Dismissed

The State of Telangana Rep Pp., v. Pagila Nagaraju, Dornakal Mandal.

Telangana HC20 Nov 2025CRLA/1009/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the State's criminal appeal against acquittal. The court held that the prosecution failed to conduct a medical ossification test to prove the victim's age. Applying principles from Supreme Court precedents, it found no 'very substantial and compelling reasons' to disturb the trial court's decision acquitting the accused.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed by the State is dismissed and the judgment acquitting the respondent is upheld.

The State of Telangana Rep Pp., Vs Pagila… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ I

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: {009 OF 2017

¶7

Appeal under Section 378(3) & (1) of Cr.P.C., against the iudgment^dated 31.10.2016^passed in Spl.SC.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the^{Special Judge for} Trail of Cases Under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences^{Act cumI} Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP PP.,, rep. by the Public Prosecutor,^H(7h Court at Hyderabad.

¶10

...APELLANT'COM P LAI N^AN T

¶11

AND

¶12

PAGILA NAGARAJU, DORNAKAL MANDAL.,, S/o. Yellaiah, Chakali,^R/o Thogellagudem of Dornakal Mandal.

¶13

...RESPODENT'ACCUSED

¶14

Gounsel for the Appellant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI P PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶16

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENMS RAO _

¶18

cRIMINAI, APPEAL No.l009 of20l7 .

¶19

ORI)ER:

¶20

llhis Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State aggrieved by the Judgment passed in Spl.SC.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Special Judge for trail of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offenc,:s Act - cum - lst Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal (.trial Court' for brevity) dated 31.10.2016 whereunder the respondentaccusql was acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 420, 366 and 376(2XiXn) of the Indian Penal Code ('tPC' for brevity) and Section 5O(ii) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ('POCSO' Act for brevity).

¶21

I{eard Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant^public Prosecutor appearing for appellant/State and Sri B.Chennaiah, leamed counsel appearing for Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, leamed counsel for respondent/accused.

¶22

3 cts of the case:

¶23

3.1.^'fhe case of the prosecution is that the victim was a minor aged

¶24

only 14 years old at the time of incident. The accused, who was the

¶25

¶26

T:II

¶27

E* $ g ::

i* t

i. :

mElxEnEl'e' -,EF_'

victimclassmate,selderbrother,devetopedanintimaterelationship withthevictimandmadeafalsepromiseofmarriage.Approximately ten months^{prior to the complaint,the accusedallegedly had forcible} "f sexualintercoursewiththevictimatherhome'l-ater'on07'12'2013' theaccusedtookthevictimtoHyderabad,confinedherinarented house,^{and the victim conceived. when the victim expressed her desire} to see her^{mother, the accused calted her motherand when they came to} the house,^{the accused fledaway and the victim was brought to the} house of^her Parents'

¶32

4.LearnedAssistantPubticProsecutorsubmitsthatthetrialCourt

¶33

withoutproperlyappreciatingtheoralanddocumentaryevidence adducedbytheprosecutioneroneouslyacquiuedtheaccusedforthe offencesunderSection420,366and376(2)(i)(n)ofthetPCandSection 50xii)^{read with Section6 of POCSO Acl He further submittedthat} prosecution^{proved the offences againstthe accusedby producingthe} evidence.^{He further submitted that trial court has failed to consider} the evidence^{of PW 8 and 9 who are Headmaster and Head Mistress of} MPPS,Kannegundlawhospecificallystatedthatvictimwasminoras on the^{date of alleged incident.The prosecution also filed documentary}

¶34

¶35

¶36

evidence, i.e., exhibit P5, P6 P7.^{The said documents clearly prove that} victim vras minor as on the date of alleged^{incident.The trial Court} without considering the exhibits^{P4 to P6 and evidenceof PW8 and 9} came to a conclusion that the^{prosecutionhas not taken steps to send the} victim girl to medical examination as^{required. The accused with a} dishonest intention committed the offence^{under Section376.Hence,} the impr"rgned^{judgmentpassed} by the^{learned trial Courtis liable to be} set aside and the accused is^{liable to be convictedfor the above said} offencerr

¶37

I'er contra, learned counsel^{appearingon behalf of accused} veheme'ntly contended that the trial Court^{after evaluating the oral and} documt:ntary evidence adduced by the^{prosecutionrightly came to} conclusrion that prosecution failed to^{prove the offenceswhich were} alleged against the accused. He^further submitted^{that accusedand} victim fell into love and their marriage was solemnized^{and they were} blesseii with one child and they are living happily.^{PW2 lodged} complaint against the accused only on the ground that accused^and PWI perfonned their marriage without her consent. He further submitted that as on the date of their marriage PWI victim was major. The trial

¶38

¶39

Court rightly passed the impugned^{judgment acquittingthe accusedfor} the above said offence by^giving cogent^{and there are no grounds to} interfere with the impugned^{judgmentpassed by the trial Court.}

¶40

Having considered the rival submissions^made by^respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it^reveals that on 07.12.2013, PWI left the house of^{PW2 and thereafter PW2} lodged complaint on 21.08.2014, after lapse of^{long period} of^eight months from the date of missing of her minor^{daughter.The impugned} judgment further reveals that accused and PWI are living together and they were blessed with female child.^{Thecase of the prosecution that as} on the date of offbnce, PWI is minor and^{the accused with a dishonest} intention taken PWt and committed the offence^{under Section 376 is} concerned the prosecution has failed to^{prove the same except relyng} upon the deposition of PW8 and 9 and exhibit^{P4 and P5. However, the} trial Court has rightly came to conclusion^{that the prosecution has failed} to take ne@ssary steps in subjecting^{victim to age determinationtest.}

¶41

The Hon'bte Apex Court in P.Yuvaprakash^Vs., Sttte Rep. by Inspector of Policet by retying upon the principte laid down^by

¶42

| 2023 SCC OnLine 846 qrl .,:h--

¶43

¶44

I II! I at, a 4 F 1

¶45

Hon'blc Apex Court in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. The State of uttar Pradesth, held that under clause (i) of Section g4(z) in the absence of date of birth certificate issued by the competent authorities age has to be determined by the Medical ossification test. In the case on hand, the prosecution has not taken steps for conducting medical examination test to prove the victim as minor as on.the date of alleged incident. Even according to prosecution, it is not in dispute that the pwl victim and accusec[ are living together and they are blessed with female child. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accuseclbasing on the instructions furnished by the accused submits that the accused and victim Pwl are living together as wife and husband.

¶46

I:r cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble supreme court in Ravi sharma v- state' (Government of NCT of Delhi) and onothef, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed,. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour,f the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow

¶47

in reversin&rsorder of the trial court rendering acquittal.

¶48

' IZOZZ'18^{SupremeCourt Cases} 536

¶49

¶50

g. ln Ghurey Lal v. State of Uaar Pradesh3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several^{Judgments regarding the settled} principtes of law and the powers of appellate Court in^{reversing the} order of acquittal, held atpara 70,^{as follows:}

¶51

"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the^{well-settledprinciples} crystallized by number of Judgments d tt is^{going to} ovemtle or otherwtse disturb the trial court's^acquittal:

¶52

I. The appellate court may only overrule^or otherwise disturb the trial court's^acquittal d^{it has "very} substantial and compelling^reasons" for^doingso.

¶53

A number of instances arise in^{which the appellate} cottrt would have^"very substantial^{and compelling} reasons" to discard the trial court's decision.^"Very substantial and compelling reasons"^{exist when:}

¶54

i) The trial court's conclusion^{with regard to the} facts is palpably wrong:

¶55

ii) The trial court's decision was based on^an etroneous view of law;

¶56

iii) The trial court's^judgment is likely to^{result in "grave} miscarriage ofj us tice^" ;

¶57

w) 7h" entire approach of^the trial^{court in dealing with} the svidence^{waspatentlyillegal;}

¶58

u) The trial court's^{judgmentwas manifestly uniust and} unreasonable;

¶59

3 (ZOO8) l0 Supreme Court Cases 45

¶60

¶61

¶62

! I i I I I I I I III I a I I

¶63

vi) The trial^{court has ignored the evidenceor misread} thematerialevidenceorhasignoredmaterialdocuments lil<edyingdeclarations/reportoftheballisticexpert,etc.

¶64

vit)Thislistisintendedtobeillustrative,notexhaustive.

¶65

The appellate^{court mustalways give proper weight and} consideration^{o thefindingsof the trial court'}

¶66

If two^{reasonableviews can be reached onethat leadsto} acquittal, the^{other to conviction the High Courts/appellate} courts^{must rule infouour of the accltsed'"}

¶67

For the^{foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any groundto}

¶68

inrerfere with^{the well consideredjudgment passedby the trial Court'}

¶69

I l. Accordingly,^{the Criminal Appeal is dismissed'}

¶70

Miscellaneousapplications,pendingifany'shallstandclosed'

¶71

sd/- L.^{LAKSHMI BABU} REGISTRAR

¶72

,/TR,UE^COPY" N OFFICER

¶73

To,

¶74

l.TheSpecialJudgeforTrailofcasesUnderProtectionofChildrenFromS ex u a^r or"n^{JJr' ffi,ilf' il d itd;l s essio n s J u ds e, w a ra ns a I'} 2. The^{station noJJ" 5tri""r, porice'iiailon, Dornakal,warangalDistrict'} 3. Two^{CCs to tne-i-UaUieenOSFCtiiOC;High Court at Hvderabad' (OUT)} 4.orulCCtoSRI.p-p-nnel{AlGRREDDYAdvocate[oPUC]

¶75