Partly allowed

Gotte Srinivas v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Feb 2025CRLA/1480/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals by two accused convicted of gang rape, videographed by a juvenile, under IPC provisions, IT Act and SC/ST (POA) Act. The High Court upheld rape convictions relying on victim's evidence and un-tampered video, but set aside the Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act conviction for want of caste-based motive, partly allowing the appeals.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gotte Srinivas Vs State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Bail Slip No. I : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 23.11.2022 in l.A.No. 2 of 2O22 in Crl.A. No. 1468 of 2017.

¶3

Bail Slip No. 2 : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 11.10.2022 in l.A.No. 1ot 2021 in Crl.A. No. 1480 of 2017.

¶4

[^341s ]

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶6

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1468 & 1480 OF 2017

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1468 OF 2017

¶11

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 09.06.2017 passed in Special Sessions case No.29 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs (POA) Act-Cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

¶12

Between:

¶13

'-L

¶14

Muddam Anj3iah @ Anjanna, S/o. M. Rajaiah, Waddera Caste, R/o. Kalwala Village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimangar District.

¶15

...AppellanUAccused No.2

¶16

AND

¶17

STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶18

...Respondents/Complainant

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. G Ruthwik Reddy

¶20

Counsel for tlie Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1480 OF 2017

¶22

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C., i,rgainst the Judgment dated 09.06.2017 passed in Special Sessions case No.29 of 11016 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences ur rder SCs/STs (POA) Act-Cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

¶23

Between:

¶24

Gotte Srinivas, S/o Komuraiah, aged 22 yrs, Mala(SC) f:Vo Amudalapalli (V) Shankarapatnam [Vandal, Karimnagar District.

¶25

Appe llanUAccused No. 1

¶26

AND

¶27

STATE OF TELANGANA, Represented by its Public Prosecrrtor, High COurt at Hyderabad.

¶28

...Resporrdents/Complainant

¶29

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. Ponnam Ashok Goud

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla Additir:rnal Public Prosecutor

¶31

The Court delivered the following:

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HOIT'BLE SHRI JuSTTCE ANTL KT'MAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1468 AND L480 0F 2017

¶33

COMMON JUDGMENTi (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

¶34

Crl.A.No.148O of 2OlZ is frled by appellant/accused No. 1 and Crt.A.No.1468 of 2OtZ is filed by appellant/accused No.2. Both the appellants/accused Nos.l and 2 were convicted for the offences under Sections 366, 376-D, 342, 354-C and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 1pC,) and Section 66 (E) of Information Technologr (Amendments) Act, 20Og (for short, 'I.T. Act). Further, the appellant/accused No.2 was convicted for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled. Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶35

PW. 1 is tfe victim. According to her, she knew the appellant/-accused No.1 who was attending the coaching camp at Veenavanka. The appellant/accused No.2 and another boy, Rakesh (since he was a juvenile, he was tried by the Juvenile Court) also had acquaintance with pW. 1.

¶36

¶37

KS,J&JIK,J Crl.A.Ni s.1468 & 1480 2017

¶38

¶39

On 02.02.2016, PW. 1 joined the coachinp camp for recruitment to the post of Police Constable at .reenavanka. PW. 1 used to go to the coaching callp alorg with one Rajitha (PW.2), who also joined the coaching camp. The appellant/accused No.2 used to call on the mobile phone of PW. 1 , arrd thereafter, appellant No. 1 a; so started messaging PW. 1. On tO.O2.2Ol6, both pW. I end Rajitha went to the Bus Stand of Veenavanka to go to J ammikunta for purchasing books. While they were waiti ng for bus, appellant No.1 went on his motorcycle and offe red them to come with him. Appellant No.l took pWs.1 and 2 on his motorcycle. On the way, appellant No. I proceerted towards Huzurabad. Meanwhile, appellant No.2 and the other juvenile delinquent followed on another vehi,:le. When appellant No.1 stopped the vehicle, pW.2 got dc,wn and left by taking a lift. Appellant No. 1 then forcibly miLde pW. I to sit on his vehicle, took her to Kachapur, had Te:L there, and then proceeded to the hillocks while making phrne calls to appellant- No.2. Appellant No.2 followed the apl,ellalt No.1 arrd PW. 1, and all of them reached the Kachal,ur hillocks at about 153O hours, which is at a distarrce of 6yz kilometers from Veenavanka. There the appellan ts/accused

¶40

KS,J&JAKJ Crl.A.Nos.l468 & 1480 2017

¶41

¶42

Nos.l and 2 forcibly committed rape on pW. 1. The act of appellant Nos.l and 2 raping pW.1 was videographed by the juvenile delinquent, despite pW. l-shouting for help. Both the appellants threatened that they would exhibit the video to everyone if PW. I disclosed the matter to anyone.

¶43

On the next day, PW. 1 informed her mother that she was going to coaching classes. However, she went to her maternal grandmother's house at Godavarikhani. As she remained silent, her uncle questioned the reason for her silence. PW. I informed that the appellant Nos. I and, 2 committed rape on her and that another juvenile, named Rakesh, recorded a video. Appellalt No.2 sent a message to PW. 1, asking her to meet him. The message was shown to. her maternal Uncle - PW.4 and his wife. Her maternal uncle and others trapped appellant No.2 and caught hold of him. On the same day, a complaint was lodged with the police, which is Ex.Pl. The police took pW. 1 to the Government Hospital, where she was examined. The cell phone of PW. 1 was seized a_long with her wearing apparel. The investigating officer - PW.21 took up the investigation

¶44

KS,J&JAKJ CrLLN s.1468 & 1480²⁰¹⁷

¶45

¶46

on 25.02.2076. He went to the^scene of^{offe nce, drew a} rough sketch, and also recorded the statement^{cf PW.2.}

¶47

On 27.02.2016, Rakesh was arrested and a 4GB Micro Memory Card was seized from his posseiision. Since he was a juvenile, he was produced before^i.he Juvenile Court at Karimnagar. Meanwhile, PW.il 1^received information regarding appellant Nos.1 and 2 undergoing treatment at MGM Hospital, Warangal. He went to the Hospital ald arrested both appellants.

¶48

The Memory Card of Rakesh was sent to ,he Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for the purpose of t xamination. In the FSL report - Ex.P26, it was opined that the obscene video footage found in the Memory Card of Rakesh was neither tampered with nor morphed. Further, the^persons present in the video were identified as appellarrts/accused Nos.1 ald 2 and the victim - PW. 1

¶49

The police, having concluded the investigi rtion, frled a charge sheet in Crime No.33 of 2076 for the offi:nces under Sections 842, 354-C, 366, 376-D and 5O6 rearl with 34 of

¶50

KS, ,I &JAK, J Crl.A.Nos.l46E & 1460 2017

¶51

¶52

IPC and Section 66 (E) of I.T. Amendment Act, 2OO8 against appellarrt No.l, and against appellant No.2 for the offences under Sections 342, 354-C, S6O, SZO-O and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 66 (E) of I.T. Amendment Act, 2008.

¶53

The learned Sessions Judge mainly placed reliance on the evidence of PW. 1, the video footage, which was ser:ed from the mobile phone of Rakesh, and the FSL report - Ex.P26, which clearly establishe that the appellants, the juvenile, and the victim PW. 1 were present in the video.

¶54

Heard learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.l and 2, and Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶55

9 . The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants are as follows:

¶56

1 .^'AIl the witnesses are interested witnesses and

¶57

there is no independent corroboration of the version of PW. 1.

¶58

KS.J&JAK,J Crl.A.N s.1468 & 1480 2017

¶59

¶60

¶61

1. There is^{adelay of 15 days} lodging the .^{complaint, and there is no convincing explanation} as to why the^{delaYoccurred.''}

¶62

Though it is^{stated thatPW. 1informed the} incident to her^{parentsartd maternaluncle, no} steps were taken^{for a period of l5 dayr;.}

¶63

Assuming that there^{was any sexua activity, it} was consensual as far^{as the question} 'lf^attracting the offence of raPe^{is concerned.}

¶64

So far as the^{appellant No-2 is concerned,the} conviction under Section^{3(2)(v) of SCr;/STs(POA)} Amendment Act, 2015, cannot^{sustain since there} is no allegation that the^{act of allegedrape was} committed on the^{groundthat the vic tim belongs} to the SC or ST^caste.

¶65

Learned counsel for the appellants^{relie 1 upon the} judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asharfi o. State of llttar Pradeshl, wherein, at paragrap ir Nos.5 and

¶66

6, it was held as follows:

¶67

t lzorzy tz s.c.R. 128

¶68

KS, J &JAK, J Crl.A.Nos.l468 & ta\l 2017

¶69

¶70

11:-..^{In_ respect of the offence under} Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST prevention of atrocities e"tl tfr" appellant had been sentenced to Ufe impriso.-.rt. The, grav€unen ofSection stz1"i ii--- S;)sr Prevention of Atrocities nct is thai';, .;;;"., envisaged under Indian penal Code p,rl"t"Uf .-*itf, imprisonment for a term of ten years ;-;;.., 1C"i.":l - 1^{personbelongin"g -S.ir"I"i"a} Caste/Scheduled Tribe, shorita" fr"rr.^-- il", committed_ on tJle ground that ,,such p.."o, i" " member of a Scheduled Caste o. . S"fre'autJ fiUe o,r such property belongs to such member,,. p.lo. to rne Amendment Act I of 201 6, the words used in Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST prevenil,on of Atrocities Act are^,,......on the ground tt"i "r_,"f, Person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe".

¶71

9..^{Section3(2)(v)ofthe SC/ST prevention} of Atrocities Act has now been amended tV JJ". "f Amendment Act I of 2016. By *ay oi-tti" amendment, the words^,,,... . ..on ti" gror.ra tfr"t such person is a member of a Schedul# c".i. o. " Scheduled Tribe,' have been substitui.a-*itt^'tf," *rd," " .: . _ knowing that such p.."o.,^*i" " member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,,. Therefore, if_ subsequent to 26.0 t.2O I 6 1i. ".1f,"- a"y on which the amendment carne into effectl al offence under Indian penal Coae wfiictr' is punishable with imprisonment for . te.m o1 ten yeErrs or more, is committed upon a victim who belongs-'to SC/ST communit5z arrd the accused l.^.:9:^{hab knowledge that sulh victim} beiongs to 3(2)(v) :9^1.SI of^cornmunit5r, SC/ST prevention^{then the} of "t.rg. atro-cities a"t^oiS.Etio., - i" attracted. Thus, after the amendment, -.r" knowledge of the accused that th.;;;";; ;;;" whom tAe offence is committed belongs to SCTsr community suflices to bring home the ch#ge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST pr."..,tio., of Atrocities Act.

¶72

--l

¶73

KS. J &JAK Crl-A.N,'s.1468 & 1480²⁰¹⁷ 8

¶74

The video footage recorded by^{Rakesh, as viewed by} the Court below, clea-rly indicated that the^{si:xual act of} appellalts/accused Nos. 1 and 2 was not^{conr;ensual and} that PW. 1 was raped. The frnding of the^{learrred Sessions} Judge cannot be found fault with. It is apparr:nt from^the evidence of PW. 1 that the acts committed by^the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 were against her^consent and were done forcibly.

¶75

Learned counsel for the appellants trieil to impress upon this Court that the version given by PW. 1^was developed at a later stage and is contradictory to what was stated in the complaint . and in her stateme nt recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the evidence of PW. 19Magistrate, who recorded PW. 1's 164 Cr.P.C statement, certain admissions were made regarding the manner in which the appellarts and PW. 1 travelled to the^place where the incident occurred. Though in the complaint, it was stated t-hat appellant No.2 and the^juvenile trrrvelled on a different bike, however, in the statement recorded under Section t-64 Cr.P.C., PW.1 stated that they,rent on the

¶76

KS,JAJAK,J Crl A Nos.l468 & 1180 2017

¶77

¶78

same bike. Furthermore, in her statement recorded under Section ,164 Cr.P.C., PW. 1 stated that after the incident, she was talen by the juvenile delinquent, Rakesh, and he dropped her at Ankoospally Village, whereas in the complaint, it was mentioned that she was left at the scene arrd the appellants and the juvenile fled.

¶79

I 3. In the said statement made before the Magistrate, though there appears to be a slight variation, the manner in which the events were narrated by PWs. I and 2, does not have any impact on the allegation of rape made by PW. 1. The fact remains that PW. 1 was taken to the scene of offence, where rape was committed. It is in consequential whether PW. 1 travelled to the place on two bikes or one. The video recorded by the juvenile clearly reflects the rnanner in which the sexual assault was committed on PW. I

¶80

Learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out the discrepancies that crept in during the course of the trial

¶81

¶82

KS, J & JAK. J CrLA.N s.1468 & 1460 2017

¶83

¶84

Having gone through the evidence and the discrepancies in the version, it is clear tha, they have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the versicn of pW. 1. 'However, the conviction of appellant No.2/ar:cused No.2 under Section 3 (2) ,(v) of SCs/STs (pOA) Ame.ndment Act, 2015 cannot be sustained since it is not the case of pW. 1 that the act of rape was committed on the grou nd that she belongs to the SC or ST community. He rce, pW. l,s belonging to the SC or ST Community has n,t impact in view of the judgment of the Honble Apex Cour in AsharJi (supra), relied upon by the appellalts.

¶85

In view of the same, the conviction ard sentence imposed against the appellant No.2/accused llo.2 for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of SCsT STs (pOA) Amendment. Act, 2015 is set aside. However, the conviction and sentence imposed agrrinst the appellants/accused Nos.l ald 2 for the offences under Sections 366, 376-D, 342, 354-C, and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC ald Section 66 (E) of I.T. Act are maintained.

¶86