. Conviction can be based on oral testimony alone. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash
Kewalchand Jain, it was held that corroboration is not mandatory. The testimony of the prosecutrix stands on its own footing. Therefore, absence of CDR does not demolish the case.At best, it is a lapse in investigation.
It is settled law that lapses in investigation cannot benefit the accused.
85. The defence seeks to magnify delay and minor
Page No. 50 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 inconsistencies, but these aspects do not demolish the core prosecution case. The testimony of the prosecutrix remains consistent and trustworthy on material particulars, thereby inspiring confidence. It is well settled that absence of injuries or forensic traces is not decisive in cases of sexual assault. Medical evidence is corroborative in nature and cannot override credible ocular testimony. The delay in medical examination stands reasonably explained, and natural healing of injuries cannot negate the occurrence. The presence of a bite mark, even if questioned, lends support to the allegation of physical assault. Minor lapses in investigation do not enure to the benefit of the accused when substantive evidence is reliable. The failure to collect CDRs or examine certain witnesses is not fatal when the victim’s version is cogent. The principle that penetration alone constitutes rape remains applicable. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
86. In view of the cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of A1 beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the victim is trustworthy and duly corroborated by medical, recovery, and circumstantial evidence. The discrepancies pointed out by the defence are minor in nature and do not go to the root of the case.
Page No. 51 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
87. When the evidence is cumulatively assessed, certain inconsistencies and omissions are indeed present. However, they largely pertain to peripheral details rather than the core incident. The central narrative that PW1 was taken to Hyderabad by A1, confined, threatened, and subjected to sexual assault remains consistent and is corroborated by surrounding circumstances and supporting witnesses.
88. The defence has not been able to establish any strong motive for false implication. The theory of forced marriage remains speculative.
The conduct of the accused, particularly the alleged threats by A2 to A4 during the panchayat, lends some support to the prosecution case. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur and should not overshadow the substantive truth if it emerges clearly.
89. Thus, despite certain lapses in investigation and minor inconsistencies in testimony, the evidence of the victim inspires confidence and is corroborated in material particulars. The prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of A1 beyond reasonable doubt.
However, as regards A2 to A4, the evidence is limited to allegations of threats and denial during the panchayat, without clear proof of their involvement in the principal offence. Their role requires cautious evaluation.
Page No. 52 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
90. From the above, the prosecution case succeeds in establishing the offence against A1. The evidence against A2 to A4 is insufficient to bring home guilt beyond reasonable doubt, entitling them to the benefit of doubt.
91.In the result, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 342 and 506 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the above said charges. The
Accused Nos.2 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 506 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.2 to 4 shall be in force for a period of 6 (six) months as under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer and after correction
pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of April, 2026
Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad
Page No. 53 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
92. QUANTUM OF SENTENCE & PLEA OF THE ACCUSED:-
Accused No.1 submitted that he is studying hotel management and it is the first offence and rquested the Court to reduce the sentence by taking lenient view.
The learned counsel for the accused submitted the court to take lenient view as A1 is student and there is no past criminal history.
The learned APP submitted that the offence is grievous in nature and requested the Court to impose maximum punishment.
:: SENTENCE AWARDED ::
93. The Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of Ten (10) years and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for Six(6)months for the offence punishable under
Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.
The Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment of one (1) year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six(6) months for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Page No. 54 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
The Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment of Two (2) years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six(6) months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
REMAND SET OFF U/S 428 of CrPC:-
94. The remand period of the accused from 20-11-2023 to 20-01-2024 is set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C.
DISPOSAL OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:-
95. MO1 shall be confiscated to the State. MO2 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID:-
96. Accused is appraised about his right to file Appeal against this Judgment. A free copy of this Judgment is also handed over to the accused under due acknowledgment.
Typed to my dictation and after correction pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of April, 2026
Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad
Page No. 55 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(Witnesses examined)
For the Prosecution: For Defence: NIL
1. PW1: XXX is the victim and defacto complainant
2. PW2: XXX is the elder brother of the victim
3. PW3: XXX is the mother of the victim
4. PW4: Dharmapuri
5. PW5: Oddepally Mallaiah
6. PW6: M.Prabhakar
7. PW7: Jaipal Reddy
8. PW8: Chinthala Abhinay Reddy,
9. PW9: Mala Vamshidhar Reddy 10.PW10: D.Sai Kumar 11.PW11: Alal Naveen 12.PW12: Dr.Indu 13.PW13/Dr.B.V.Naga Mohan Rao 14.PW14/D.Padma, 15.PW15/C.Yadagiri Goud, SI of police
16. PW16/S.Sateesh Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the Prosecution:
1.Ex.P1 is the complaint given by PW1 to the police, 2.Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8, 3.Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW9, 4.Ex.P4 is the Crime Detail Form dated 10-11-2023, 5.Ex.P5 is the Crime Detail Form dated 16-11-2023,
Page No. 56 of 56 SC No. 206 of 2024 6.Ex.P6 is the relevant portion in confession proceedings of A1.
7.Ex.P7 is the confession panchanama, 8.Ex.P8 is Preliminary Examination report issued by PW12, 9.Ex.P9 is Final report issued by PW12, 10.Ex.P10 is the FSL report, 11.Ex.P11 is the Potency test report issued by PW13, 12.Ex.P12 is First Information Report.
13.Ex.P13 is the requisition given by CI of police to II Addl.JMFC,
Nizamabad to record the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim
14. Ex.P14 is the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim.
For the defence: -Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
1. MO1 is Cell phone
2. MO2 is the knife
Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad