In a criminal appeal against an acquittal in a rape case, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the trial court's decision due to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and inconclusive DNA evidence.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the accused is confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
t
11
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 350 OF 2021
Criminal Appeal Under Section 378 (3) &(1) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment made in S.C.No.1001 of 2018 dated 31.03.2021 on the file of the Court of the lSpecial Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases relating to Atrocities against Women Cum XVll Additional District & Sessions Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.
Between:
The State of Telangana, rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana.
...APPELLANT/COM PLAINANT
AND
Booruga Raju @ Yohan Raju, S/o. Rathnam Raju, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Tailor (Happy Tailor), Rl/o. Present Block No.65/13, lndiramma Colony, Bahadurpally (v), Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict, N/o. Athamuru (v), Undi Mandal, West Godavari District.
...RESPODENT/ACCUSED
Counsel for the Appellant : ADOITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)
Counsel forthe Respondent : SRI K.MOHAN
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
1
t
THE T ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE t(.SUTIIi)NfIER tr8'.IlqArAL 4.PPEAL No. 3SO OF 202 r
JUDGMENT:
appellitr-r' / co r- rf;lainant agerrc,r.t,ci br tlrcr ac clrri(tr. ,-crordecl by the I Spec;:rl ljessions Juclgc for Trial o Ci:r.s cr; relating to Atrocities irri:irst women cr,rm XVII Adcitr,rr.r District & Sessions Jr.rcl rer, R.R.Distrrct at L.ts.Nag:rr rrr ij( l.Nt.1O0l of 20 18, dalecl i1 .O3.202I , iirr tirc of[t:nr.c.s puni,. ra]rle under Sections 376 z t,l .>06 ol-thc Inciiirn penal Cole
2
informationgiven bY PW2' a Pregnancy.On the basis of the Police.ThePolice havtng complaintwas filed u'iththe investigatedthe case' hied charge sheet for the offence of rape and criminalintimidationpunishableunder Sections 376 and 506 ofthe Indian Penal Code' respectively'
3
TCSUII, ol hLt basrs c,f ihc stat(,nrcr)[ nrL: j: :rr IrW2. the acqLlittill h,.. :o be reYr:trsecl and Con1,'iCtior l'l;rs; irr lte recr>rcied
"70 t the light of the aboue, the ltig, L ('ourt ctn,i otlter appellatet C turts should follou.t the wcll.settle,j pnncipl.es cry st r.tlltz,.z I 59 nurnber of Judgments tf il r gcirt<1 to ouertl.tle or other .ui 'e dtsturb the tial court's acquttrLl; L't'tt tppellate court moA onlg ouer.ule ct. othenttise disturb tlt i riaL court.'s acquittal if it has*uen1 -s,tbstantial attd <:or, pe 'ling reasorts'' for doing so. .4 ttu, bzr of irtstances anse in which tlrc app6tlrltl; (:6yrt u.toukl l'.ttt 'z"uer! su.bstantial and competlittg ,-eeso\s, to discard:L : trial cotrtl's decision.,,Verg sttb.;, a,Ttial and cotnpPllin0 reasons" e xist tulrcn:
t lzooey to stiprenr: Cc,y;r4ses +50
4
i) TLe tiatcourt'sconclusionutthregard to the facts ts palpablYu-trong
ii) The tnalcourt'sdecisionruo.s basedon an erroneous uieut ofla u-t;
tii)The tnalcourt'sjudgmentis tikely to result in "graue mis caffiageof justice" ;
iu)The entireapproachof the triot court in deoling uith tle euidenceutaspatently illegat;
u) Tle tialcourt's judgment u)as manifestlgunjust ond unreasonable;
ui)The tiatcourt has ignoredthe euid-ence or misread the mateialeuidence or has ignoreclmateial documents like d-ging d.eclarations/repotl of the ballistic expert'etc'
This listisintendecl to be illustratiue,not uii)
exllaustiue.
S.ThelearnedSessionsJudgehadacquittedtheaccused when theprosecutionwas not able to prove beyondreasonable doubtthattheaccusedwasthepersonwhohadrapedPw2 causingpregnancy'Even accordingto PWs'l and 3 who are motherand sister of PW2' the mental conditionof PW2 was not proper.
5
f . in thc rr rtnal r.os1s6, J)crsons r,r,lto :-re l.r(,r_ lia\ rnB i)roper framc o1'rnjn I rr.oulrj need special attentior. In tlr:: prlrscr)t facts thcre is t'tr> r' i<lence ol"any of the wrtnesser; tjtirl i t alt\ l)oint of trrnc the ar:r.r s:d had rn an-, manner cntereci 1r: ho,.lse ol- pW2 or at ar ry pr il t of tirne met pW2 Onilr on rlr,: birsis of the alleged stilt( n ent made br, pW2 who ac.: trdir g to the prosccutlot- 'als not in propcr fram e ol' nrind i1 is rlnsafe to re/crse the f n ling of acquittal. There are io (.on pelling or substtrntial i-: ts.olts to come to a different ccncltt;r, rn.
Misceliar erus applications, if any pencling in :hir; crirninal appeal, shal s ancl closed
Sd/.I.hIA(;A LAKSHMI DEI'LITY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( lt) SE(;TI()N OFFICER
To,
2 One CC to Sri K. ',4ohan , Advocate (OPUC)
kS {
HIGH COURT
KSJ
DATED:1 5106'2023
JUDGMENT
I
."=a
i. sv I C o
/l,
6" 7
I
!tr
i,l
l.l
l(n
t
1 I 't$' /
l,Cl) /,
r,/
\ ,)t*
'\r.,.l:
ii-
,-- _*
CRLA.No.350 of 2021
Dismissing thr:r Crl.A.
[6,,
(:
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused in a rape case should be reversed given that the victim's mental condition was not clear and DNA evidence was inconclusive
Whether the apprehended miscarriage of justice warrants overturning the trial court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's liability beyond reasonable doubt
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ghureg Latu v. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶42
Ghureg Latu v. State of Tamil Nadu
The State of Telangana, rep. by The Public Prosecutor
Booruga Raju @ Yohan Raju
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
