Partly allowed

Thadem Ravi v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC24 Jul 2023CRLRC/613/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding a conviction for rape attempt against a juvenile, the High Court upheld the conviction but set aside the order to send the appellant to a Special Home. Recognizing the appellant is now over 20 years old, the court imposed a fine and community service instead, dismissing the revision petition while ensuring the sentence reflects adult liability.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; order to send to Special Home set aside; appellant sentenced to fine of Rs. 50,000 or six months community service discharged; criminal revision-case dismissed.

Thadem Ravi Vs the State of A.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32es ]

¶2

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused^{was directed to be released on bail by the} order of the Hrgh Court dated^{l5-04-2009in Crl.tr/l P No.826 of 2009 in CrI R C} No 613 of 2009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶7

CRIMINAL REVIS^{ION CASE No: 613 OF 2009}

¶8

Criminal Reviston Case under^{Section397 & 401 of Cr'P C R/w 53 of} Juvenile Justice Act, 2000^{against the order dated18-02-2009,made in criminal} Appeal No.41 of 2008 on the^{file of the court of the PrincipalsessionsJudge,at} Nizamabad, confirming the^{Judgment dated:03-05-2008in CC'No921 of 2003on} the file of the Court of the^{Additional Judicial Magistrateof First Class-cum-Juvenile} Court, at Nizamabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Thadem Ravi, S/o^{late Laxmaiah,Agedabout 18 years,Occ:Student,R/o} Kaldurki Village, Bodhan^{Mandal, Nizamabad Dist.}

¶11

...Petitioner/AppellanUAccused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh,^{Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of A P} ' Andhra Pradesh

¶14

...Respondents/ComPlainant

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI T. SUJAN KUMAR REDDY}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:^{PUBLICPROSECUTOR}

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.613 OF 2OO9

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

I This Criminal Revision Case, undcr Secrions 397 &, 40 1 ol Cr. P.C., is filed by the petitioncr/accused, challcnging thc judgment, datecl 18.O2.2OO9, passed in Criminal Appeal No.4 i ol 2008 by the lczrrned Prir-rcipal Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, u,hercundcr :rnd rrhereb-v the conviction the sentence dated 03.05.20O8 imposed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrare of Frrst Class cum,luvcnilc Court, Nizamabad, in C.C.No.921 oi 2003 lor rhe offence punishable undcr Section 376 rlw 511 IPC ancl clirecting hirn to be sent to Special Home for a period of two years, u,as confirmed.

¶22

2 Hcard Sri T.Srujan Kumar Redd1,, learned cour-tscl for thc petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record

¶23

3 The facts germane for filing of the present criminal revision case, succinctly, are that on 75.12.2002 at 1.3O pM at Kaldurki village, the petitioner by sitting on the victim Baby Savitha u,ho was agecl about 3 years attempted to commit rape on her. The incident u.as witnessed by the brother of the victim. On the complaint lodged by the father of the victim a case in Cr.No.416 of 2OO2 undcr Section 376 r/w 511 of IPC was registered and investigated into and after

¶24

¶25

completion ol^{investigationand on recciving the medical reports'the} chargc shect^hasbeenlaid.

¶26

4 During the course^{of trial,beforc the lcarnccl trizrl Court'the} prosecution^{got examinedP Ws lto 5 and got cxhibitcd ExsP lto} P.5. No oral^{or documcntaryovidcncc \'as adducedon behalf of the} petitioner.

¶27

5 After a thoughtfut^{consideration of the entire materialavailzrble} on record,^{the learnedtrial CourL c:rme to tlle conclusion that the} prosecution could^{cstzrblish the gurlt of thc pctitioncr beyond all} reasonable doubt^{and accordinglyconvictcd the petitionerfor the} charged offence^{and directedto send the juvenile to Special Homefor} a period^{of two years. Aggrievedby the saicl judgment' the pelitioner} preferred Criminal^{AppealNo 4 1 of 2008 beforethe learned Principal} Sessions Judge,^{Nizamabadand thc appellate Court'by judgment} daLed 18.O2.2OO9^{dismissedthe said appealAs} stated suPra, aggrieved thereby^{the present criminal revisioncase is preferred}

¶28

6 As seen from^{thc record, the pctitionerwas juvenileand was} aged 13^{years old by the dateof offence The victimwas aged 3 years} old. P.W.2^{who is the eyewitness to the case of the prosecution was} none other than^{the own brother of the victim, who was also a minor} when he entered^{the witness boxThe learned trial Court after} satisfying itself^{with the answers given by him'recordedhis} evidence. P.W.2^{dcposed that on the fateful day thc petitioncr-}

¶29

jtrvcnilc in conflicl o[ larv took him (P.W.2) anrl his sister (thc victinr) to his house anci laid the victim on a cot and sat or) hcr and .lttclnpted to commit rape

¶30

7 So far as^(he evidencc of P.Ws. I and 3 is conccrncrl, Lheir evidcncc is onh'hcarsay and thcir evidence rclates only to [ling ol' complaint and admonishing the pctitioner for the act he <:ommittcd. Thc evidcnce o1' P.W.4 the doctor n,ho cxzrmincd the victim shou,s tllat an atlempt 10 commit rapc was made on the victim_ Tl.re cvidencc of tht: cloctor is unshakal:le. The cvider.rcc of I).W.5 thc irrvcstigating officcr is with rcgard to thc iuvestigation donc in the CTIMC

¶31

8 The evidcnce of P.W.2 is the only base for arrrving at a conclusion in the matter. His evidence clinchingly estat>lisl.rcs the faclum ol thc pctitioner si ing on the sister of p.W.2 and attempting to penetrate in furtherance of his intention to commit rape on her.

¶32

9 Thc defencc put a suggestion to p.Ws.l and 3 that because of thc sisler of the petitioner not working with the mother of thc victim and that made P.Ws.1 and 3 to lodge a false complaint against the pctitioner. The offence alleged against the petitioner was under Section 376 r /w 51 1 of IPC, which involves the futur€. and tamily reputation of the prosecutrix. For the simple reasorl that the sis[er o[ the pctitioner \ras not rrvorking u.ith the mother of the victim no

¶33

-i

¶34

¶35

prudcnt^{person woulcldarc to lodge a complainlol this heinous} nature which^{wouldinvolvethe family reputation}

¶36

10 The defence^{took a standthat the petitioncr$'as not subjected} to any potcncy^{test. But thc offence allegcdagarnst the petitioller} ^rasonlyunderScction3T6rlw5lloflPCwheretherewasno question of dcciding^{rvhether any intercoursclvas doue or whether} the FSL report^{disclosesthe presenceo[ semen on the private parts} of thc victim.^{Hence the saidcontention is worthless'}

¶37

1 1 Be forc parting^{with the findings of the cou rts bclolr', this Court} feels it apposite^{to delveinto the tegality of thc orderspassed by the} Courts below,^{which may be summarized hereunder:}

¶38

12 Admittedly,^{the petitioner herein rvas a juvenileb1' the date of} commission^{of the offence by him' But, insofar as thc procedure to} be followed^{when claim of juvenility is raisedbeforethe Court'the} Hon'ble Apex Court^{in Dharambir Vs' State {NCTof Delhi)lheld as}

¶39

foIlows

¶40

At this^{juncture, it will be prolitable to Lake note of Section7A' inserLed in} the Act of 2006^{with effcct from22-a-2OO6' It rcadsas follows:}

¶41

7-A, Proccdure^{to bc followedwhen claim of juvenilit)is raised beforearny} court.^{(l) Whenever a claimof juvenility is raisedbeforeanycot]rL or a courl} is of the opinion^{that anaccusedpersonwas a Juvcnile.onlhe date of} commissrort'of the^{offcncc,the courtshall make an cnqully' take such evidencc} a" -"y U. necessary^{(but notan atfidavit)so as to deLcrminethc age of such} p".""i, ,"a shall record^{a finding whethertheperson is a juvenile or a childor} not, stating his agc^{as nearlyasmaybe:}

¶42

Provided that a^{claim otjuvenilitymay be raised beforc any court and it shall} be rccognised at^{any stage'even aftcr firaldisposalo[ thc casc and such} .f"l- "iiuff be^{dcterminelin tcrms of the provisionscontaincdin this Acl}

¶43

'^{(2oro) 5 scc :i44}

¶44

ancl Lhc Rulcs r,r.l( tl1cr.un(lcr',⁽ vcn iI thc juvcnrlc has cc.]s.cl r() b( so ()rl ()r l)( lor a r lla a,ric ()l (ornrn(,lt( cmcnI ol Ih1s AcI

¶45

(l) ll t)rc c.)Llrr l llds a pcrson lo bc a jLlvenrle on the daLc of col]]mrssiolt ol-llte oll.ncc rrn(l(r Srrb sccli()n lll. it shall for w:rrd thc juvcrtrle rr, lhc Boirrd l()r passrrlil apl)r()pl|,rtc ordcr,:UrrJ rhe scntcnc(i, ilzrl1.,, passccl lr. ir c()Ltrt shall l)c dcr,nrcd lo hrrvc no clfect.

¶46

l3 lrurthcr, Section 2O o[ the Juvenile .Justicc (Carc zlnd Pr()tcction of Childr('n) Act, 2OO0 enables thc Court to considcr and detcrmrnc thc juvcnilitv of a pcrson even aftcr conviction by the regular Court and also cmpowers the Court, while maintaining the conviction, to set asidc the sentence imposed and forwar-d the case to thc .Juvenile .lustice Board concerned for passing scntence in ncc()rd:lncc u'ith thc provisions of the Act of 2000, which u,as not donc in thc instant case. The offence is of the year 2()O2 in w,hich \ear thc^petitioncr \'as statcd to be aged 13 years old. Norv hc must be :rged 33 years. At this stage the Court cannot set right the things w.hich u,cnt u,rong because already 20 years have gone by. No doubt, the act of thc petitioner is a heinous in nature. However, sincc he was agcd 13 ycars by the date of commtssion of the offence, he must not havc knowledge about the consequences of the crime committed by him. The petitioner had suffered an elongated litigation for all thesc ycars befor<: the trial Court, appellate Court and this Court. Hence, this Court is of the view that at this length o[ time it may not bc proper to send the petitioner to the Juvenile Justice Board to again undcrgo the trial. Even if the said action is initiated, no additional purpose would be served. Moreover, summoning the prosecutrix to Court in relation to such an offence again and again,

¶47

¶48

that too, altcr^{she becamcmajor and attalningthc agc Lo gcL} marricd, ',vould^{bringa black sPot'}

¶49

14 The Hon'blc^{Apex Court in Karan(@ Fatiya vs' The State of} Madhya Pradesh2^{u'hile relying on the decisioll o[ thc said Court in} Jitendera Singh^{(@ Babboo Singh vs' State of UttarPradesh3'} Mahesh Vs. State^{of Rajasthanaand Satya Deo(a-r BhooreyVs'}

¶50

State of Uttar^{Pradeshs as follows:}

¶51

32.^'lhe intention^{of the legislaturev''asto give benefitto a l)erson \ ho} is tleclarecl to^{be a child on the dateof thc offcnceonly rvith tcsPcctto} ,i" ".,rt"r,,"^{part. lf the conviction u'as alsoto be madeineflecti\e thetl} .'nf'r.i tf,. .iurisdiction^{of regular Scssions CourlwoLlkl} -^{ha\o b(:on} .,r-,-.rpf","lt^{excludednot only iJnderSection9 of the 20l5 n'll)ut also} Una!. S".tl""^{25 of the 2015 Act, provision rvould havelreetr made} that on a Iinding^{being recordedthat the pcrson bcing tricd is a t:hild'a} Dendins Lnal shluld ilso^{be relcgatedto the JJts and also llrat sucl.r} l,,"iruo-.,f,f be held^{to be nulland void lnstead, Under Section 25 of the} :OiS .q.,, it is^{clearly provided thatan] proceedingpendrngbeforeanl} tlo..a o.'Corat^{o., th. d"t.ofcommencementofthe 2015 Acr shall lle} ..,,-r li r.t.,.a in that^{Board or Courtas if thisActhad not been erractr:d.} Section 25^{is reproducedhereunder:}

¶52

2.5. Spccial^{provision inrcspectoI pendingcascsNotrurthstanding} o. u.,ytt-r,',-rf i.rr.ra'a "o.,iuitt.d be^{in conflict wrth in thisAcL, law all pending proceedings bcfore in any Board or resp-ectoI a child courL allegedon lhc} ao," of .o--..t"ement^{of this A;t,shall be continllcdin lhatBoard oI} court as rf this^{Act hadnotbeen enacted}

¶53

Having considered^{the statutoryprovisionslard down-in Section9} oi,fr. ZO flS Act^{and also Section7A of the 2OOO Act which is identical} to Section 9 of the^{2015Act, we areof the view that mcrits of the} ,rl.rrri.tion could^{be tested and the convictionrvhich qas recordcd} cannot be held^{to be vitiated in law merely becauscthe inqlliry u'as not} .orlJ"o.O by^{JJB. ltis onlythe question of sentence for rvhrch the} p.orri".rr" oi tt-r.2Ot5^{Act woutdbe attractedand any senlencein} !*."s" of^{t'hat is permissibleunder the 2015Act will have tobe} alcordingly amendei^{as per the provisionsof the 2015ActOtherwise'} it.r" n..r""ia^{who has committed a heinous offence and who did not} claim^{juvenilitybeforethe TrialCourt wouldbe alLorved to go scot frec'} This ii also not^{the object and intentionprovided in the 2015 Act The} otject unaer the^{2015Actdeating with the rights.and liberties of the} ftrlrenit.^{is onlyto ensure thatif he or shecouldbe brought into the}

¶54

r 20ll l.ivet-aw (SC) 159

¶55

t (zot'i) t t scc tq:

¶56

'(20t8)^{scc onLine sc 3655}

¶57

'(2020)^{lo scc555}

¶58

lJi

¶59

marD strearn tN ilrverrrliDg lessel- scntcnce and also clirccting for.)ther lacrlrLres ibr rrellirre ol thc -;uvcr-tilt in conflict rr-ith lar,. durirg hls stav in irnr ol thc rnsl itutiolrs^(lefined urlder the 2015 Act.

¶60

3.1 In^grcrr'ol rh( abo'.i discussion iind the position in lar'., as l;ricl rlor(rr b-'tl)e albl-csaid^judgnrerts and rnan-, others referred to in the abo!,e iudqrner)ts.^{\e al)prove the vie\lakenby} this^Courtin lhe^{case oI} .Jrtcrl(lrir SiDlth^(sLlprirl. i\4aheslr (sLrl)ra) and Satla Deo (supra).

¶61

35 For ;rll llre rcasorts recordecl alrove. it is ordered as follows

¶62

Thc con-icll()n oI thc Appellant is upheld; how<rver, L]rt: senrencc is set;rsicl'. FLlrthcr as the Appcllant at prescnt rvotrld bc morc tlran 2O -\cilrs old, tllerc u,oul<l be no lequirement of sendlng him to lhc.l.lts or art\ othcr child care facilitl, or institution. Appellant is in judicral cuslocJr'. Hc shall be rcleased forthwith. TI.re impugnecl judgnrent sl.rall stand ntodified to the aforesaid extent."

¶63

l5 Therclorc and having resard to the circumstance s ol the casc ernd in the light ol thc principle enunciated in the case citcd supr.l, whilc maintzrining the convicLion imposed by the Courts bclow, this Court is inclined. to impose the following punishment upon thc petitioncr frrr thi' ol-fcr.rcc punishable under Section 376 r lu' 51 I ol IPC instcacl of scnlcncing him to be sent to Special Home for serving the remaining scn tcnce.

¶64

16 Taking notc o[ the lact that the juvenile is now aged 33 years and gainfully enployed he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5O,00O/u,ithin three months from today. The said hne amount is ordered to be paid to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority under dr-re acknowledgemenl. In default, he shall render community service in Kaldurki village gram panchayat commencing from 24.O7 .2023 for six months.

¶65

¶66

accordinglY^dismissed 17 The^{CriminalRevision CaseIs} Misce':rncous^{petitionsit any pending in this criminal re'isroncasc}

¶67

shall sLand^closed

¶68

//TRUE^COPY//

¶69

sd/-^{K. SAILE-S.HI} ,/ DEPUTY^REGISTRAR a

¶70

secirbu^oFFlcER

¶71