Allowed

Sunkaraboina Sreeshailam, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., Trhgh Sho., Ps., Kattang

Telangana HC14 Aug 2024CRLRC/1726/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under IPC Sections 376 and 307, the High Court set aside the conviction of the accused and acquitted him due to the victim's conflicting testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence, finding the prosecution case untenable.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 14.11.2009 convicting the appellant under IPC Sections 376 and 307 is set aside and the accused is acquitted.

Sunkaraboina Sreeshailam, Vs the State of Ap Rep… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the orderof the High Court dated-24.09.2010, in Crl.RC.M.P.No. 2517 of 2010,in Crl.R.C No. 1726 of 2O1O.

¶3

[³²⁵¹ I

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST . TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYFOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENOER

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1726 OF 2010

¶9

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 (1) & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 14.11 .2009 made in Crl.A. No. 1 20 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court,-cum- Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda Preferred against the Order passed in S.C. No. 496 of 2007, dated. 18.07.2008 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Nalgonda. Between:

¶10

Sunkaraboina Sreeshailam, S/o Yellaiah, Agriculture, Muthyalammaguda Village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶11

...REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of AP rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, through SHO., PS., Kattangur Mandal, Nallgonda District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel forthe Petitioner : SRI.J U MVPRASAD

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following:

5'i &:l

-7

THE HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASE No.l726OF 2O1O}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The revision petitiorrer^{was tried for the offence under} Sections 376 and 307 ofthe^{IndianPenal Code.}

¶25

The case of PW. l-victim^{is that on the date of incident at} about 2:30 p.m. when^{she was in her house,the accused went to} her house, caught hold^{of her, dragged her into the room, and} thrown her on the^{ground' He further caught hold of her breast} and fisted. on her tip.^{The accused also gagged cloth in her mouth} and committed rape^{on her after removing her clothes.After} completing the act o[^{intercourse,the accusedthreatened the} victim with an axe to^{kilt her' She shoutedfor help. Her sister's} son, Shankaraiah-PW.3^{and PW.S-Krishnaiahalong with PW'2-} Kalamma and^{PW.4-Linga Swamywent there' On seeking them,} the accused fled. Thereafter,^{PW. 1 went to the PoliceStationand} filed comptaint which^{is Ex.Pl' PW.4-sister's son is not examined'} The Police during investigation^{sent PW. 1 for the purposeof} examination by the^{doctor-PW.9. PW.9-doctor found four injuries} on the victim-PW. 1 which^are;

¶26

i) Contusion on both lips^{measuring3 X 3}

¶27

ii) Contusion on both thighs^{measuring3 X 3}

¶28

¶29

iii) Fresh tear of^{vaginal orifices at 6'0 clock position}

¶30

iv) Fracture of ribs^{of 7} to^{9 on right side.}

¶31

During the course of trial,^{PW. 1} in^{her chief-examination} narrated the incident^{and altegedthat the accusedcommittedrape} on her ald with M.O.1-Axe^{the accused threatened her. Itis} further stated that her^{son and the accused are good friends.} During the course of cross-examination,^{she stated that she} received injuries as^{she fell on the stones nearby. The said} version was^given by her^{20 days after the chief-examination and} further cross examined on^{the reca-ll application liled by the} accused. The trial Court convicted^{the accusedboth under} Sections 376 and 307 of^{the Indian Penal Code. In appeal, the} learned Sessions Judge^{found that in view of the statement of the} victim regarding the injuries,^{accused was acquitted underSection} 3O7 of the Indian Penal^{Code, however,the convictionunder} Section 376 ofIPC^{was maintained.}

¶32

The learned Counsel appearing^{for the revision petitioner} would submit that the^{victimherselfhad statedthat-she received} injuries on account of fall^{on the stones.She was aged6O years,} as such, the question of committing^{rape on PW.1 does not arise.} The said version of PW.1 is not supported^{by medicalevidence.}

i,i

, ..1 J^r,l .,

The doctor did not give positive opinion regarding rape being committed and only stated that rape could not be ruled out. When the evidence of Doctor itself is doubtful and PW. t has stated two different versions, one in chief-examination and other in crossexamination, her evidence cannot be believed. Once her evidence is disbelieved, there is no other corroboration either from the Doctor or any other witnesses PWs.2 to 5. For the said reason the conviction of the Courts below has to be reversed.

¶37

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the hostility of PW. 1 was in the cross-examination which was permitted nearly 25 years after chief-examination. The reason is that she was won over during the said time. Since injuries were found on the victim and the doctor stated that rape cannot be ruled out, the finding by the Sessions Court has to be upheld.

¶38

. .:,i .. ;

¶39

PW.t had initially stated that she was raped by the accused and thereafter when recalled for cross-examination, she resiled from her earlier version of committing rape and beating and stated that injuries that were received were on account of falling on the ground. PW. I herself admitted that what she stated in the chiefexamination was incorrect. PW. I is a self-condemned witness. In view of her dual version regarding the incident, the Court has to

¶40

¶41

:. ;i;

¶42

look into whether there is any corroborating evidence regarding the version given by PW. 1. According to PW. 1, PWs.2 and 3 were eye-witnesses to the incident and PWs.4 arrd 5 arrived immediately after the incident. On seeing PWs.2 to 5, the accused fled. In fact, a-11 the witnesses PWs.2 to 5 turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW.4 is the son of victim-PW. 1. PW.t herself stated that the cause of injuries was not the alleged assault or attack by PW. 1. The injuries, according to the prosecution case ware subsequent to the rape committed and in order to threaten PW. 1 such injuries were caused. The Sessions Court has disbelieved the version of beating PW. 1. The substratum of the prosecution case itself is disbelieved. The case cannot be accepted in parts or partially, when the case itself is that rape was committed and subsequently beaten up, the Court cannot conclude that she was not beaten up. But, as stated initially she was raped. As already discussed, there is no corroboration either through the evidence of doctor, FSL report or the witnesses who are alleged eye-witnesses to the incident. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to the accused.

¶43

Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case stands allowed setting aside the Judgment dated 14.11.2009, passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge,

.i, l{ ;.E .:

: ,,:

a :;:

]

Nalgonda, 1n Crl.A.No.l2Ol2OOB and the Revision petitioner 1S

acquitted.

.il
,

I
To,

sd/- DEPUTYT. KRts Hulrurvran REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPYII
SECTION OFFICER
To,
I
1
Jl;',0,.,r, Magistrate of First class, Nakrekat, Nargonda. (with records if
2 The Judge, Family Cor
Nalgondal --'rrt'-cum- Addl. Dist. and sessions Judge, at
3
I* f::':::1._"ssions Judse at Natsonda.
5. r ne supenntendent, Charlapafly .lait,"n.n.tistrict
6. lhe Station House officer x"ttr"gu b;ri;""ilffir, Nalgonda.
,iy."":,?:l: A',? c Prosecutor, Hisi co,.t iolilt,'u.u or rerangana at
7. One CC to SRt. J U nll V pr
B
IASAD Advocate IoPUC]
n h two cD copies

j
t
r
.t

HIGH COURT

DATED:.1410812024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1726 of 2010

¶64

+
lHE S 1dlt
q
:!
.) 0 2 ull 625
t
o65p116ur a

¶65

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶66

,I'teYo:['t<' \o^Ccqr;-05'

Sunkaraboina Sreeshailam, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., Trhgh Sho., Ps., Kattang

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunkaraboina Sreeshailam, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., Trhgh Sho., Ps., Kattang

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

Mr. Sushil Mehta, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Narayana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gajjala Konda Reddy and Another Vs Mrs. Ravi Sarojini and Another

K.Manohar Reddy Vs the State of Ap., and Another

Nimmakanti Kanukaiah, Warangal Dist. Vs v. Ramesh, Warangal Dist., and Ano.

United India Insurance Company Vs Pitla Balraju and 4 Ors.