Allowed

G.Vnkatesh v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC24 Jul 2023CRLA/1032/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed criminal appeal against rape conviction. Held that without evidence proving the victim was a minor, DNA paternity evidence alone cannot sustain rape charge where the victim turned hostile and refused to identify the accused.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted; judgment set aside; bail bond cancelled.

G.Vnkatesh Vs the State of A.P. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAILSLIP:ThePetitioner/AccusedWaSdirectedtobereleasedonbailbythe oiil|. oi tn"^{High court Jrt"J oe.osi0.10 in crl Atr/P.No.1578 of 2010 in} Crl.A.No.1032^{of 2010}

¶2

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

IVONDAY ,THE^{TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{NO: 1032 OF 2010}

¶8

Appeal filed under^{Section37 aQ) of Cr'P C , aggrieved by the Judgmentdated} Zs OOIZOT O^{passed in S.C No it'e ot 2OOgon the file of the lll Additional} I\4etropolitan Sessions^{Judge,Hyderabad}

¶9

Between:

¶10

G.Venkatesh, S/o^{G.Narayana,Age: 20 years, Occ: Student R/o H No'10-4-} 7711265, M.G.Nagar,^{Masab Tank,Hyderabad}

¶11

...APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

TheStateofA.P.,RepresentedbyitsPublicProsecutor,HiEhCourtofAndhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the^{Appellant:M/S. M.A' MUJEEB}

¶16

Counsel for the^{Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶17

The Court made^{the following:JUDGMENT}

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1O32 OF 2O1O

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

The appellant was convicted for the offence under section 376 of IPC a,d sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years vide judgment in S.C.No.31g of :2009 dated 25-06.2070 passed by the III Additional MetroporiteLn Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶22

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant committed rape on P.w.2 severa-l times by offering tea mixed with sleeping tablets. She gave birth to a female child. She went to ttre hospital and there she got aborted. The fetus was found in the bath room of osmania General Hospital. on the basis of the dead fetus being found, enquiry was conducted and it was knoun that the aborted fetus was that of P.W.2.

¶23

During the course of investigation, it was founrl that the appellant was the person who had raped her. on the basis of DNA analysis, the paternity of the dead fetus was known. Blcod sampre was collected from the accused and the DNA analysis of the aborted

¶24

¶25

fetus was done. It was opined in the^{FSL report that the appellant} was biologica,l father.

¶26

During the course of trial, the^{victim/P.W.2has turned} hostile to the prosecution case and denied commission^{of rape and} refused to identify the appellant.

¶27

The fetus being found in the hospital,^{the subsequenttesting} and the appellant being the biological father^{are all of not disputed.} However, during the course of investigation, it^{was found that P.W.2} was less than 18 years. The prosecution has failed^{to either conduct} the age determination test of the victim/P.W.2 or^provideany documentary evidence, such as birth certilicate or certilicate^issued by the hospital where she was born to ascertain the^age. It cannot be assumed that the victim/P.W.2 was^a minor.^{ThoughP.W.2 has} turned hostile to the prosecution case, in the event^{of P.W.2 being} less than 18 years, the DNA testing would be relevant and the appellant would be found guilty for the offence under^{Section376 of} IPC. In the present case, P.W.2 turned hostile and she did not^even identif,i the accused in the court. The DNA testing is of no help since the prosecution failed to provide any evidence regarding the

¶28

¶29

¶30

age of P.W.2. For the said reasons, the appellant succr:eds and the appellant is liable to be acquitted.

¶31

In the result, the judgment in S.C.No.318 of 2OO9 dated 25.06.2010 is hereby set aside. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds sha-ll stand cancelled.

¶32

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Consequently,

¶33

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶34

Sd/- C.V. MALLIKAFIJUNA^VARMA JOINIT REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY/, qU

¶35

SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

The lll Additional Metropolrtan^{Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. (with records)}

¶38

The Vl Additional Chief^{tvletropolitanMagistrate, Hyderabad}

¶39

The Superintendent, Central^{Prison,Cherlapally, Ranga Reddv District}

¶40

The Station House Officer, Humayunnagar^{Police Station, Hyderabad.}

¶41

One CC to M/S.^tU.A. MUJEEB,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt for the State of felanganaat} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶43

7 Two CD Copies

Njb

kam

tP Abv'

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410712023

ORDER

CRLA.No.1032 of 20'10

¶51

. !rA,ij.-,
/.".?
<br>f. :
1E STP lu ), t!
.+'",,1
'o ,l'
['i\i
..

¶52

ALLOWING THE CRLA.

¶53

G.Vnkatesh v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Vnkatesh v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veeru Singh, Mahgalhat, Hyderabad and Another Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by Its P.P.,High Court, Hyd and Anr.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Budige Lingaiah

Chakali Srinivas, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

M.Satyanarayana Vs v.Shiva Rama Raju

M.Yadaiah and 2 Others, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Syed Abdul Aleem Vs Fathima Unnisa Begum