Dismissed

The State of Telangana v. Kanakam Siddeshwar Siddu

Telangana HC7 Jun 2023CRLA/381/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against the acquittal in a POCSO and IPC Section 354B case, this Court dismissed the appeal. The trial court acquitted the accused due to contradictory evidence from the victim and insufficient corroboration, noting her initial failure to identify the first attacker and the lack of examination of crucial family witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; miscellaneous applications pending are closed.

The State of Telangana Vs Kanakam Siddeshwar… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132511

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, IHE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 381 OF 2021

¶7

Criminal Appeal filed Under-Section 378 (3) & (1) CrPC aggrieved by the Judgment dated' 30-06-2021 passed rn S.C.No.137 ot 2018 on the file of the Court cf the Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases. Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Th6 State of Telangana, rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State oflelangana. Hyderabad

¶10

...AppellanUComplainant

¶11

AND

¶12

Kanakam Siddeshwar @ Siddu, S/o. Eshwar, Age 28 years, Occ.Painter, F/o Huts at Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Haripuri Colony, Chaitanyapuri, Kothapet, Hyderabad

¶13

... Respondents/Accused

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PUBLIG PROSECUTOR

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.381 OF 2O2l

¶18

JUDGMENT:

¶19

The State is aggrievecl bv^the order^{of acquittal dated} 30.06.2021 passed by the^{Fast TrackSpecialJudge for} Expeditious Trial and Disposal^{of Rape and POCSO Act} Cases in S.C.No.737 of 201B

¶20

2 . Briefly, tlie case of the^{prosecutioni s that the} accused, who is a neighbor,^{rvith a sexual intent went to} the victim girl artd started^{pressingher chest and when she} woke up and raised hue and cry,^{their family members,} who are paternal grandmother and^{parentswoke up and} tried to catch hjm, but he^{cscaped and fled from the scene.} On the basis of the said complaint,^{the Police registered a} crime under S(rction 354 B^{of IPC and Section77 r} lw Section 12 of the Protection of^{Children from Sexual} Offences Act,2(112.

¶21

During th<: course of trial, P.W. 1, who is the mother statecl that it was P.W.27'victim girl,'who informed her about the allegr:d Act of the accused . p.W .2 r.vho is the

¶22

¶23

victim girl stated before the Court that the accused had ca-me to her in the night and pressed her chest in the first instance while she was in deep sleep and went away and carne back for the 2nd time and at that juncture, P.W.2 raised hue and cry

¶24

Learned Judge found that the version given by P.W .2 /victirn girl is contrar5r' to what is stated in the complaint. Admittedly, the evidence of P.W.1 is hearsay, since she is not the eye-witness to the incident. P.W.2 who 'is alleged to be the victim stated before the Court that on the first occasion, she was asleep and could not identify the person who came there, however, for the 2".1 time another person came, she stated that it was the accused. Learned Sessions Judge did not lind favour with the evidence given by P.W .2 since it was contrary to Ex.P. l/complaint. Further, the learned Sessions Judge found that no reasons are given as to why the grandmother, brother and sister were not examined before the Court. The mother, who was examined as P.W. 1 did not state anything about the presence of the accused at the

I I

scene and the famill, members tried to catch hold of the accused u,hen he \rras trying to flee from the place.

¶29

On the basis of siird contradictory evidence by the victim girl, the Court did not find it safe to record any conviction

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that P.W.2/victim girl specificaliy stated that it was the accused, r,",ho had come in the night and pressed her chest.

¶31

However, the evidence which P.W.2 had given does not inspire confidence for the reason of stating initially that she did not recognize thc person who came at the hrst instance. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused went tlrrice to the house of the victim girl ald committed the said acts

¶32

In cases of Appeal against the acquittal, the Appellate Court had to be cautious u,hile reversing the orders of acquittal, unless there are compelling reasons to interfere with the reasoning given bv the trial Court.

¶33

¶34

Accordingly, the State fails and Criminal Appeal is

¶35

dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶36

shall stand closed.

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

Sd/-K.SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

SECTI OFFICER

To,

1 The Fast Track Special^{Judge for Expeditious Trigl and Disposal of Rape and} POCSO Act Casds,^{Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar'}

¶43

2 The Station House Officer,^{Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Ranga Reddy} Drstrict.

¶44

,) TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad (OUT)

¶45

4 Two CD Copies

kant

h^-

HIGH COURT

DATED:07106t2023

ORDER

+- o ? T (4
,-(
v-
.$ p
ca +
,-1. \ s
<br>'. '-, /)
a)
.j ii !:H +

¶52

CRLA.No.381 of 2021

¶53

CRIMINAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED

¶54

/')-"
(1)
D.
.>,y r).r"

The State of Telangana v. Kanakam Siddeshwar Siddu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Telangana v. Kanakam Siddeshwar Siddu

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

Kanithi Veerabhadra Chary, Vs Cheryala Madana Chary and 3 Others

G.Venkata Sudha Vs the State of Telangana

Vamshee Krishna Kovuru Vs Smt. Abhilasha Kovuru

Sunder Matta , Vs R.Vijay Kumar and Another

Mohammed Sayyad Vs Bandla Somi reddy

Danthewad Prahlad Vs the State of A.P.