Dismissed

The State of Telangana v. Gonela Prashanth

Telangana HC5 Jul 2022CRLA/509/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against acquittal, the High Court examined prosecution evidence regarding alleged offenses under IPC and POCSO involving a minor victim. The bench found the prosecution failed to prove intent to outrage modesty and noted discrepancies in witness statements. Concluding the trial court's finding of innocence was supported by evidence, the court dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Telangana Vs Gonela Prashanth — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 509 OF 2o2o

¶7

Appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment daled. 11111120't passed in Special S C.No.48 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act-cum-lV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The State of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Gonela Prashanth, S/o. Uppalaiah, aged 23^years, Mudirai, Coolie,^Fl/o. Vishwanadhapuram of Ghanpur (w) Mandal

¶13

...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant^{: PUBLICPRoSEcUTOR}

¶15

Counsel forthe Respondent:^{SRI AJAYKUMAR MADISETTY}

¶16

The Court made^{the following: JUDGMENT}

¶17

-=-

¶18

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.5O9 of 2O2O

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

Questioning the acquittal of the respondent-accused for the olfences under Sections 352, 354-D(11, 324, 506 of IPC and Section 11(ivi r/rv 12 of'the Protection of Children from Sexua-l Olfences Act, 20 12, recorded by the learned Special Judge for the Tria-l of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexua-l Offences Act-Cum-lV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Warangal, the State filed the present appeal.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that p.W. l/victim girl hled complaint, Ex.Pl stating that she was 16 years and since three years prior to complaint, the respondent/accused r.rras constanfly following her and insisting her to love him, lailing which, she was threatened. The conduct of the respondent was informed to her parents (P.W.2-father and mother_not examined), horvever, even after admonition by the parents, the accused started follou,ing her again. On 23.01.2018, after college vrhen she boarded the bus and got down at Tatil<ond€ her r"riends, " "r,^*;#r;X her house a)ortg with \ J _, Lrrq respondenf #s caught hold of her

¶23

¶24

hand. Respondent questioned her as to why she was not talking to him and if she does not love him, he would see that no one else would marr5, her and thereafter, the responder-rt slapped her and ran away. For the said reason of holding her hand and threatenino and also slapping, complaint was lodged by P.W. 1 with the police. The police, registered a case in Crime No.14 for the offences under Section 352, 354-D, 327,506 of IPC and Section 1 1(ia) r/w 12 of the POCSO Act.

¶25

Learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 11 and marking Exs.Pl to P5, after considering both oral and documentar5r evidence, has found that the charged offences were not proved as against the respondent and accordingly acquitted him.

¶26

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the evidence in proper perspective. The sole testimony of P.W. I and corroborative testimony of the. father was sufficient to prove the guilt ol the respondent herein, as such, the conviction has to be recorded by setting aside the acquittal against the respondent. Further, it^is

f Ii

apparent from the evidence that the respondent was following her over a period of three years and on 23.01.2018 slapped her and threatened her with dire consequences, for which reason, the respondent has to be convicted for the offences charged.

¶31

Learned Special Judge, a-fter completion of trial, has found the respondent not guilty for the offense charged for the following reasons i) the respondent is brother-in-law of junior paternal uncie of P.W. 1 and they do not have visiting terms between the family members. Ii) Admittedly, there was no mobile phone for which reason it cannot be said that the accused had talked to her on mobile. iii) the submission of PW. 1 that the respondent was following her lrom Bth standard is an omission in her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C statement. iv) Further, it is also an omission in Section 16i Cr.P.C statement that the respondent had came from behind and caught hold of her hand and threatened to kill her. v) P.W.2, father of P.W. 1 admitted that there rvere family disputes since ten years and both the families have flled complaints against each other and there are no visiting terms between them. vi) P.Ws.3 and 4 are projected as eyewitnesses but they did not state anythin-g about the accused foilowing her at

¶32

¶33

any point of time arld P.W.4 in his cross-examination admitted that it was P.W. 1 who informed about the alleged act of respondent and he was not an eye witness. vii) the victim/P.W. 1 a,lso did not mention specilically about the time when the act of holding of hand and threatening took place.

¶34

From the evidence on record, the respondent/accused is none other than the brother-in-law of own brother of P.W.2 and it is an admitted lact that P.W.2 and family of his brother were having issues and they have liled complaints against each other. The presence of P.W.4 was not mentioned either in the complaint or the statement made to the police. Apparently, the help of P.W.4 was introduced to speak against the respondent. As stated during crossexamination and also on his own admission he was not an eye witness to the alleged acts ofrespondent.

¶35

The prosecution also failed to place on record any such panchayaths being held noting down in '"vriting regarding any settlement or any understalding which r,',as arrir.ed at during panchayat. Except making allegation of the respondent following her over a period of time and panchayat^{being held regardingthe}

¶36

following of respondent, the^{prosecutionhas failed to produce any} such witness to convince the Court that earlier^{panchayatbeing} held was in lact correct.

¶37

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of^Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradeshl and also in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a crirninal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondl1, that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment ol acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.

¶38

In Guru Dutt Pathak's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶39

'(ZOf:) ft supreme court Cases 688

¶40

'⁽²⁰²¹⁾ 6 Supreme Court Cases 116

¶41

¶42

"15. lnChondrappav. State of Karnalaka fChandrappa v. titate of Kornatako, (2007) 4 SCC 4 I 5 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325 j , this Court reiterated rhe lcgat position as under : (SCC p. 432, para 42) '42. ... (l) An appellate court has full power to rcview, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is loundcd.

¶43

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise oI such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it rnay reach its orvn conclusio;r, both on questions offact and of law.

¶44

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons". "good and sulficicnt grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions". "glaring nlistakes". ctc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature ol "flourishes of languagc" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere rvith acquinal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to comc to its own conclusion.

¶45

(4) An appellate court, however, lnust bear in nlind that in case of acquil.tal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Fr,"s/i/, the prcsumption of innoccnce is available to him undcr the fundamental principle of criminal^{jurisprudence} that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competcnl court of law. Secorully. the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed aud strengthened by the trial court. (5) If nvo reasonable conclusions are possible on thc basis of the evidencc on rccord. thc appcllate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by thc trial courl- "

¶46

In the background of disputes arnong the lamily of P.W.2 and the family of his brother, police implicating the respondent could not be ruled out especially in the background of the prosecution failing to prove any prior transactions. Further, mere slapping would not attract offence under Section 354 of IPC, unless intention of outraging the modesty of women is established. P.W. 1/victim has not stated rearding arry such acts outraging hcr modesty as such there cannot be any^{conviction,which can be}

recorded under Section 3S4_D of IpC. Accordingly, the finding of the triat Court cannot be interfered with in the present appeal. 11. The Criminal Appea1 is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, sha_ll stand closed.

¶51

ffrRuEcoPYtt^{"'58'i'ff,'#A+t-iH'}

¶52

ro, ";#i.-4?,rffi

¶53

:#:'"ffi ;i","y,Bsi,iJi5"J,3:;;il#'#.^ ";il::H:",,""",,",

¶54

",;f;i?,i;L'"i;ly,^'.T;::fl gbrs

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^0510712022

qrp illl

JUDGMENT

CRL.A.No.509 of 2020

DISMISSINC THE CRIMINAL APPEAL.

¶61

t
>12 \y
\

The State of Telangana v. Gonela Prashanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The State of Telangana v. Gonela Prashanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thanniru Santhosh , Sunny Vs The State of Telangana

Bitla Danial Prabhudas Vs the State of A.P.

Yeturu Audi Sesha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

The State of Telangana Vs Pawar Meghanath and 3 Others

The State of Telangana Vs Gaddamali Balraju and 8 Others

The State of Telangana Vs Gadepaka Shekar