Allowed

Sandruka Mallappa , v. State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC2 Sept 2024CRLRC/775/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding conviction for outrage of modesty, the High Court found the prosecution failed to prove injuries or the existence of torn clothes mentioned by the victim. The court extended benefit of doubt and set aside the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Conviction imposed by Assistant Sessions Judge and confirmed by District and Sessions Judge is set aside and Criminal Revision Case is allowed.

Sandruka Mallappa , Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated.13.O4.201O in Crl.RC.M.P.No.1136 of 20iO in Crl.R.C No.775 of 2010.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COI'RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISIO N CASE NO: 775 OF 2010

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment d1.12.04.2010,passed by the lV Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Mahabubnagar in Crl.A.No.14l of 2008, confirming the Judgment dt 05.09.2008, of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, in S.C.No.789 of 2OO7

¶8

Between:

¶9

-SINDBU_liA^{MALLAPPA,S/o. Sayappa, R/o. Laxmipatty Vittage, Kodangat} Mandal. Mahabubnagar District.

¶10

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACC USED

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF A P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶15

:SRI PUSHADAPU SUBBA RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

¶17

The Court made the following

¶18

: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISIOil CASE No.775 OF 2O1O

¶20

OITDER:

¶21

This Crimina.l Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated l2.O4.2OlO, in Crl.A.No. 141 of 2008, on the file of the IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, whereunder the judgment dated O5.O9.2O08 in S.C.No.789 of 2OO7, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, was confirmed.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. Perused the record.

¶23

The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine amount of Rs. I,O0O/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶24

The case of PWI is that around O2.OO p.m., on the date of incident i.e., on O1.10.2017, the accused went near her while she was in the lields and asked her to come near him. When she refused, the accused dragged her into red gram fields and fell on her. As a result, her black beads chain was broken and it fell on

¶25

¶26

KS,J Crl.R.C.No.775 of 2010

¶27

the ground. As she raised cries, other witnesses catne there and on seeking them, the accused ran away. Thereafter, around 05.30 p.m., a complaint has been lodged alleging that the accused tried to commit rape.

¶28

On the basis of written statement of witnesses, charges were framed against the accused under Section 354 of IPC.

¶29

The trial Court relying upon tJre evidence of victim girl/Pwl and mother of the victim gbllPW2, found that the accused has outraged modesty of PW1 and accordingly convicted him for the offence under Section 354 of IPC.

¶30

In the appeal, learned Sessions Judge found favour with the version given by PW l/victim girl and oonfirmed the conviction as recorded by the trial Judge.

¶31

Learned counsel appearin$ for the accused would submit that there were differences between the families of the accused and PWl and also there were monitory transactions between them. According to evidence of P\M 1 and PW2, there^were differences when there were sarpanch elections. Further,^{PW I} specifically stated that her black beads chain, which^{was broken} in the incident, was handed over to the police.^{However, the}

¶32

¶33

KS,J Crl.R.C.No.775 of 2010

¶34

Investigation OIIlcer specifically stated that no such items were handed over to him when the incident has taken place.

¶35

karned counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Babu Stngh o. State of PrtnJabr and argued that the suspicion however strong, cannot take place of proof.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that though there are discrepancies in between the statements of the witnesses, such minor discrepancies cannot form basis to conclude that the accused was falsely implicated when the statement of the victim girl is convincing.

¶37

Having gone through the record, PWl specifically stated that she handed over her black beads chain and also torn clothes to the police. However, PW7/lnvestigation Officer stated that neither torn clothes nor any btack beads chain was handed over to him. Further, he also admitted that no injuries were found on PWl's body.

¶38

When it is specific case of PWI that she had received injuries on her body and also her clothes were torn at the time of incident, then it is for the prosecution to prove the same. In fact, the

¶39

t 1964 (1) Crt.L.J. 566

¶40

¶41

¶42

KS,J Crl.R.C.No.775 of2010

¶43

evidence of PW7 / Investigation Officer is contrary to what PWl has stated regarding injuries and also clothes being handed over to him.

¶44

It is admitted in the cross-examination by PW1 that there were differences that arose at the time of sarpanch elections and that her father has taken loans of Rs.2O,OOO l- and Rs.10,000/from the accused and one Shivappa. The version of accused that not to repayment of loan amounts, a false complaint was filed against him, cannot be accepted.

¶45

The prosecution has not proved the injuries received by PWl and also acts of the appellant at the time of incident, which resulted in broken black beads chain and torn clothes of PWl. The version of PWI is falsified by PW7 / Investigating Officer.

¶46

In the background of differences in between the parties and also the prosecution not being able to prove the alleged injuries and other seizures, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

¶47

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in S.C.No.7B9 of 2OO7, dated 05.O9.2O08 and as confirmed by the IVAdditional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),

¶48

¶49

KS,J Crl.R.C.No.775 of 2010

¶50

Mahabubnagar in Crl.A.No. 141 of 2008, dated 12.04.2010, is set

¶51

aside.

¶52

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shatl stand closed.

¶53

Sd/- T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE ON OFFICER

To,

The Court of the lV Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Mahabubnagar

¶59

The Court ofthe Assistant Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, Mahabubanagar.

¶60

I i i I I I I i i

¶61

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at HyderabadlOUI.

¶62

One CC to SRl. PUSHADAPU SUBBA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

Two CD Copies

Pcr;d/ghrr

HIGH COURT

D/\TED:0210912024

OIlDER

s S TA r
1 o^
((
f,
(-) 0e 0EI I02 4
,.<br>.oE.s pAT c

¶69

CRLRC.No.775 of 2010

¶70

AI.LOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶71

s,#L tr"

Sandruka Mallappa , v. State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandruka Mallappa , v. State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Polisetty Arogyamery and 4 Others

Muppidiwar Pandari and Another Vs Sri Ahmed and 3 Others

Yedugani Somalingam Vs G.Raghava Reddy

P.Surya Narayana Raju Vs Bramhandabheri Suchitra

B.Madhu Kumar Vs Annapureddy Eswari and Anr.

Bharathi Axa General Insuracne Company Vs Sabavathi Buri Bai and Another