Partly allowed

Vasam Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Jun 2023CRLA/218/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction for rape. The High Court found no error in the conviction but exercised discretion to reduce the sentence from ten years to the statutory minimum of seven years due to the time elapsed and the appellant's need to care for his children.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed; the present sentence was remitted to seven years.

Vasam Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

I I i it

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶5

THURSDAY ,THE^{FIFTEENTHDAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 218 OF^2O2O

¶9

Appeal under Section 37aQ\ of^{Cr.P.C, 1973 aggrieved by the} Judgment dated³¹ .12.2019^{passedin S.C.No.182 of 2014 on the file of} the bourt of the Special^{SessionsJudge for Fast Tracking the Cases} Relating to Atrocities against^{women - cum -Vlll Addl. District and sessions} Judge at Khammam

¶10

Between:

¶11

Vasam Venkateshwarlu,^{S/o.Yerraiah, Aged} about 28^years,Occ. Coolie, R/o.Chinna Gangaram^Village, Venkatapuram Mandal, Khammam District.

¶12

...APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana,^{representedby the Public Prosecutor, High} Court of Judicature^{at HYderabad.}

¶15

...RESPON DENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

!.A. NO:1 OF 202'l

¶17

Petition under Section^{389(1)ofCr.P.C prayingthat in the memo of} grounds of criminal Appeal, the^{High court maybe pleased to suspend the} ientence of imprisonment^{made in judgment dated 31-12-2019in} s.c.No.182 ol 2014^{on the file of the court of the special SessionsJudge} for Fast Tracking the cases^{Relatingto Atrocities against Women- cum-} Vlll Additional District and^{sessions Judge at Khammamand releasethe} petitioner on bail, pending disposal^{of the above appeal.}

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant :^{Sri A. PRABHAKARRAO}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{:ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶20

The Court delivered the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶21

¶22

THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUR]EN:DER

¶23

r)RIMINAL APPEAL No. 218 OF 2(J20

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

Th s Cr rnrinal Appeal IS filed by the aplrr:llalt/accused aggrieverl trv tlre cor-rviction recorded by t he Spr:cizrl Sessions Judge for Fas t Trackrng the Cases relating to A1 r'r.rcities against Women <:urn^- ,/lli Additional District and Sess icns Judge at Khammam, SC.No.l82 of 2014, dated 31.112.:20 9, for the offences puni ;hable under Sections 376 arrd 506 of the Indian Penal Code, arrd sentence of Rigorous Imprir;onrr ent for a period of ten ) erLrs and a fine of Rs.2,0OO/-.

¶26

Heard l, rarned counsel for the appellan anC learned Additional Pnk li,: l)rosecutor for the respondent Stz:te

¶27

Briellv the lacts of the prosecution (ase .tr-- that PWl victim girl u',:r.r l. '-o graze cattle in the fields. Arounrl 6 p.m., the accused forcib y committed rape on her alrl r.r'ht,n she tried to shout for lrelp, tl-re apltellant closed her mouth arLd pressed her neck. ThereeLfr:,r he thrcatened to ki1l her if sh,: inf,trms any one. PWs.2 anrl 3 corroborated the version of PW I stzLting that they were info: ned about the appellant comrnittrrLs ra:e on the

victim-PW I

-'5-r

Learned Sessions Judge found^{that the appellant had} committed rape on the victim^{girl who was grazing the cattle} and deserved to be sentenced^{to ten years}

¶32

Learned Counsel for the^{appellant would submit that bald} statement is made by the^{victim-PW 1 that she was rapedby the} appellant. However, the^{medical evidence does not support her} case. He submits that^{PW7-Doctor who examinedher did not} hnd any signs of forcible sex,^{and that only on the basis of} injuries found on the neck,^{the leaned Sessions Judgehad} committed an error in^{convictingthe appellantfor the offence} under Section 376 of^{IPC. It is further improbable case of the} prosecution since no injuries^{were found on any other parts of} the body of the victim^{girl. Usually,the surfacesare rough in} the frelds and if the^{victim was thrownon to the groundand} raped by the appellant,^{she would have receivedinj uries on her} back, legs or hands.^{In the absence of such injuries,it can be} inferred that no such^{act of rape was committed'}

¶33

On the other hand^{learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor} submits that the^{statement made by th'e victim girl was thatthe}

¶34

¶35

appellant h:L 1 rblcibry raped her in the fiel<I, zr.s sr. ch, conviction has to be ntzr n [ainecl

¶36

Thr: vic.r int-pWl is a rustic villager who hitcl inlormed the Police that tl: e appellant had raped her and vvL er_r she tried to shout lor hr:I1 , ,he apperlant pressed her ne.ck. Thr: si d version is corrob orarte d b.y the injuries received on her lt ecl.:. Th ough, detailed narral-ion is not given by pWl as to horv the rape had taken place, t re. clefence had also not aske,d anr questions in cross-exa;nin:r ion to suggest that what pW wzLs saying regarding rape ccmmitted by the appellant rvas i-rr orr.ect. It is not expecr ed ]: v the victim girl to make an1 krnl;tir1, narration regarding thr. i rcident occurred and she has in fa<:1 stated that she was raped 11, the apperlant. The injuries forrn,l rn the neck are corroboratir g w-ith her version that when she _r-red to shout for help, the erp rellant pressed her neck causing irLllrrii:s. There cannot be anv t lement of cloubt in the case cf the prosecution. Burden is ztlrval:; on the prosecution to prove its c?-.e, however when anv e.xpler re tion is given by appellant as to r,r, hy he was falsely implicate: i, such explanation would come in ar<l of the Court to assess t h,: defence case vis_a_vis the ltroser:rrticn case.

¶37

¶38

¶39

Except a bare denial by the accused there is no^{otherevidence} on behalf of the accused.

¶40

In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction. However, the incident is of the year 2013 and 10 years have passed since the incident'^The minimum sentence prescribed is 7 years and also it^{is stated} that since the wife of the appellant died the appellant^{has to} take care of his two children. In view of the^{same, this Court} deems it appropriate to inflict minimum sentence^{which is} seven years.

¶41

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is^{partly a-llowed} sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment^{for a period} of seven years. The concerned Court is directed^{to cause} appearance of the appellant and^{send him to prison to serve out} the remaining part of the sentence.

¶42

Miscellaleous applications, if^{any pending in this criminal}

¶43

appeal, shall stand closed

¶44

Sd/. B.S.^CHIRANJEEVI JoINTEEiIGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46

The Soecial^{sessions Judgefor Fast Tracking the cases Relating to} ' Affi"i[;;';;;';; w;#i]i,rn - Vtit naoitional District^{and sessions} .lir'ag" ,iri"mmam'^{(With records, if any)}

¶47

The Superintendent,^{Central Jail, Warangal'}

¶48

One CC^{lo Sr A. PRABHAKAR RAO' AdvocateIOPIJO]}

¶49

Two CCs to th:^{I)ublic Prosecutor, High Courtfor the S:ate'of} Telangana at^{l{Yderabad(OUT)}

¶50

Two CD^CoPies

Njb h..-..-

HIGH COUR:-

DATED:1 510l;12023

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.21ti o12020

' :1 i ..\ i'r' <br>,/, l:. a\ -'
?
t,
2 7 JllN zun
i
, .i -::' ,,,j
\ 7,,
. * ,.'/
"' .::

¶58

PARTLY ALLOWIIIG THE CRIMINAL APPEAL.

¶59

c<br>r.trr
r')
'v\ [rt

Vasam Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasam Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Telangana

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

Vamshee K.Kovvuru or Kovvuru Vamshee Krishna Vs Abhilasha Kovuru

Sameena Zulkhadar Baig, Somajiguda, Hyderabad Vs Mrs. Tasneem Fatima, Amberpet, Hyderabad and Anr, Rep.by Pp.

Mir Kaiser Ali Vs Mohd. Fazlur Rehman Shareef

The State of Telangana Vs Booruga Raju , Yohan Raju

Mohd. Imam, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Yellapragada Maruthi Aravind Vs Yellapragada (Valluri) sWATHI