Smt.P.Lakshmi Kumari

1

IN THE COURT OF I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. P. LAKSHMI KUMARI,

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO

ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN – CUM –

XVII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 4th day of April, 2022.

SC No. 120 of 2019

Name of the complainant: The State through PS Jawaharnagar.

Name of the accused: Jakkireddy Madhava Reddy S/o. Late Raji Reddy, aged 45 years, Occ: RTC Driver at Hakimpet depot, R/o.Plot No.17, Near Krishna Theater, Gayathri Nagar, Dammaiguda village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal District, N/o. Ande Village, Mirdoddi Mandal, Siddipet District.

Crime Number: 752 of 2017

Offence Under Section: 342, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

PRC No.: 53 of 2018 on the file of XXI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal.

Case Committed by: Sri N.Santhosh Kumar, XXI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal.

Prosecution conducted by: Additional Public Prosecutor.

Defence onducted by: Sri K.Ravikanth, Counsel for the accused

Plea of the accused: Not guilty.

This case coming before me for hearing on 31.03.2022 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Ravikanth,

Counsel for the accused and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Police Station Jawaharnagar filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 342, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2

2. The brief facts of the prosecution is that PW1/victim had lodged a report stating that her husband is doing Carpenter works in Amaravathi due to financial problems and that the PW1/victim and her daughter along with PW1/victim’s sister i.e., PW.2 are residing in the house situated at near Pochamma temple, CPI Colony, Balaji Nagar, Medchal district and that the accused used to visit her house in the absence of her husband and offered for his sexual desire to PW1/victim on several occasions and on 05.09.2017 at about 2300 hours the accused came to the house of PW1/victim and had knocked the door in the absence of sister of PW1/victim who went to her native village and PW1/victim after observing the accused near the door had immediately tried to close the doors, but the accused had forcibly entered into the house and dragged her in to room and had forcibly committed rape without her will and consent by keeping cloth piece into the mouth of PW1/victim and threatened the PW1/victim with dire consequences of killing PW1/victim and her family members if she discloses the incident and on 07.02.2018

PW1/victim along with her sister went to Amaravathi and had informed the incident to her husband i.e. Pw3 and on 12.09.2017 they return to the

Hyderabad and PW1 had lodged the report against the accused.

Thereafter PW.12 basing on the report of the victim had registered a case in crime No. 752/2017 for the offence under section 342, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code under EXP.10 and thereafter PW12 after registering of First Information Report had handed over the case diary file to PW.9 and PW.9 after receipt of case diary file from PW.12 had proceeded to conduct the investigation on the next day 13.09.2017 at 10:00 AM since it was late night and thereafter PW9 had visited the scene of offence and prepared scene observation Panchanama under Ex.P7 and 3 drew rough sketch under Ex.P8 and on the same day PW9 had examined the Pws 2 and 3 and had recorded their statements and thereafter Pw9 had referred the Pw1/victim to the hospital and got examined by PW7/

Dr S. Laxmi and thereafter the statement of the Pw1/victim was recorded by Woman Inspector i.e., PW10 u/s. 161 Cr.P.C and thereafter the statement of Pw1/victim u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned

VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, L.B.Nagar i.e. LW11 under

Ex.P9 and that after receipt of Forensic Science Laboratory report under

Ex.P4, medical certificate under Ex.P5, PW9 was subsequently transferred from the Police Station Jawaharnagar in the second week of December, 2019 and the case file was handed over to the successor i.e., PW11. PW11 after receipt of case diary file from his predecessor /PW9 had conducted further investigation and the accused was apprehended and arrested on 27-09-2018 at his residence Gayathrinagar, Dammiaguda and was produced before PW.11 and thereafter PW.11 had produced the accused for remand before learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal and on the same day PW.11 had examined PW4 ,PW5 and recorded their statement in the police station , Jawaharnagar . Thereafter the accused was produced before Gandhi hospital for conducting Potency test under

Ex.P.6. Thereafter PW.11 after collection of documents evidence ie., the

FSL report under Ex.P.4., Medical report under Ex.P.5, Potency test report under Ex.P.6 and After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under sections 342, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

3.Cognizance of the charge sheet was taken for the offences punishable under sections 342, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused in PRC No. 53 of 2018 by the then learned XXI Addl.

4

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal committed the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar as the learned Magistrate having perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by the court of sessions after furnishing the case copies as contemplated under section 208 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

4. The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 120/2019 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.

5. This court having considered the record, framed charges under section 342, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the said charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P1 to P10.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against him for which he denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

9.The defence of the accused is that the accused has not committed any rape against the person of the PW1/victim and had never wrongfully 5 confined the PW1/victim at her house with an intention to commit the act of rape and has never criminally intimated the PW1/victim with dire consequences of killing of her and her family members and the false case is registered against the accused due to financial disputes between the accused and the husband of the PW1/victim.

10. Heard the oral arguments advanced by both sides. Perused the material on record.

11. Now the points for determination are:

(i) Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code?

(ii) Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code?

(iii) Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code?

(iv) To what finding?

12.Point Nos. (i) to (iii):

Since these points are interconnected with each other,

therefore, this Court intends to answer them together.

To prove the guilt of accused for the offences u/sec. 342, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused, the prosecution has examined the PW1 is the victim, PW2 is the sister of victim, PW3 is the husband of victim, PW4 is the neighbour of the victim, Pw5 is the another neighbour of the victim, PW6 is the Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, PW7 is the Doctor who examined the victim, PW8 is the 6

Doctor who examined the accused and issued potency test report, PW9 is the Investigation Officer who conducted scene of offence panchanama, referred the victim for medical examination, PW10 is the Woman

Inspector of Police who recorded the 161 Cr.P.C. statement, Pw11 is the second Investigation Officer who arrested the accused and after receipt of Forensic science laboratory report , medical report and potency report he filed charge sheet . PW.12 is the first investigating officer who received the report and had registered the First information report and got marked Exs.P1 to P10.

13. The prosecution in order to prove that PW.1/victim was raped apart from the evidence of PW.1/Victim has also adduced medical evidence to establish the said fact. PW1 is the defacto complainant/victim had deposed before this court that her husband went to Amaravathi on work and she along with her daughter were alone in the house and there was no electricity at that time, the accused about 11:00 PM came to her house and pushed the door and entered into her house and had committed rape upon Pw1/victim and she had raised hue and cry and as it was too late night every one were sleeping and thereafter the accused had criminally intimidated the Pw1/victim with dire consequences of killing her and her family members if she disclose the act of rape by the accused upon her to any one and on the next day morning, her husband ,her elder sister came to house and thereafter she had lodged the report under Ex.P.1 and thereafter police examined her and recorded her statement and referred her to Gandhi Hospital where medical officer examined her and issued opinion and thereafter she returned to home.

7

14.The evidence of the victim that the accused had gained forcible entry by pushing the door and she was subjected to sexual intercourse against her will at about 11 P.M while she was alone along with her daughter in the house , and after the incident she was sent for medical examination.

15.PW7is the medical officerwho examined the victim after the incident has deposed before the Court that upon examination of

PW.1/victim she found contusion on her right thigh just above the knee and on left arm above the elbow, no tears and two fingers and hymen not intact and also collected the vaginal swabs and sent to Forensic Science

Laboratory and after receiving the Forensic Science Laboratory report under Ex.P4, PW7 opined that though Forensic Science Laboratory report showing no semen and spermatozoa, the sexual assault cannot be ruled out and accordingly issued Ex.P5 / medical certificate.

16.Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 disclose that possibility of sexual assault on the person of the victim has not been ruled out by PW7. There is no cross examination of PW.7 on behalf of the accused disputing the competence of PW7 to issued Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 and also its genuineness. Ex.P.4 and

Ex.P.5 lend credence to the case of prosecution about the commission of rape on the victim.

17. Ex.P.6 is the potency certificate of the accused that the accused is capable of performing sexual act. It is not the defence of the accused that he is impotent.

8

18.The victim sustained contusion on her right thigh just above the knee and on left arm above the elbow on lateral side which is indicative of struggle by the victim and force used by the accused on her. Even the injuries noted by PW7 on the person of the victim are suggestive and indicative that the victim was forcibly and sexually assaulted.

19. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the oral evidence of the victim. Hence the prosecution by examining the victim and PW7 and exhibiting Ex.P4 to Ex.P.6 is held to have proved that made out a case that victim was raped and the accused is capable of performing sexual act.

Now the prosecution has to prove the involvement of the accused in commission of rape on the victim.

20. The evidence of the victim before this court no doubt discloses that no body had witnessed the incident of rape and no body came to her rescue though she raised hue and cry when the accused raped her however, the accused during the course of cross examination of the victim has not denied the presence of the accused at the scene of offence at the time of the incident even by way of giving suggestion to the victim that accused never committed rape upon the victim proves the involvement of the accused in commission of rape on the victim. Per contra a suggestion has been given to the victim that there are monetary disputes between her husband and the accused and same was placed

before elders and also settled the matter and the same was reduced into

writing on 19-12-2017. The said suggestion given to the victim establishes that the accused is not a stranger to PW.1/ victim and her 9 family members and that accused is known to the victim and family members of PW.1/ victim.

21. The accused had also not controverted the testimony of the victim that the accused had never wrongfully confined her at her house by pushing the door and , threatened the victim to kill her if she discloses the incident of rape to anybody .

22. PW.1/ victim during course of cross examination held after one year approximately has deposed before this court that before lodging the report and after lodging the report she has no acquaintance with the accused however, PW.1 has admitted that there are monetary disputes between accused and her husband and has expressed ignorance about the disputes between her family and the family of accused and that the said disputes were placed before the elders and it was settled and reduced into writing on 19.12.2017. Except giving suggestion to PW.1/ victim that there are monetary disputes between accused and husband of

PW.1 / victim and it was settled before elders and reduced into writing on 19 -12- 2017, no copy of alleged settlement dated. 19-12 -2017 is produced before this court by the accused.

23. The identity of accused has also not disputed and on the other hand the above said suggestion given to PW1/ victim by the learned counsel of the accused that there are disputes between the husband of the PW1/ victim and the accused with regard to monetary transaction is also revealing that accused is not a stranger to PW.1/ victim and accused is known to husband of the PW.1/ victim and to PW1/ victim .

10 24There is no cross examination to PW1/victim denying and disputing the fact of accused visiting the house of the PW1/ victim in absence of her husband and sister and committing rape upon PW1/ victim and that a false case is registered against the accused by the PW.1/ victim.

25. PW2 who is the sister of the Pw1/victim deposed that she was informed through Pw1/victim about the incident of the act of rape by the accused against the person of Pw1/victim and that accused came to their house during night hours and has knocked the door and entered forcibly into the house and had committed rape upon PW1/ victim . The evidence of Pw2 discloses that she was not present on the date of incident However, at the same time the evidence of PW2 proves that she is not an eye witness to the commission of offence of rape on the victim.

26. PW3 is the husband of Pw1/victim and circumstantial witness deposed that he was informed about the act of rape by the accused upon the person of Pw1/victim, and that accused came to their house during night hours and has knocked the door and entered forcibly into the house and had committed rape upon PW1. The evidence of Pw3 also discloses that he was not present on the date of incident However, at the same time the evidence of PW3 proves that he is not an eye witness to the commission of offence of rape on the victim.

27. PW4 who is the neighbour of the Pw1/victim has categorically deposed that during night hours before 10:00 PM he had heard hue and cry from the house of PW2 quarreling on the name of one Reddy and on the next day morning the wife of PW4 had asked PW.2 as to what had 11 happened on the previous night and PW.2 had disclosed to wife of PW.4 that one person had raped PW1. PW4 admitted that he has not witnessed the accused and at the time of the incident he was not present at his house and that he was present at his shop.

28. There is no suggestion given to PW.4 by the learned counsel for the accused specifically deny and disputing the fact that PW.4 had never heard hue and cry from the house of PW2 either from his shop or from his house quarreling in the name of one Reddy which proves the occurrence of offence in the house of PW.2 during night hours. Though the suggestion was given to PW.4 that no such incident took place and that

PW.2 had not disclosed anything about the incident, the said suggestopm was categorically denied by PW.4 and the evidence of PW.4 was not destroyed in material particulars.

29.The evidence of PW5 clearly discloses that on the next date of incident Pw2 had disclosed before her that PW.1 was raped by one Reddy person and that PW2 had scolded all the basti people stating that PW1 had raised a hue and cry and no one came forward to rescue her however, at the same time the evidence of PW2 proves that she is not an eye witness to the commission of offence of rape on the victim.

30. PW6 is the panch witness for scene of offence has expressed ignorance about the facts of the case and that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and police had obtained his signatures on white paper under Ex.P3 .

12

31.PW7 /Dr. S. Laxmi examined the victim deposed that she received requisition from Jawaharnagar PS on 13-09-2017 to examine the victim, accordingly she examined the victim and found contusion on right thigh just above the knee and on left arm above the elbow, no tears and admitting two fingers and hymen not intact and she collected the vaginal swabs and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and after receiving the

Forensic Science Laboratory report she opined that even though Forensic

Science Laboratory report showing no semen and spermatozoa sexual assault cannot be ruled out and accordingly PW.7 had issued. Ex.P.4 /

Forensic Science Laboratory report and Ex.P.5/ medical certificate.

32. PW8 is the doctor deposed that on 31-03-2018, under the

Chairmanship of Superintendent, Gandhi hospital , the Board members medically examined the accused and accused was evaluated and advised routine investigations (CUE, CBPESR , blood, Sugar, Blood electorates,

ECG , Chest X -ray and ultra sound abdomen) and the Board members opined that there is nothing that the individual / Accused examined by them is impotent. Accordingly they have issued the potency test report of accused i.e. Ex.P.6.

33. PW9 is the second Investigation Officer who after receipt of case diary file from PW.12 had proceeded to conduct the investigation on the next day 13.09.2017 at 10:00 AM since it was late night and thereafter

PW9 had visited the scene of offence and had prepared scene observation panchanama under Ex.P7 and drew rough sketch under Ex.P8 and on the same day PW9 examined the Pws 2 and 3 and had recorded their statements and thereafter Pw9 had sent the Pw1/victim to the hospital and got examined by PW7 A.Suresh and thereafter the 13 statement of the Pw1/victim was recorded by Woman Inspector i.e.

PW10 u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the statement of Pw1/victim u/s.

164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned VI Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, L.B.Nagar i.e. LW11 under Ex.P9 and that after receipt

of Forensic Science Laboratory report under Ex.P4, medical certificate under Ex.P5 PW9 was subsequently transferred from the Police Station

Jawaharnagar in the second week of December, 2019 and the case file handed over to the successor i.e. PW11.

34. PW10/Woman Inspector of police is the another Investigation

Officer has deposed that on 13-09-2017 upon the phone call of inspector of Police/PW9 PS Jawaharnagar informing her to record the statement of

PW1 under section 161 Cr.P.C she had recorded the statement of PW.1 under section 161 Cr.P.C and hand over the case diary record to Police station, Jawaharnagar.

35.PW11 is another investigating officer deposed that on 24-12-2017 he had received case diary from his predecessor /PW9 and on 27-09-2018 the accused person was apprehended and arrested at his residence

Gayathrinagar, Dammaiguda and was produced before PW.11 and thereafter he produced the accused for remand before learned XXI

Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal and on the same day he had examined

PW4 ,PW5 and recorded their statement in the police station ,

Jawaharnagar . Thereafter the accused was produced before Gandhi

Hospital for conducting Potency test under Ex.P.6. Thereafter he received the FSL report under Ex.P.4., Medical report under Ex.P.5,

Potency test report under Ex.P.6 and After completion of investigation 14 he filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No. 752/2017 for the offence u/s 342, 376 and 506 of IPC..

36.PW12 is the another investigating officer who received Telugu written complaint from PW1 /victim and basing on the report of victim he had registered a case in Crime No. 752/2017 for the offence u/s 342, 376 and 506 of IPC under Ex P10 FIR and has handed over the case diary file to PW9.

37.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the hostility of witnesses is nothing else but a clear case which has been described by the Hon'ble apex court as a ‘Compromise Culture’ he submits that the prosecution witnesses PW.2, 4 and PW.5 have turned hostile either on some inducement or otherwise which may have taken the shape and form of such methods which can be gathered from the consequences of their hostility . He submits that in such a situation that part of the statement of the witnesses, who have turned hostile, and which establishes the factum of the rape against the person of the prosecutrix cannot be overlooked.

The same being substantive evidence, which corroborates the other evidence existing on record including that of the formal witnesses, is sufficient to construe that the prosecution has discharged its initial burden and the onus stands shifted on the defence that has not come forward with any explanations to disprove the fact of possibility of sexual assault with the prosecutrix cannot be ruled out. In support of his contention he relied upon authority in Ashok Kumar and others vs State of U.P 2018 Lawsuit (All) 568.

15

38.This court has placed its reliance upon the authority in state of U.P vs Ramesh Prasas Mishra and Anothers 1996 10 SCC 360, where in, It is held by the Honourable Apex court that it is equally settled law that the evidence of hostile witness could not be totally rejected, if spoken in favour of the prosecution and accused, but it can be subjected to closest scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or the defence may be accepted.

39.This court has also placed its reliance upon the authority in

K. Anbazhagan vs Superintendent of Police 2004 3 SCC 76, where in it is held by Honourable Apex Court that if a court finds that in the process the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, it may after reading and considering the evidence of the witness as a whole with due caution, accept, in the light of the evidence on the record that part of his testimony which it finds to be creditworthy and act upon it.

40. PW2 is the sister of the victim deposed that about three years back, in their absence, the accused came to their house during night time and had knocked the door and forcibly entered the house and committed rape against her sister/ PW1 and same is informed to her by PW.1 when

PW.2 had returned from her native village on the next day.

41.PW.2 during course of cross examination which is held after a year, in which PW.2 had stated that no such incident occurred however the evidence of PW2 has not been completely shaken by way of specific suggestion given to PW2 by the Learned Counsel for the accused that

PW2 was not informed about the facts of the case committed by the accused upon the person of PW1 during night hours by making forceful 16 entry into the house of PW1 / victi and at the instance of police she is deposing false and police not examined her and not recorded her statement.

42.PW4 is the neighbour of the prosecutrix has categorically deposed that during night hours he heard hue and cry from the house of PW.2 quarreling in the name of one Reddy and evidence of PW.4 has not being completely shaken by way of suggestion given to PW.4 by the learned counsel for the accused that PW.4 never heard hue and cry from the house of PW2 during night hours either from his shop or from his house quarreling on the name of one Reddy which proves the occurrence of offence in the house of PW.2 during night hours.

43.PW.5 is another neighbour of the prosecutrix deposed that on the next date of the incident PW.2 had scolded all the basti people that PW.1 had raised hue and cry and no came forward in rescue of PW.1 and the evidence of PW.5 has also not being completely shaken by way of suggestion given to PW.5 by the learned counsel for the accused that

PW.2 on next date of incident had never scolded all the basti people stating that PW.1 had raised hue and cry and no came forward in rescue of PW.1 .

44.The evidence of PW.2, PW.4 and PW.5 corroborates the version of prosecutrix that PW.2 was not present in the house and that the PW.1 was alone in the house had raised hue and cry on the date of incident and no one had come to her rescue . However at the same time the evidence of PW2, PW4 and 5 proves that they are not an eye witness to the commission of offence of rape on the victim.

17

45.The learned counsel for the accused has argued that accused has not committed any act of rape against the person of PW1/ victim and there is no medical evidence before this court to say that accused had committed rape upon PW1 /victim and the doctor in her deposition has specifically stated on examination that there were no external or internal injuries found upon the person of the prosecutrix and therefore the prosecution case rests solely on the deposition of prosecutrix only. It is argued that no other independent witnesses have examined and /or supported the case of the prosecution and argued that there is material contradictions in the evidence of victim and no independent witness has supported the case of prosecution and that the evidence of doctor does not reveal any presence of semen and spermatozoa or presence of any external or internal injuries or any tear injury and the prosecution story does not find corroboration from the medical evidence and in absence of the injuries, it cannot be ruled out the physical intercourse if assumed it had happened was entire consensual and therefore it creates serious doubt about the credibility of prosecution and solitary version of

PW1/ victim cannot be taken as a gospel through at face value and in absence of any other supporting evidence accused cannot be convicted and hence prayed for acquittal.

45.Learned counsel for the accused in support of his contention has relied upon authority reported in 2020 (2 ALT (CRL) 187 (TS) )

between Pallapu Jangaiah, RR District and another V/s State of

Andhra Pradesh represented by Public Prosecutor High Court,

Hyderabad wherein it is held that solitary version of prosecutrix cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face value and in absence of any other evidence, 18 there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused.

46. On the other hand, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of PW1/ victim clearly proves the presence of the accused in the house of PW1 who gained forcible entry into the house of PW1/ victim and had committed rape upon PW1/victim in absence of her husband and her sister in law and there is no denial on the part of the accused that he never committed rape upon the person of PW1 / victim at any point of time or at the house of the PW1/ victim It is argued further that even no question was asked to the PW1/ victim while cross examining the PW1/ victim that a false case was filed against the accused.

It is submitted that once it is found that PW1/ victim is reliable and trustworthy, in that case, there can be a conviction for the offence of rape and has placed reliance on the decisions of Honourable supreme court in Ganesan Vs State (2020) 10 SCC 573 State (NCT of Delhi) Vs

Pankaj Choudary (2019) 11 SCC 575wherein it is held that the conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence and there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the proscutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration .

47.Learned Additional Public prosecutor has relied upon the authority reported in AIR 2016 SC 5554 between Phool Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it is held that the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trust worthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality and once it is found that prosecutrix is reliable and trust worthy, in that case there can be a conviction for the offence of rape.

19

48.It is argued further by the learned additional public prosecutor that prosecutrix has been medically examined after seven days of the incident. It is submitted that the prosecutrix is consistent in her evidence right from the very beginning and in the cross examination also she has stood by what she has stated and she has fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted therefore that in the facts and circumstances of the case and even in the absence of any external or internal injuries or any tear injury in the person of the PW1/ victim , the conviction can be sustained. It was argued that even there is no suggestion in the cross examination pf the prosecutrix that it was a case of consent.

49. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record .

50.This court has placed it reliance upon the authority in The

State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh & Ors on 16 January, 1996 1996 AIR

1393, 1996 SCC (2) 384 wherein it held by Honourable Apex court that "A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person 20 who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence

Act similar to illustration

(b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecurtix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction of her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence."

51.This court has also placed it reliance upon the authority in

Rajinder @ Raju Vs State Of H.P (1996) 2 SCC 384 wherein it is held that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and believe the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen." 21

52. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of doctor does not reveal any presence of semen and spermatozoa or presence of any external or internal injuries or any tear injury on the body of the prosecutrix and therefore it may be case of consent is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance at all as admittedly on the date of incident the husband of the prosecutrix was not present in the house along with the prosecutrix. No such question was asked, even remotely, to the prosecutrix in her cross examination. Therefore, the aforesaid submission is to be rejected.

53. As discussed supra , in the present case, the PW1/ victim in her depositions has specifically stated on oath that she was subjected to sexual intercourse without her will and consent. The PW1/ victim has fully supported the case of the prosecution. She has been consistent right from the very beginning. Nothing has been specifically pointed out why the sole testimony of the PW1/ victim should not be believed. Even after through cross examination, she has stood by what she has stated and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. This court find no reason to doubt the credibility and /or trustworthiness of the PW1/ victim. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the PW1/ victim can be sustained.

54.Accordingly in view of reasons mentioned above, this court find that the prosecution beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 342, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused is 22 liable to be convicted u/s 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under section 342, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal

Code . These points are answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused .

Point No.2:

55. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under section 342, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused liable to be convicted u/s 235(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for the offences punishable under section 342, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code . This point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 04th day of April, 2022.

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

23

Before passing sentence of conviction against Accused for the

offence punishable under section 342, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal

Code of IPC, framed against Accused in the present case, a question is put to Accused regarding quantum of sentence.

Q.Your guilt in the present case for the offence punishable under section 342, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code of IPC, is proved. Do you want to say anything regarding the quantum of sentence.

Ans.Accused stated that he has got two children i.e., one son aged about 19 years and daughter aged about 21 years , wife and aged old mother aged about 75 years and he is only earning member in his entire family.

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

24

56.Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence. The accused has stated that he is reporting no evidence with respect to the quantum of sentence that may be imposed upon him by this Court. The accused has further stated that he has got two children ie., son aged about 19 years is studying B.Tech and daughter aged. 21years is pursuing Master of Arts and he is only earning member in his entire family. In the instant case the victim is a married woman . As discussed above the victim in her deposition has specifically stated on oath that she was subjected to sexual intercourse without her will and consent. The victim has testified that the accused had made forceful entry into the house of victim while she was alone along with her daughter in the house and was subjected to sexual intercourse without her will and consent and she offered resistance to the best of her ability, but she succumbed to the force employed by the accused . She has narrated that how she was caught by the accused. The offences committed by the accused depict his perverse mindset.

57.Having regard of the circumstance of the case this Court deem it proper that the ends of justice would meet on imposition of sentence on the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and also to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in default in payment of said fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months; that the accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of rupees 100/- ( Rupees one hundred only) for the offence punishable under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, and in default in payment of said 25 fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; and that the accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of rupees 100/- ( Rupees one hundred only) for the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and in default in payment of said fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment of this Court before the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

58.In the result, the accused is found guilty for commission of the offences punishable under section 342, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code and the accused is convicted u/s 235(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for the said offences, and the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and also to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in default in payment of said fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months; that the accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of rupees 100/- ( Rupees one hundred only) each for the offence punishable under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, and in default in payment of said fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year; and that the accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of rupees 100/- ( Rupees one hundred only) for the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal 26

Code, and in default in payment of said fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The accused is entitled for set off of the period of detention undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry and trial in this case from 27 -02 -2018 - till 17 -03 -2018 shall be set off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. There is no case property in this case as such no order regarding disposal of the case property is passed by this court.

The Office is directed to furnish a copy of the Judgment to the

Accused as required under Sec.363 Cr. PC., by intimating him about his right to prefer an appeal within thirty days from today .

District Legal Service Authorities , Ranga Reddy is directed to take necessary steps for providing victim compensation to the victim as per rules. Office is ordered to furnish copy of Judgment to the District Legal

Service Authority, Ranga Reddy for taking necessary action for victim compensation as per rules.

(Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 04 th day of April, 2022.)

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

27

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: victim.-None.

PW2: P.Pushpa.

PW3: P.Bala Chary.

PW4: Bhushan Shetty Karunkar.

PW5: M.Sureka.

PW6: Ch. Yesu Babu.

PW7: Dr.S.Laxmi.

PW8: Dr.Abhijith Subhedar.

PW9: T.S.Uma Maheshwara Rao.

PW10: N.Shreya.

PW11: V.V.Chalapathi.

PW.12: G.Nagaraju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Report.- Nil -

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw2.

Ex.P3: Signature of LW6 on scene of offence..

Ex.P4: Forensic Science Laboratory report.

Ex.P5: Medical certificate.

Ex.P6: Potency test report.

Ex.P7: Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P8: Rough sketch.

Ex.P9: Requisition of 164 Cr.P.C. Statement.

EX.P.10

MATERIAL OBJECTS: Nil.

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

28 29

Police present, Accused is present. Judgment pronounced (VSJ) in the open court. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charge punishable under section 417, 376, 506 of IPC framed against accused is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment. The Unmarked property mobile phone shall be returned to its owner after expiry of appeal time.

I Spl.CTAW

1

SC 675 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES RELATING

TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. P. LAKSHMI KUMARI,

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO

ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN – CUM –

XVII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 23rd day of April, 2022.

SC No. 675 of 2015

Name of the complainant: The State through P.S. Rajendranagar. Name of the accused: Borra Venkat Mani Babu S/o. Prabhaker, age: 35 years, Caste: Kapu, Occ: Mason, R/o. Opp: HanumanTemple,BhavaniColony, Rajendranagar , Ranga Reddy Dist N/o. Hukumpet Village of Rajanagaram Mandal, Rajahmundry , East Godavari District. Crime Number: 735 of 2014 Offence Under Section: 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. PRC No.: 5 of 2015 on the file of VIII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar.

Case Committed by: Ms. Radhika Jaiswal VIII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar.

Prosecution conducted by: Additional Public Prosecutor. Defence conducted by: Sri. E.Sreenivas Reddy , Counsel for the accused Plea of the accused: Not guilty.

This case is coming before me for hearing on 23.04.2022 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. E.Sreenivas Reddy, Counsel

for the accused and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day,

this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Police Station Rajendranagar filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/secs. 376 and 420 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 .

2

SC 675 of 2015

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that accused came in acquaintance with the victim while the accused used to visit the house of PW3, who is neighbour of the victim and at that time the accused had developed friendship with the victim and proposed his love towards the victim and had also promised to marry the victim and accordingly believing the version of the accused, the victim had moved closely with the accused and thereafter the accused had induced the victim and had participate sexual intercourse with the victim and when the victim had requested the accused on 13-08-2014 to marry her at that time, the accused had refused to marry the victim stating that he is already married and having three children .Hence PW1/victim had lodged a report against the accused. Basing on report of the PW1, PW10 had registered a case in Crime No. 735 / 2014 under section. 420, 376 of Indian Penal Code under EXP.11 against accused and proceeded to conduct the investigation and thereafter he had examined the victim and recorded her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C and on the same day he had referred the victim for medical examination before Maternity Hospital, Petlaburz and the victim was medically examined by PW9 and on the same day he had examined PW2 in the police station and thereafter he had visited to the scene of offence situated at

Prashant colony, Shivarampally and had conducted scene of offence panchanama and had drew the Rough sketch in the presence of PW6 and PW7 under Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 and thereafter he had handed over the Case dairy file to PW11 for further investgation and PW11 after receipt of case diary file from

PW10 had proceeded to conduct further investigation and during the course of his investigation PW.11 had examined PW3 and recorded his statement in the police station while the investigation was under progress, on 02-12-2014 the accused was apprehended at Bhavani colony, Rajendranagar and was produced before him and upon interrogation, the accused had confessed his guilt and basing upon his disclosure statement, MO1 cell phone- Reliance 3

SC 675 of 2015

containing sim no. 9603435880 was recovered from the possession of the accused under Ex.P14 and thereafter PW.11 had affected the arrest of the accused and sent the accused for medical examination before PW8 and PW8 after medically examining the accused had issued medical certificate. PW11 after receipt of documentary evidence and after completion of entire investigation had filed charge sheet against accused under section. 376, 420 of

Indian penal code.

3. The case was taken on file for the offences punishable against accused u/sec. 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and in PRC No. 5 of 2015 by the then learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar committed the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar as the learned Magistrate having perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by the court of sessions after furnishing the case copies as contemplated under section 208 of Cr.P.C.

4. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 675 /2015 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.

5. This court having considered the record, framed charges against the accused for the offences u/sec. 420 and 376 of Indian Penal Code read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the said charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and MO1.

4

SC 675 of 2015

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against him for which he denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

9. Points for determination are:

(i) Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable

doubt for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code?

(ii) Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused no.1 beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code?

(iii) To what finding?

10. POINT Nos. (i) and (ii):

Since these points are interconnected with each other therefore this

Court intend to answer them together.

The case of the prosecution is that the victim came in acquaintance with the accused while the accused was frequently visiting the house of PW3 and the accused had gradually developed close intimacy with the victim and had proposed his love towards the victim and also promised the victim to marry her and thereby dishonestly induced the victim and had participated sexual intercourse with the victim on the false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to marry the victim stating that he is already married and has three children.

11.The defence of the accused that the accused never made any proposal for love and marriage and had never induced the victim to participate 5

SC 675 of 2015

sexual intercourse with the accused and a false case is lodged against the accused by the police at the instance of father of PW1/victim and no such incident had been taken place and that accused had not committed any offence and had never participated sexual intercourse with the victim on the false promise of marriage..

12. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the evidence of

PW1 , who is victim and evidence of PW2 , who is the mother of the victim are not trustworthy as PW1 and 2 have submitted two versions and resiled from their previous statement and in support of his contention , he relied upon the authority in2020(1) ALT (Crl.) 297 (DB)(AP) between Amujuri Balaraju Vs.

State of A.P, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P,

Hyderabad and in between Narareddy Raju Vs. State of A.P Crl. APL 1553 of

2019 (SC) wherein, it is held that the victim appearing as PW1 in chief examination, supported her case and virtually repeated what has been said in the

FIR. However, in cross examination, she turned hostile and denied whatever had been said in the chief examination. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that the evidence of said witnesses, who is blowing hot and cold and changing her stand from time to time, cannot be based for convicting the accused as she cannot be classified as a trustworthy witness.

The learned counsel for the accused further argued that to establish an offence under section 420 of IPC , the prosecution must establish that there is a fradulent , dishonest intention on the part of the accused from the date of inception and has relied upon the authority in between K.Ashok Kumar Reddy

Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2008(1) ALD (Crl.) 995, wherein it is held that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution under section 420 of IPC, unless fraudulent or dishonest intention has shown right at the beginning 6

SC 675 of 2015

of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed.

The learned counsel for the accused has further relied upon the authority between Indarmohan Goswamy Vs. State of Uttaranchal 2008 AIR

SC 251 , where in it is held that to hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary

to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the beginning.

The learned counsel for the accused has further relied upon the authority between Samir Sahay @ Sameer Sahay Vs. State of U.P and another AIR (SC) (CRI) 284 wherein it is held that to hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making a promise and such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from a mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfill the promise and mere failure to keep a promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating.

13.It is argued further by the learned counsel for the accused that as per the medical certificate under Ex.P.9 the report is alleged to have been lodged by the father of the victim against the accused but as per the case of the prosecution it is the victim who had lodged her report against the accused and prosecution is totally silent with regard to the said report lodged by the father of the victim which creates suspicion regarding the version of the prosecution and that the report of FSL discloses no incriminating evidence against the accused and the panch witness for the confession cum seizure panchanama did not support the case of the prosecution and in order to connect the accused with regard to Mo1 there is no evidence before this court and the investigating officer has failed to examine the neighbours of the accused and to find out the 7

SC 675 of 2015

owner of MO1 and in such circumstance, the accused is entitled for acquittal and hence prayed to acquit the accused.

14.The learned additional public prosecutor has argued that the evidence of

PW9 coupled with the medical evidence of Doctor under Ex.P.10 and P11and the evidence of PW10 and PW11 clearly proves that the possibility of sexual intercourse with the victim cannot be ruled out and that the accused had committed rape upon the victim on the false promise of marriage and when victim had requested the accused on 13-08-2014 to marry the victim, the accused had bluntly refused to marry her and hence prayed to convict the accused.

15.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.

16. As per the evidence of PW.9/Doctor J.Padmaja she had medically examined the victim and has found no external injuries, hymen not intact and vagina admitting two fingers freely and had collected two smears from the vagina and sent for Forensic Science Laboratory and after receipt of Forensic

Science Laboratory report it was observed that there is no human semen and spermatazao detected and as per the medical examination of the victim by

PW9 she found that there is no recent evidence of sexual intercourse as per

Ex.P10 and P11 however, the possibility of sexual assault with the victim cannot be ruled out.

8

SC 675 of 2015

17.Though there is a cross examination to the PW.9 on behalf of the accused disputing the competence of the doctor who issued Ex.P.10 and

Ex.P.11/medical certificates and also its genuineness , however the evidence of

PW9 is not destroyed in material particulars.

18.Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11/medical certificates lend credence to the case of prosecution about the rape of the victim/PW.1.

19. Ex.P.9 is the medical certificate of accused which discloses that

Accused is capable of performing sexual act. It is also not the defence of the accused no.1 that he is impotent.

20. The prosecution by exhibiting Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11/medical certificate has made out a case that victim/PW.1 was raped and by marking Ex.P.9 prosecution has made out the case against the accused that the accused is capable of performing sexual act

Now the prosecution has to prove the involvement of the accused in commission of rape on the victim.

21. To prove the guilt of accused for the offences u/sec. 376 and 420 of

Indian Penal Code against accused, the prosecution has examined the PW1 who is complainant/victim, PW2 who is Mother of victim cum circumstantial witness , PW3 circumstantial witness and neighbour of victim, PW4 and PW5 are panch witnesses for the confession and seizure panchanama, PW6 and PW7 are panch witnesses for scene of offence, PW8 Medical Officer who conducted potency test of the accused, PW9 Medical officer who examined the victim, 9

SC 675 of 2015

PW10 is the first investigating officer who registered the First Information

Report, PW11 is the second Investigating Officer, who conducted further investigation and had filed charge sheet and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and

MO.1

22.Pw1/ victim deposed in her evidence that Prior to one year of 18 -08 - 2014, the accused used to visit the house of her neighbor Jaihind/PW3 and in that way the accused got acquaintance with her and had gradually developed love towards her and on fine day the accused had proposed his love to her and she had accepted and thereafter the accused had promised the victim to marry her and after two months the accused came to the house of the victim and had participated physical relationship with her without her consent in absence of her parents and that thereafter the accused on three or four occasions have also participated physical relationship with her without her consent in absence of her parents at her house and when the victim had requested the accused to marry her, the accused had postponed the matter and finally on 13 -08 -2014 the victim had once again requested the accused to marry her and thereafter PW.1/victim had informed about her love affair and physical relationship with accused to her mother/PW2 and PW.2 had immediately questioned the accused about the same at that time the accused had revealed that accused is already married and having three children as such, the accused cannot marry the victim and that accused prior to making his proposal for love and marriage did not reveal about his marriage and same is concealed and that the victim had waited for four days for the reply of accused and thereafter she had lodged report before the police under Ex.P1. PW.1 deposed that Police examined her and recorded her statement on same day and police sent her for medical examination to Govt. Maternity hospital (Jejikana), nearby City college.

10

SC 675 of 2015

23.PW1 though supported her case in the chief examination, however PW1 during the course of her cross examination has turned hostile stating that her evidence in chief examination is deposed by her as per the tutorings of the police and she has no grievance against the accused and that the contents of

Ex.P.1 report is not drafted by her and has expressed ignorance about the contents of Ex.P.1 report and resiled from her previous statement. Therefore under such circumstances, the evidence of PW1 who is changing her stand from time to time, cannot be based for convicting the accused as she cannot be classified as a trustworthy witness.

24.PW2/ mother of the victim has deposed in her evidence during chief examination that on 15.08.2014 police examined her and recorded her statement stating that on 13.08.2014 she had found PW1 in stress and frustration as such, she asked the reason for the same for which PW1 told to her that accused was known to her and had expressed his love to Pw1 and promised to marry PW1 and induced her thereafter for participation of sexual intercourse with accused on false promise of marriage and that on the same day PW2 went to the house of accused at Bhavani Colony and had questioned the accused about the same as to why accused cheated PW1 for which accused had replied to her that accused is already married and has got three children as such, the accused had refused to marry Pw1 and also told to do whatever she would like to do against the accused and thereafter PW1 requested her to wait for the reply for four or five days of accused for the marriage, but there was no response from the accused as such PW .1 had lodged the report.

Though PW2 has supported the case of PW1, however PW2 during her course of cross examination has turned hostile and deposed that she has not 11

SC 675 of 2015

seen the accused and she also do not know the accused and that PW1 had never introduced the accused to her and that she has deposed in her evidence in the chief examination as per the tutorings of the police and has expressed ignorance about the facts of the case and admitted that PW1 had never stated to her that accused is known to her and had expressed love towards PW1 and had ever induced the PW1 to marry her and that PW2 has never questioned the accused regarding the cheatings to PW1 at Bhavani colony and that the report under Ex.P.1 is lodged at the instance of her village elders and accordingly PW2 also resiled from her previous statement. Therefore under such circumstances , the evidence of PW2 who is changing her stand from time to time cannot be based for convicting the accused as she cannot be classified as a trustworthy witnesses.

25.PW3 is the neighbour of the victim has expressed ignorance about the facts of the case and has resiled from his previous statement.

26.PW4 and PW5 are panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama have deposed that they have subscribed their signatures under

Ex.P.3 and Ex.P4 respectively on white blank paper at the instance of police.

27.PW6 and PW7 are the panch witness for scene observation panchanama have deposed that they have subscribed their signatures under Ex.P.5 to Ex.P8 respectively on white blank paper at the instance of police.

28.PW8 / Dr.Mohd. Taqiuddin khan has deposed in his evidence that on 03 - 12 -2014 he had received requisition from Inspector of police, PS. Rajendra 12

SC 675 of 2015

nagar to conduct Potency test on Venkat manibabu ie., Accused and accordingly he had conducted the physical and genital examination and that based on physical and genital examination he had opined that there is nothing to suggest that the individual examined is not capable of performing the act of sexual intercourse and accordingly he had issued Medical certificate under

Ex.P9.

29. PW10 / Investigating officer has deposed in his evidence that on 18 -08 - 2014 at about 16.00 hours, he had received report from the Victim under

Ex.P.1 and basing on report he had registered a case in Crime No. 735 / 2014 under section. 420, 376 of Indian Penal Code against AccuXP.12 and proceeded to conduct the investigation and thereafter he had examined the victim and recorded her statement under section. 161 of Cr.P.C and on the same day he had referred the victim for medical examination before Maternity Hospital,

Petlaburz and the victim was medically examined by PW9 and on the same day he had examined PW2 in the police station and thereafter he had visited to the scene of offence situated Prashant colony, Shivarampally and conducted scene of offence panchanama and had also drew Rough sketch in the presence of

PW4 and PW5 under Ex.P.13 and EXP.14 and thereafter he had handed over the

Case dairy file to PW11 / for further investgation.

30.The evidence of PW10 discloses that victim had lodged a report with

PW10.

31.PW11/ 2nd investigating officer has deposed in his evidence that he had received case diary file from PW10 for further investigation and that during the course of investigation he had examined PW3 and recorded his statement in 13

SC 675 of 2015

the police station while the investigation was under progress, on 02-12-2014 accused was apprehended at Bhavani colony, Rajendranagar and produced

before him and upon interrogation of accused, he confessed his guilt and

basing upon his disclosure statement M.O.1 cell phone- Reliance containing sim no. 9603435880 was recovered and seized under Ex.P15 in presence of PW4 and PW5 and thereafter he had affected the arrest of accused and sent for medical examination before PW8 and was issued medical certificate under

EXP.9 and after receipt of documentary evidence and after completion of entire investigation he had filed charge sheet against accused under section.

376, 420 of Indian penal code.

32.The evidence of PW11 discloses that he has not examined the owner and residents of scene of offence and about the previous marriage of the accused and has not collected any call data record of M.O.1.

33.As discussed supra, PW1 has categorically admitted before this court that she has no grievance against the accused and her evidence in chief examination before this court is deposed as per the tutorings of police and that the contents of EXP.1 report is not drafted by her against the accused and has expressed ignorance about the contents of Ex.P.1 report.

34.There is no evidence before this court to support the case of the prosecution in order to prove the involvement of accused in this case and to prove that the accused had ever developed intimacy with the victim and had moved closely with the victim and had ever proposed his love towards the victim and had ever induced the victim by promising her that he would marry the victim and that with a dishonest intention the accused had ever sexually exploited the victim on the false promise of marriage in absence of parents of 14

SC 675 of 2015

victim at her house and that when victim had requested the accused to marry her, the accused had postponed the matter and finally on 13-08-2014 when the victim had informed about her love affair and physical relationship with the accused to her parents, they have questioned about the same to the accused and that the accused had revealed that he is already married and having three children as such the accused had refused to marry the victim.

35.Therefore this court with the above said discussion has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

36. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and Accordingly, the accused is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail-bonds of the accused shall remain in-force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

MO1 Reliance mobile Phone sim no. 9603435880 is ordered to be forfeited to the state after expiry of appeal period and same to be sold in public auction and its sale proceeds to be deposited into the government treasury.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of April, 2022.

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST

WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT L.B.NAGAR

15

SC 675 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1 : Victim. -None.

PW.2 : R.Jaya

PW.3 : Ch.Jaihind

PW.4: G.Shankar

PW.5: R.Ajith Kumar

PW6: A.Somalingam

PW7: G.Srinivas

PW8: Mohd. Taquiddin Khan

PW9: Dr.J.Padmaja

PW10: Ch.Kushalkar

PW11: S.Venkat Reddy

NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Report. - Nil - Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P3: Signature of PW4 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P4: Signature of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P5: Signature of PW6 on scene of offence Ex.P6: Signature of PW6 on rough sketch. Ex.P7: Signature of PW7 on scene of offence Ex.P8: Signature of PW7 on rough sketch. Ex.P9: Medical certificate of accused. Ex.P10: Preliminary medical examination report. Ex.P11: FSL report. Ex.P12: First Information report. Ex.P13: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P.14: Rough sketch. Ex.P.15: Confession cum seizure panchanama.

NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

MO1: Reliance mobile Phone.

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

1 SC 199 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES RELATING

TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. P. LAKSHMI KUMARI,

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO

ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN – CUM –

XVII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 20th day of April, 2022.

SC No. 199 of 2022

Name of the complainant: The State through P.S. Balapur. Name of the accused: A.1Mohammad Asad S/o. Mohammad Mahamood Ali, aged 34 years, occ: Private Employee, Caste: Muslim, R/o. H.No. 18-12- 418/0/143/A, Omer Colony, Hafeez Babanagar, Bandlaguda , Hyderabad. Crime Number: 233 of 2021 Offence Under Section: 376 , 493, 448, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. PRC No.: 1 of 2022 on the file of Metropolitan

Magistrate, FAC I Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar.

Case Committed by: Smt.V.UshaKranthiMetropolitan

Magistrate, FAC I Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar.

Prosecution conducted by: Additional Public Prosecutor. Defence conducted by: Sri. Syed Ehtesham, Counsel for the accused No.1 Plea of the accused No.1: Not guilty.

This case is coming before me for hearing on 19.04.2022 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Syed Ehtesham, Counsel for the accused No. 1 and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Police Station Balapur, Rachakonda filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 376 , 493, 448, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

2 SC 199 of 2022

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that the accused No.1 had developed close intimacy with the victim while the victim was working as sales girl at Max textiles showroom, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad and the accused No.

1 was also working as a store Manager in the said cloth show room and had promised the victim for the marriage and moved closely with the victim and had induced the victim and committed rape repeatedly upon the victim on the false promise of marriage by taking the victim to OYO rooms, Gachibowli and thereafter the victim came to know that the accused No.1 is already married and having children as such the victim had stopped working in the said cloth show room and after two months she joined in HiDESIGN company situated at

Shamshabad Airport as a store manager and thereafter her marriage engagement was fixed with another person and after knowing the said fact, the accused No.1 came to the house of the victim and took her to his house at

Hafiznaga Baba nagar and told in presence of his wife that he will marry the victim and after hearing the same the wife of the accused No.1 had abused the victim in filthy language and thereafter the marriage engagement of victim was cancelled and accused No.1 continued following the victim and had forced the victim to marry accused No.1 and on 24-06-2021 Accused no.1 along with

Accused no.2 to Accused no.4 had criminally tresspassed into the house of the victim and had criminally intimidated the victim and also beaten with hands as such the victim had lodged report against A1 to A4. Basing on report of the victim, PW.3 had registered a case in Crime No. 233 / 2021 under section. 354-

D, 448, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused no.1 to 4 under Ex.P6 and proceded to conduct the investigationand thereafter he had handed over the Case dairy file to LW16/ P. Nagaraju for further investigation and after receipt of case dairy file by LW16 / P. Nagaraju he got the statement of the victim recorded through LW11/ Devaki and accordingly statement of victim was recorded under section. 161 of Cr.P.C and basing on the statement of victim section. 376, 493 of Indian Penal Code was added through section 3 SC 199 of 2022 alteration memo under Ex.P7 and thereafter LW16/ P. Nagaraju handed over the case dairy file to PW3 for further investigation and after receipt of case dairy file by PW3 for further investigation he had referred the victim for medical examination to Govt. Area Hospital, Vanasthalipuram and victim was medically examined by LW12/ Dr. Shilpa under Ex.P8, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 and during the course of investigation he had visited scene of offence situated at

H.No. 12 -164-4, Osman nagar, Shaheen nagar and prepared Crime detail form along with rough sketch in the presence of LW7/ Ahmed ali and LW8/ Shaik

Khadeer under Ex.P11 and thereafter on same day he had visited another scene of offence situated at Room No. 504, V floor, Cherukuri residency,

Gachibowli, Hyderabad and prepared Crime detail form along with rough sketch in the presence of LW7/ Ahmed ali and LW8/ Shaik Khadeer under

Ex.P12and thereafter LW6/ Govind Vineeth was examined near the scene of offence under Ex.P12 and his statement was recorded and thereafter on 30 -06 -2021 the accused No.1 was arrested at Hafeez baba nagar, Bandlaguda and was send for medical examination before LW13 /Dr. Taquiuddin and was medically examined and got issued Potency Test report under Ex.P13 and on 04 -12 -2021 the case against the accused no.2 to 4 were quashed in

Crl.Petition No. 6987 of 2021 of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of

Telangana and after completion of entire investigation PW3 had filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence under section. 376, 493, 448, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code .

3. The case was taken on file for the offences punishable against accused

No.1 for the offences u/sec. 376 , 493, 448, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and in PRC No. 1 of 2022 by the then learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC I

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar committed the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar as the learned Magistrate having perused the record found the case as exclusively 4 SC 199 of 2022 triable by the court of sessions after furnishing the case copies as contemplated under section 208 of Cr.P.C.

4. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 199 /2022 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.

5. This court having considered the record, framed charges against the accused No.1 for the offences u/sec. 376(2) (n) , 493, 448, and 506 of Indian

Penal Code read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the said charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No. 1 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against him for which he denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

9. Points for determination are:

(i) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused no.1

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under

section 376 (2)(n)of the Indian Penal Code?

(ii) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused

no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable

under section 493 of the Indian Penal Code?

5 SC 199 of 2022

(iii) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused

no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable

under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code?

(iv) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused

no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable

under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code?

(vi) To what finding?

10. POINT Nos. (i) to (iv):

Since these points are interconnected with each other therefore this

Court intend to answer them together.

It is the specific case of prosecution that the accused no.1 had induced the victim and had committed rape repeatedly upon the victim on the false promise of marriage by taking the victim to OYO rooms Gachibowli on 16-05- 2018 and had trespassed into the house of the victim and had criminally intimidated the victim with dire consequences as not to marry any other person and to disclose the photos of the victim to one Syed Irfan .

11.The defence of the accused no.1 that he never induced the victim to participate sexual intercourse with the accused and had never criminally intimidated the victim with dire consequences as not to marry any other person and to disclose the photos of the victim to one Syed Irfan and a false case is lodged against the accused no.1 at the instance of parents and elders of the victim .

12. To prove the guilt of accused No.1 for the offences u/sec. 376 (2) (n), 448,493 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against accused, the prosecution has examined the PW1 who is complainant/victim, PW2 who is Mother of victim cum circumstantial witness , PW3 is the first investigating officer who 6 SC 199 of 2022 registered the first information report and had filed chargesheet and got marked Exs.P1 to P13.

13. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that there is no evidence of victim before this court to say that accused No.1 had ever developed intimicacy with the victim and had moved closely with the victim and had proposed for his love towards the victim and that the accused had ever took the victim to OYO rooms , Gachibowli on 16-05-2018 and had forcibly particpated sexual intercouse repeatedly with the victim on the false promise of marraige and the accused No.1 had ever criminally tresspassed into the house of the victim and had forcibly participated sexual intercourse with the victim and had ever criminally intimidated the victim with dire consequences by stating the victim not to marry any other person and to disclose the photos of the victim to one Syed Irfan and hence prayed to acquit the accused no.1.

14.The learned additional public prosecutor has argued that the evidence of

PW3 coupled with the medical evidence of Doctor clearly proves that the possibility of sexual intercourse with the victim cannot be ruled out and that the accused had committed rape repeatedly upon the victim on the false promise of marriage by taking the victim to OYO rooms Gachibowli on 16-05- 2018 and had trespassed into the house of the victim and had criminally intimidated the victim with dire consequences as not to marry any other person and to disclose the photos of the victim to one Syed Irfan and hence prayed to convict the accused. No.1.

15.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be 7 SC 199 of 2022 improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.

As per the evidence of PW.3, LW.12/ Doctor Shilpa had collected pubic hair, nail clippings under EXP.8 and sent for Forensic Science Laboratory under

Ex.P.9 and after receiving Forensic Science Laboratory report under Ex.P.9 and after her clinical examination she had issued medical certificate /Final opinion under EXP.10 opining that possibility of sexual assault with the victim cannot be ruled out .

16.There is no cross examination to the PW.3 on behalf of the accused no1 disputing the competence of the doctor who issued EXP.8 to EXP.10/medical certificates and also its genuineness .

17.Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.10/medical certificates lend credence to the case of prosecution about the rape of the victim/PW.1.

18.Ex..P.13 is the potency certificate of accused which discloses that

Accused no.1 is capable of performing sexual act. It is also not the defence of the accused no.1 that he is impotent.

19. The prosecution by exhibiting Ex. P.8 to Ex. P.10 has made out a case that victim/PW.1 was raped and by marking Ex. P.13 prosecution has made out the case against the accused no.1 that the accused no.1 is capable of performing sexual act

Now the prosecution has to prove the involvement of the accused no.1 in commission of rape on the victim.

8 SC 199 of 2022

20. Prosecution to prove its case has examined complainant/victim, PW2

Mother of victim, PW3 is investigating officer got marked Exs.P1 to P13.

21.PW1 is the complainant/victim deposed that she has no grievance against the accused No.1 and she had lodged report at the instance of elders and parents and the contents of report is not drafted by her and she had only subscribed her signature on report and has expressed ignorance about the contents of report however admitted her signature under Ex.P.1 /report. PW1 deposed that Police did not examine her and did not record her statement and her statement was not recorded by any Magistrate at any point of time and her statement was also not recorded by any female police officer and she was not referred for medical examination and she resiled from her previous statement.

22. PW.2 is Mother of victim deposed that she has no grievance against the accused No.1 and that PW1 had lodged report at her instance and instance of their village elders and she resiled from her previous statement.

23. PW.3 is the investigating officer deposed that on 26-06-2021 at about 12:30 hours, he had received report from the victim under Ex.P.5/Report and basing on report, he had registered a case in Crime No. 233/2021 under sections 354-D, 448, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian penal Code under EXP.6 against accused No.1 to 4 and proceded to conduct the investigation and thereafter he had handed over the case diary file to LW16/P.Nagaraju for further investigation and after receipt of case dairy file by LW16/P.Nagaraju he got the statement of the victim recorded through LW11/Devaki and accordingly statement of victim was recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C and basing on the statement of victim sections 376, 493 of indian penal code was added through section alteration memo under Ex.P.7 and thereafter LW16/P.Nagaraju had handed over the case diary file to him for further investigation and after 9 SC 199 of 2022 receipt of case diary file by him for further investigation, he had referred the victim for medical examination to Government Area hospital, Vanasthalipuram and victim was medically examined by LW12/Dr.Shilpa under

Ex.P.8/Preliminary medical report, Ex.P.9/FSL report, Ex.P.10/Final Opinion report and during the course of investigation, he had visited the scene of offence situated at H.No. 12-164-4, Osman nagar, Shaheen nagar and prepared

Crime Detail form along with rough sketch in the presence of LW7/Ahmed Ali and Lw8/Shaik Khadeer under Ex.P.11/Crime detail form along with Rough sketch. Thereafter on same day, he had visited another scene of offence situated at Room No. 504, V floor, Cherukuri residency, Gachibowli, hyderabad and prepared crime detail form along with rough sketch in the presence of

LW7/Ahmed Ali and LW8/Shaik Khadeer under Ex.P.12 /Crime detail form along wtih Rough sketch and thereafter LW6/Govind Vineeth was examined near the scene of offence under Ex.P.12 and his statement was recorded and on 30-06- 2021, the accused No.1 was arrested at Hafeez baba Nagar, Bandlaguda and was send for medical examination before LW13/Dr.Taquiuddin and accordingly the accused was medically examined and was issued Potency Test Report under

Ex.P.13 and on 04-12-2021, the case against accused nos 2 to 4 were quashed in

Crl. Petiton No. 6987 of 2021 by the Hon’ble High Court for the State of

Telangana and after completion of entire investigation, PW.3 had filed charge sheet against accused No.1 for the offence under sections 376, 493, 448, 504 , 506 of Indian Penal code.

24. The evidence of Pw3 disclosed that alleged incident of rape was reported with the police by the PW.1. As discussed supra victim /PW.1 admitted before this court that she has no grievance against Accused and had expressed ignorance about the contents of report under Ex. P.5.

10 SC 199 of 2022

25.There is no evidence before this court to support the case of the prosecution in order to prove that accused No.1 had ever developed intimicacy with the victim and had moved closely with the victim and had proposed for his love towards the victim and that the accused had ever took the victim to OYO rooms , Gachibowli on 16-05-2018 and had forcibly particpated sexual intercouse repeatedly with the victim on the false promise of marraige and the accused No.1 had ever criminally tresspassed into the house of the victim and had forcibly participated sexual intercourse with the victim and had ever criminally intimidated the victim with dire consequences as not to marry any other person and also to disclose the photos of the victim to one Syed Irfan .

26.Thus the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 for the offences punishable under sections 376(2) (n), 493, 448 and 506 of Indian

Penal Code and hence, the accused No.1 entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

27. In the result, the accused no.1 is found not guilty for the charges punishable under sections 376(2) (n), 493, 448 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Accordingly Accused no.1 is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail-bonds of the Accused no.1 shall remain in-force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no case property in this case as such there is no order as to case property is passed.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2022.

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST

WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT L.B.NAGAR

11 SC 199 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1 : Victim. -None.

PW.2 : (Mother of victim)

PW.3 : B.Bhaskar ( I.O)

NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report. - Nil - Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Kum. Afreen Banu Ex.P3: 164 Cr.P.C statement of Kum. Afreen Banu Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Smt. Zahadha Begum Ex.P5: Report Ex.P6: First Information Report. Ex.P7: Section alteration memo. Ex.P8: Preliminary medical report. Ex.P9: FSL report. Ex.P10: Final Opinion Report. Ex.P11: Crime Detail form along with rough sketch. Ex.P12: Crime detail form along with rough sketch. Ex.P13: Potency test report.

NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

-Nil.

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

1 SC 432 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES RELATING

TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. P. LAKSHMI KUMARI,

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO

ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN – CUM –

XVII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 20th day of April, 2022.

SC No. 432 of 2021

Name of the complainant: The State through P.S. Balapur Name of the accused: Jammulayyala Naveen kumar S/o. Balaraju, aged 21 years, Occ: Household, Caste: Kurma, R/o. B-9, Vambey colony, Nandanavanam, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District N/o. H.No. 5- 67, Kurma Street, Lankal Village, Narva Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. Crime Number: 334 of 2019 Offence Under Section: 312,417,420,493,376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code. PRC No.: 126 of 2020 on the file of II Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. Case Committed by: Smt. G.Kavitha Devi, II Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, FAC V Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.nagar.

Prosecution conducted by: Additional Public Prosecutor. Defence conducted by: Sri. G. Madhusudan Reddy , Counsel for the accused Plea of the accused: Not guilty.

This case is coming before me for hearing on 19.04.2022 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. G.Madhusudan Reddy,

Counsel for the accused and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Police Station Balapur filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 312, 417, 420, 493, 376(2)(n) of

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2 SC 432 of 2021

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that the victim came to

Hyderabad to learn the Beautician course and was residing at Meerpet by taking a house on rent and after 10 days the cousin of the victim /PW3 had joined the victim along with her and thereafter the accused who is the friend of the cousin of the victim used to frequently visit the house of the victim to meet the cousin of the victim and at that time, the victim and the accused came in acquaintance with each other and their acquaintance turned into love and thereafter the accused had induced the victim on the pretext of love and had forcibly participated sexual intercourse with the victim on the false promise of marriage and due to which the victim became pregnant and the love affair of the victim and the accused came to the knowledge of the parents of the accused and thereafter the accused took a house on rent at Yelmeti Nagar,

Balapur village and had kept the victim and the friend of the victim by name

Vinnela and there also the accused had forcibly participated sexual intercourse with the victim on the false promise of marriage and when the victim told the accused about the pregnancy at that time, the accused had administered pills and got terminated the pregnancy of the victim and when the victim had requested the accused to marry her, the accused did not respond to the victim and left to his parent’s house due to which, the victim out of depression had attempted to commit suicide by consuming the pills and thereafter the victim had lodged report against the accused under EXP.4. Basing on report of the victim under Ex.P.4, LW14/ Saidulu had registered a case in Crime No. 334 / 2019 under section. 312, 417, 420, 493, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code and proceded to conduct the investigation under Ex.P5 and thereafter on the same day victim was examined by LW9/ Smt. Shaik Mohbunnisa bee and statement of victim was recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C and on the next day the victim was referred for medical examination to Govt. Area Hospital, Vanasthalipuram and was medically examined by LW8/ Dr. P. Vijayalakshmi under Ex.P6, Ex.P7 3 SC 432 of 2021 and Ex.P8 and during the course of investigation LW14 / Saidulu had visited scene of offence situated at Plot no.3, H.No.6 -87 /4, Elmetinagar colony,

Balapur and prepared Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch in the presence of LW6/ Ambotu Dasharath and LW7/ V. Ramesh under Ex.P9 and

Ex.P10 and thereafter LW14 / Saidulu had examined LW2/ G. Vennela, PW2,

LW4/ M. Niharika sree, LW5/ G. Jagadish kumar and recorded their statements and on 17 -09 -2019 LW14 / Saidulu had deputed LW12/ P. Sridhar and LW13/ S.

Raghava for apprehension of accused and the accused was arrested on 18 -09 - 2019 at Nandanavanam, Meerpet and on interrogation the accused had confessed his guilt and basing on the disclosure statement of the accused,

LW14 / Saidulu had recovered M.O.1 to M.O. 3 one blue colour full hands T-shirt and Black colour under pant and one Cell phone model number - VIVO U-15 Red and black colour under Ex.P11 and thererafter the accused was sent for medical examination before LW10/Dr. Khaja Moinuddin and was medically examined and was got issued Potency Test report under Ex.P12 and thereafter

LW14 / Saidulu had handed over the case dairy file to PW3 and after receipt of case dairy file by PW3, he had verified the investigation done by LW14/ Saidulu and found it on correct lines and after completion of entire investigation he had filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section. 312, 417, 420, 493, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code against you accused.

3. The case was taken on file against the accused for the offences u/sec.

312, 417, 420, 493, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in PRC No. 126 of 2020 by the learned II Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC V Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar and committed the case to the Hon'ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar as the learned

Magistrate having perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by

the court of sessions after furnishing the case copies as contemplated under section 208 of Cr.P.C.

4 SC 432 of 2021

4. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 432 /2021 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.

5. This court having considered the record, framed charges against the accused for the offences u/sec. 312, 417, 420, 493, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal

Code and read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the said charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and got marked M.O.s 1 to 3.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against him for which he denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

9. Points for determination are:

(i) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 312 of the Indian

Penal Code?

(ii) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 417 of the Indian

Penal Code?

(iii) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code?

5 SC 432 of 2021

(iv) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 493 of the Indian

Penal Code?

(v) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(n) of the

Indian Penal Code?

(vi) To what finding?

10. POINT Nos. ( i )to (v):

Since these points are interconnected with each other therefore this

Court intend to answer them together.

11. To prove the guilt of accused for the offences u/sec. 312, 417, 420, 493, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code against accused, the prosecution has examined the PW1 who is Complainant/victim, PW2 who is Aunt of Victim and PW3 is

Investigating officer and filed chargesheet and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

12. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that there is no evidence of victim before this court to say that accused had ever developed intimacy with the victim and proposed the victim for love and that the accused had ever cheated and enticed the victim by deceit cause the victim by dishonestly inducing the victim who was not lawfully married to the accused to believe that she was lawfully married to the accused and in that belief forced the victim for sexual desire of the accused on false promise of marriage and the accused had ever forcibly participated sexual intercourse repeatedly with the victim at

Yelmetti Nagar or at Meerpet on the false promise of marriage causing pregnancy to the victim and that the accused had ever administered any pills and got terminated the pregnancy of the victim and hence prayed to acquit the accused.

6 SC 432 of 2021

13.The learned additional public prosecutor has argued that the evidence of PW3 coupled with the medical evidence of Doctor clearly proves that the possibility of sexual intercourse with the victim cannot be ruled out and that the accused had developed intimacy with the victim and proposed the victim for love and had cheated the victim by dishonestly inducing the victim to participate sexual intercourse with the accused on the false promise of marriage and the accused by deceit had also enticed the victim with a false promise of marriage and had accordingly participated sexual intercourse repeatedly with the victim who was not lawfully married to the accused to believe that she was lawfully married to the accused and in that belief forced the victim for sexual desire of the accused at Yelmetti Nagar and at Meerpet on the false promise of marriage and had forcibly participated sexual intercourse repeatedly with the victim causing pregnancy to the victim and thereafter got terminated the pregnancy of the victim and subsequently the accused had refused to marry the victim and hence prayed to convict the accused .

14.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.

As per the evidence of PW.3, LW.8/ Doctor P.Vijay Laxmi had collected, vaginal smear , vaginal swab, cervical smear, pubic hair and Nail clippings under EXP.6 and sent for Forensic Science Laboratory and after receiving

Forensic Science Laboratory report under Ex.P.7 and after her clinical examination she had issued medical certificate /Final opinion under EXP.8 7 SC 432 of 2021 opining that the possibility of sexual assault with the victim cannot be ruled out .

15.There is no cross examination to the PW.3 on behalf of the accused disputing the competence of the doctor who issued Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8/medical certificates and also its genuineness.

16.Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8/medical certificates lend credence to the case of prosecution about the rape of the victim/PW.1.

17.Ex.P.12 is the potency certificate of accused which discloses that

Accused is capable of performing sexual act. It is also not the defence of the accused that he is impotent.

18. The prosecution by exhibiting Ex. P.6 to Ex. P.8 has made out a case that victim/PW.1 was raped and by marking Ex. P.12 prosecution has made out the case against the accused that the accused is capable of performing sexual act

Now the prosecution has to prove the involvement of the accused in commission of rape on the victim.

19. Prosecution to prove its case has examined complainant/victim, PW2

Aunt of victim, PW3 is investigating officer who filed chargesheet and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

20.PW1 is the complainant/victim deposed that she has no grievance against the accused and she had lodged report at the instance of elders and parents and the contents of report is not drafted by her and she had only 8 SC 432 of 2021 subscribed her signature on report under Ex.P.1 and has expressed ignorance about the contents of report under Ex.P.4. PW1 deposed that she was not examined by any police and her statement was not recorded by any police and her statement was also not recorded by any female police officer and she was not referred for medical examination and had resiled from her previous statement..

21. PW.2 is Aunt of the victim has expressed ignorance about the facts of the case and has resiled from her previous statement

22. PW.3 is the investigating officer has deposed that basing on report LW14/

Saidulu had registered a case in Crime No. 334 / 2019 under section. 312, 417, 420, 493, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code and proceeded to conduct the investigation under Ex.P5 and thereafter on the same day victim was examined by LW9/ Smt. Shaik Mohbunnisa bee and statement of victim was recorded under section. 161 of Cr.P.C and on the next day the victim was referred for medical examination to Govt. Area Hospital, Vanasthalipuram and victim was medically examined by LW8/ Dr. P. Vijayalakshmi under Ex.P6 ,Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 and during the course of investigation LW14 / Saidulu had visited scene of offence situated at Plot no.3, H.No.6 -87 /4, Elmetinagar colony, Balapur and prepared Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch in the presence of LW6/ Ambotu Dasharath and LW7/ V. Ramesh under Ex.P9 and

Ex.P10 and thereafter LW14 / Saidulu returned to the police station and had examined LW2/ G. Vennela, PW2, LW4/ M. Niharika sree, LW5/ G. Jagadish kumar and recorded their statements and on 17 -09 -2019 LW14 / Saidulu had deputed LW12/ P. Sridhar and LW13/ S. Raghava for apprehension of accused and accordingly the accused was arrested on 18 -09 -2019 at Nandanavanam,

Meerpet and on interrogation the accused had confessed his guilt and basing on the disclosure statement of the accused, LW14 / Saidulu had recovered 9 SC 432 of 2021

M.O. 1 to M.O.3 i.e., one blue colour full hands T-shirt and Black colour under pant and one Cell phone model number - VIVO U-15 Red and black colour under

Ex.P11 and thererafter the accused was sent for medical examination before

LW10/Dr. Khaja Moinuddin and was medically examined and was got issued

Potency Test report under Ex.P12 and thereafter LW14 / Saidulu had handed over the case dairy file to PW3 and after receipt of case dairy file by PW3, he had verified the investigation done by LW14/ Saidulu and found it on correct lines and after completion of entire investigation he had filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section. 312, 417, 420, 493, 376(2)

(n) of Indian Penal Code.

23.The evidence of Pw3 disclosed that alleged incident of rape was reported with the police by the PW.1. As discussed supra victim /PW.1 admitted before this court that she has no grievance against Accused and had expressed ignorance of contents of report under Ex.P.4.

24.There is no evidence before this court to support the case of the prosecution in order to prove that accused had ever developed intimacy with the victim and proposed the victim for love and had ever enticed and cheated the victim by dishonestly inducing the victim to participate sexual intercourse with the accused on false promise of marriage and had ever forcibly participated sexual intercourse repeatedly with the victim at Yelmetti Nagar or at Meerpet on the false promise of marriage causing pregnancy to the victim and that the accused had ever administered any pills and got terminated the pregnancy of the victim and had ever by deceit cause the victim by dishonestly inducing the victim who was not lawfully married to the accused to believe that she was lawfully married to the accused and in that belief forced the victim for sexual desire of the accused on false promise of marriage. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable 10 SC 432 of 2021 doubt for the offence punishable u/sec. 312, 417, 420, 493, 376(2)(n) of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 312, 417, 420, 493, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

Accordingly Accused is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail-bonds of the Accused shall remain in-force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

MO1 blue colour full hands T-shirt, MO2 Black colour under pant are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. MO3 VIVO U-15 red and black colour is ordered to be forfeited to the state after expiry of appeal period and same to be sold in public auction and its sale proceeds to be deposited into the government treasury.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2022.

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST

WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1 : Victim. -None-

PW.2 : (Aunt of victim)

PW.3 : B.Bhaskar, Investigating Officer 11 SC 432 of 2021

NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on report. - Nil - Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Gandu Vineela Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Laxmi Rekha Ex.P4: Report Ex.P5: First Information Report. Ex.P6: Preliminary Medical report. Ex.P7: FSL Report Ex.P8: Final opinion report. Ex.P9: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10: Rough sketch Ex.P11: Confession cum seizure panchanama Red ink under lined portion. Ex.P12: Potency test report.

NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

MO1: Blue colour full hands T-Shirt. MO2: Black colour under pant MO3: VIVO U-15 Red and Black colour.

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

1

IN THE COURT OF I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES RELATING

TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. P. LAKSHMI KUMARI,

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO

ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN – CUM –

XVII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Dated on this the 12th Day of April, 2022.

SC No. 559 of 2017

Name of the complainant: The State through P.S. Miyapur. Name of the accused: 1. Mooparthi Sambashiva Rao S/o. Nagaiah Chowdary, aged 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 478, Huda colony, Mayurinagar, Miyapur N/o. Appapuam (V), Kakumanu (m), Guntur District.

2. Mooparthi Nagaiah Chowdary S/o. Suryanarayana, aged 65 years, R/o. H.No. 478, Huda colony, Mayurinagar, Miyapur N/o. Appapuam (V), Kakumanu (m), Guntur District. Crime Number: 672 of 2015 Offence Under Section: 417, 420, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. PRC No.: 54 of 2015 on the file of IX Addl. MetropolitanMagistrate,Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Miyapur. Case Committed by: Sri. D. Durga Prasad, IX Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at

Miyapur. Prosecution conducted by: Additional Public Prosecutor. Defence conducted by: Smt. A. Ramya Kumari , Counsel for the accused no.1 and 2. Plea of the accused: Not guilty.

This case is coming before me for hearing on 12.04.2022 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Smt. A. Ramya Kumari, Counsel

for the accused No.1 and 2 and having stood over the matter for consideration

till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Police Station Miyapur filed charge sheet against accused No.1 for the offence punishable u/sec. 417, 420, 376 of Indian Penal 2

Code, 1860 and against Accused No.2 for the offence punishable u/sec. 506 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that the victim after seeing the advertisement on the name Meenakshi Home services requiring ANM staff and

GNM staff had made a phone call to the manager of Meenakshi Home services ie., Accused no.1 and 2 and they have informed the vacancy to the victim and told her to attend immediately and on 01 -04 -2015 the victim had joined the duty and A1 had taken the victim along with him to the house of one patient by name Hanumanth rao at Medipally, Uppal and after one month the victim had returned to the oldage home and later A1 and A2 had informed to the victim to stay in the oldage home and had assured the victim to provide boarding and lodging and accordingly the victim had stayed there and after some days ie., 08 -08 -2015 the victim went to the house of A1 for the hot water and she was forcibly sexually assaulted by Accused no.1 and when the victim had resisted the acts of Accused no.1 by raising hue and cry and to lodge report against him at that time, Accused no.1 had assured and promised her to marry her stating that he has no male children and there upon induced the victim and had forcefully participated sexual intercourse repeatedly with the victim on the false promise of marriage and the said fact when known to the A2 and family members of A1 and A2 at that time A2 had criminally intimidated the victim with dire consequences of killing the victim with a rope by hanging and that the said fact was informed to A1, but A1 did not choose to marry her as such, the victim had lodged report with the police. Basing on the report of the victim a case in Crime No 672 /2015 was registered against accused no.1 for the offences u/sec. 417, 420 and 376 of Indian Penal Code of Indian Penal Code and under section 506 as against accused no.2 by PW.4 under Ex.P7 and later on 15.10.2015 PW.4 had examined and recorded the statement of PW1 in presence of woman police by name Parijatam WPC No. 6989 and basing on the statement of the victim he had added Section 376 of IPC and handed over the 3 case diary file to PW.5 and that PW.5 after receipt of case diary file had proceeded to conduct further investigation on 16 -10 -2015 i.e on the same day

PW.5 had proceeded to the scene of offence situated at MIG 478, Mayuri nagar,

Miyapur and had prepared Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch in presence of Pw3 and PW4 under Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 and thereafter he had referred the victim to medical examination to Gandhi hospital where the victim was medically examined by LW6 / Dr. Krishnaveni under Ex.P10 to P13 /

Medical reports and thereafter PW.5 had handed over the Case dairy file to

LW11 / K. Ramesh for further investigation and as per the record LW11 / K.

Ramesh after receipt of case dairy file had conducted further investigation and after completion of entire investigation and collection of documentary evidence had filed charge sheet for the offence u /s. 420, 417, 376 and 506 of

Indian Penal Code against Accusedno.1 and as against A2 u /s. 506 of Indian

Penal Code.

3. The case was taken on file for the offences punishable against accused no.1 for the offences u/sec. 417, 420 and 376 of Indian Penal Code of Indian Penal

Code and under section 506 as against accused no.2 in PRC No. 54 of 2015 by the then learned IX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at

Miyapur committed the case to the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar as the learned Magistrate having perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by the court of sessions after furnishing the case copies as contemplated under section 208 of Cr.P.C.

4. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 559 /2017 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.

5. This court having considered the record, framed charges against the accused no.1 for the offences u/sec. 417, 420 and 376 of Indian Penal Code of

Indian Penal Code and under section 506 as against accused no.2 read over and 4 explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the said charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against them for which they denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

9. Points for determination are:

(i) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 417 of the Indian

Penal Code?

(ii) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code?

(iii) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian

Penal Code?

(iv) Whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused no.2 beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian

Penal Code?

(v) To what finding?

10. POINT Nos. i to iv:

Since these points are interconnected with each other therefore this Court intend to answer them together.

11. To prove the guilt of accused no.1 and Accused no.2 for the offences u/sec. 417, 420 and 376 of Indian Penal Code of Indian Penal Code against accusedno.1 and section 506 as against accused no.2, the prosecution has examined the PW1 who is victim, PW2 who is panch witness for the scene of the offence , PW3 is another panch witness for the scene of the offence,PW.4 5 is the first investigating officer who registered the first information report and examined the victim in presence of woman police constableno. 6989 and had added section 376 of indian penal code. PW.5 is second investigating officer who after receipt of case diary file from PW.4 had conducted scene of offence panchnama and had referred the victim for medical examination and as per the record PW.5 has deposed that LW.11/K.Ramesh had filed chargesheet as against Accused no.1 under sections 417, 420, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal

Code as against accused no.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

12.The learned counsel for the accused Nos 1 and 2 has argued that there is no evidence of victim before this court to say that accused no1 had ever repeatedly committed rape on the victim and had cheated the victim on false promise of marriage and that accused no.2 had ever criminally intimidated the victim to kill her and hence prayed to acquit the accused no. and Accused no.2.

13.The learned additional public prosecutor has argued that the evidence of PW4 and PW.5 coupled with the medical evidence of Doctor clearly proves that the possibility of sexual intercourse with the victim cannot be ruled out and that the accused had committed rape upon the victim frequently and the

Accused no.1 had criminally intimidated the victim and hence prayed to convict the accused no.1 and Accused no.2

14.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.

6

15.As per the evidence of PW.4, LW.6/ Doctor A. Krishnaveni had collected blood samples, vaginal swabs , vulval swabs and Nail scrubbings under EXP.11 and sent for Forensic Science Laboratory and after receiving Forensic Science

Laboratory report under Ex.P.12 and after her clinical examination to the victim, LW.6/Dr A. Krishnaveni had issued medical certificate /Final opinion under EXP.13 opining that sexual assault with the victim cannot be ruled out .

16.There is no cross examination to the PW.4 on behalf of the accused no1 and Accused no.2 disputing the competence of the doctor who issued EXP.11 to EXP.13/medical certificates and also its genuineness.EXP.11 to

EXP.13/medical certificates lend credence to the case of prosecution about the rape of the victim/PW.1

17. There is no documentry evidence filed before this court to prove the involment of Accused no.1 in this case .

18.PW1 is the complainant/victim has deposed before this court that she do not know the accused no.1 and Accused no.2 however PW.1 has admitted her signature on the report under EXP.1 and had expressed ignorance of contents of report under EXP.2 and had resiled from her previous statement

19. PW.2 and PW.3 are the panch witness for the scene of the offence had expressed ignorance about the contents of scene of offence panchnama and admitted that they have subscribed their signature on white blank paper at the instance of police under EXP.2 to EXP.6.

20. PW.4 is the investigating officer has deposed in his evidence that on 14.10.2015 at about 12.30 hours Victim/Pw1 had lodged the report under Ex.P7 and basing on the report of PW1, he had registered a case in Crime No. FIR No.

672/2015 u/s 417, 420, 506 of IPC under Ex.P8 and later on 15.10.2015 he had 7 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 in presence of woman police by name Parijatam WPC No. 6989 and basing on the statement of the victim he had added Section 376 of IPC and handed over the case diary file PW.5.

21. PW5is the second investigating officer has deposed that after receipt of case diary file from PW.4 he had conducted scene of offence panchanama on 16 -10 -2015 situated at MIG 478, Mayuri nagar, Miyapur along with rough sketch in presence of Pw3 and PW4 under Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 and thereafter he had referred the victim for medical examination to Gandhi hospital and the victim was medically examined by LW6 / Dr. Krishnaveni under Ex.P11 to P13 / Medical reports and thereafter he had handed over the Case dairy file to LW11 / K. Ramesh for further investigation. and as per the record LW11 / K. Ramesh after receipt of case dairy file had conducted further investigation and after completion of entire investigation and collection of documentary evidence had filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 420, 417, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against Accused no.1 and as against A2 for the offence punishable under section 506 of Indian Penal Code.

22. The evidence of Pw4 disclosed that alleged incident of rape was reported with the police by the PW.1. As discussed supra victim /PW.1 has admitted

before this court that she has no grievance against Accused no.1 and

Accused no.2 and had expressed ignorance of contents of report under

EXP.7.

23.There is no evidence before this court to support the case of the prosecution in order to prove that accused no.1 had ever induced the victim and had ever committed rape repeatedly upon the victim on the false promise of marriage stating that Accused no.1 had no male issues and he would marry 8 the victim and will look after her and that accused no.2 had ever criminally intimidated the victim with the dire consequences of killing the victim .

24. Therefore this court with the above said discussion has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused no.1 for the charges punishable under sections 417, 420, 376 of Indian Penal Code and as against accused no.2 for the offence punishable under section 506 of Indian Penal

Code and hence, the accused no.1 and Accused no.2 are entitled for acquittal.

The point is answered accordingly.

25. In the result, the accused no.1 and Accused no.2 are found not guilty for the charges punishable under sections 417, 420, 376 as against A1 and 506 of

Indian Penal Code as against accused no.2 and Accordingly Accused no.1 and

Accused no.2 are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail- bonds of the Accused no.1 and Accused no.2 shall remain in-force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no case property in this case as such no order is passed.

Typed to my dictation directly by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of April, 2022.

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST

WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1 : Victim. -None.

PW.2 : G. Babu Goud, witness.

9

PW.3 : N. Yellappa, witness.

PW.4 : K. Yadaiah, First Investigation Officer.

PW.5: Ch. Shankar Reddy, Investigation officer.

NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature on report - Nil - Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of victim. Ex.P3: Signature on scene of offence. Ex.P4: Signature on Rough Sketch. Ex.P5: Signature on scene of offence. Ex.P6: Signature on Rough Sketch. Ex.P7: Report. Ex.P8: First information report. Ex.P9: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10: Rough sketch. Ex.P11: Preliminary report. Ex.P12: Forensic Science Laboratory report. Ex.P13: Final Opinion report.

NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

-Nil.

I SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN – CUM – XVII ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.