Dismissed

Gunni Pentaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Jul 2023CRLA/374/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this POCSO rape appeal, the High Court examined the complaint of repeated sexual assault on a minor girl. The Court rejected the appellant's claim of consent and absence of injuries, upholding the trial court's conviction based on consistent victim and medical evidence including forensic reports.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the Sessions Court.

Gunni Pentaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁵¹ I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL N O:374 OF 2021

¶8

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) ol Cr.P.C against the Judgment daled 22-03-2021 passed in Sessions Case No.696 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Fast Track Special Judge for Trial of Cases under POCSO AclcumlX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar

¶9

Between:

¶10

¶11

Gunni Pentaiah, Sio. Chandraiah, Aged about 44 years, Occ Coolie, R/o. Kanchanpally Village of Gandeed Mandal, N/o.Nancherla Village of Gandeed Mandal.

¶12

...APPELLANT/SOLE ACCUSEO

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI C. SHARAN REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶20

CRIMINA{- APPEAL No.374 0F 202L

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, L973 (for short 'Cr.p.C.,) against the judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed in S.C.No.696 of 2020 on the file of the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Trial of Cases under pOCSO Act-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy Distrtct at L.B. Nagar.

¶23

\ Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the state - respondent. Perused the record.

¶24

Briefly the case of the prosecution is that appellant is the husband of PW1 and father of victim girl -^pW2. The victim girl - pW2 was alone in the house when her mother - pW2 and her brother went to Puttapahad Village for attending a marriage. At that time, appellant raped PW2 for five or six days and on OL.OZ.2O2O, when pW3 who is the sister of PW2 opened the doors, she found that the appellant was doing sexual intercourse with^pw2 - victim girl by removing her clothes. when questioned, PW2 informed that the appellarit has been raping her and threatened that he wiil kiil her and her mother if she discroses the same to anyone, for which reason, she did not inform to anyone. On

¶25

02.02.2020,^{PWl lodged a complaintbefore the pol,ice andhaving} investigated the^{case, police flled chargesheet againstthe appellantfor} the offences^punishable under^{Sections376(3)and 506 of the Indian} Penal Code^(for short'lPC)^and Section^{3 readwith Section 4 of POCSO} Act,2Ol2. Charges for the offences^{punishableunderSections 376(3)} and 506 of IPC and Section^{5(l)(n)read with Section6 of the POCSO Act} were framed against the appellant,^{by the learned SessionsJudge. After} concluding^,Jrial and hearing^{arguments, the learnedSessionsJudge} found the appellant^guilty of the^{offences alleged againsthim and} accordingly, convicted the^{appellant.Aggrieved by the same, appellant} hasrapproached this Court by^{preferring this appeal.} .)

¶26

Learned counsel appearing^{for the appellantwould submit that as} seen from the circumstances,^{the intercourse was consensual in nature,} since no injuries were found on^{the victimgirl} -^{PW2. If appellant had} raped the victim^girl over a^period of six^{days, it is highly improbable that} the victim girl did not inform the^{sameto anyone includingher family} members and only for the reason of^{PW3 seeing the sexual act, PW1} lodged a complaint against the appellant,^{with a delay of one day. For} the said reasons, benefit of doubt^{has to be extended to the appellant.}

¶27

On the other hand,^{learned Assistant Public Prosecutorappearing} on behalf of the State submits that^{the evidence of PW2} -^{victimgirl is} consistent with the medical evidence^{and thereis no necessity for the}

¶28

I I

¶29

victim girl to speak false against the appellant. Though suggestions are made for the reason of falsely implicating the aopellant is money transactions, no such proof is produced by the appellant. For the said reason/ the appeal has to be dismissed.

¶30

As seen from the record, the victim girl - PW2 was aged less than 18 years. PW7 is the Doctor who had conducted ossification test on PW2-victim girl and issued Ex.P5 opining that the age of victim is about 15 years. PW10 is the Doctor who examined PW2 - victim girl and found that the hymen was not intact and she has collected vaginal smears from thg victim and sent them to FSL for examination. FSL issued its report on ) 08.04.2020 wherein it was mentioned that semen and spermatozoa were detected in item No.1 - vaginal smears. Basing on the said FSL Report, PW10 issued her final opinion under Ex.P8 on 06.06.2020 opining that the possibility of sexual assault is evident.

¶31

The victim girl - PW2 is aged less than 18 years. Even going by the ossification test, the victim was aged 15 years and even adding two years, she is a minor. No injuries being found on the person of the victim girl cannot be made basis to disbelieve the evidence of victim girl. In fact, PW3 had seen the appellant raping the victim girl - PW2. The evidence of PW1 is consistent with the medical evidence.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the appellant cannot be found fault with. I find no infirmity with the order^passed by the learned Sessions Judge

¶33

and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

9 Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶35

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

Sd/- CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Lf,D

¶37

secir6u oFFrcER

¶38

To,

¶39

The Fast Track Special Judge For Trail of Cases^{underPOCSOAcfCum} lX Additional District & Sessions Judge^(FTC) Ranga Reddy District at LB

¶40

,^{Nagar(with records)}

¶41

2j The Judicial FirstClass Magistrate,-Parigi

¶42

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of^{Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶43

The Superintendent, Central Jail, cherlapally, Hyderabad

¶44

The Circle lnspector of Police, Mahaboobnagar Rural, Mahaboobnagar

¶45

The Station House Officer, Mahaboobnagar Police Station, Mahaboobnagar

¶46

The Station House Officer, Mohammedabad Police Station

¶47

One CC to Sri C. Sharan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies plp

¶48

HIGH COURT

¶49

DATED:0410712023

¶50

\i S l-l' r <br>t (
i: .:
{iI '*, [uB 1m
<br>

ORPER

CRLA.No.374 of 2021

DISMISSING THE CRL.A

),--

Gunni Pentaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunni Pentaiah 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

M.Venkatesh Yadav Vs G.Babu Rao

Kasam Lingiah Vs the State of Telangana

Sirugumalle Prakash , Adla Prakash Vs the State of Telangana

Mamidi Venkateshwar Rao Vs Kottapu Srinivas and another

M/s. Visaka Industries Ltd., a Company regd under India Vs State of a.P., through its Public Prosecutor

Palakurthi Jyothi Vs Palakurthi Krishna