CRLA/914/2017 of STATE OF TELANGANA REP BY PP., Vs PEDDUR NARESH, KADAM (M) AND ANR., on 31 December 2024

1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were tried for the offences under Sections3O2, 2Ol r / w .34 and 37 6 of the Indian Penal Code. A l was convictedunder Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and A2 was acquitted of allcharges.

Criminal Appeal 865 of 865 of of 2015 is is frled by by Appellant/Al

2. Criminal Appeal 865 of 865 of of 2015 is is frled by by Appellant/Alquestioning his conviction under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code.The State filed Criminal Appeal No.914 of 2Ol7 for acquitting Al andA2 under Sections 3O2 and 2Ol r /w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. When the appeal filed by the State had come up before theDivision Bench, the Division Bench on 25.10.2017 directed thatCr1.A.865 of 2015 shall be posted along with the appeal liled by theState i.e. Crl.A.No.914 of 2077. Accordingly, both the appeals [are]clubbed. Both the appeals are heard and disposed offby [way of ][this]common [judgment.]

4. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the AccusedNo.1 in Cr1.A.ltlo.B65 /2015 and learned Public Prosecutor for theState in Crl.A.No.914 of 2017.

5. The prosecution case is that PW. 1 is the son of the deceasedwho lodged corrLplaint with the Police on 24.12.2012 at 8:00 A.M. Inthe said complaint, PW. 1 stated that his deceased-mother was doingcoolie work and on 16.12.2012, the deceased and his maternal auntAthram Laxmi llai -PW.6 and PW.S went to market. In the eveninghis aunt (PW.6) returned home and informed PW. 1 that r-he deceasedstayed back in the market. Deceased did not return, as such PW. 1and PW.6 searched for the deceased in the houses of the reiativesand surrounding villagers, but, she could not be traced.

6. On 24.12.2012, a female dead body was found near Narsapurvillage. PW. 1 and others went there a:nd identihed the dead body asthat of the der:eased. The body was decomposed, rnaggots andinsects were all over the body. The dead body was completely naked.PW. I suspected that someone might have throttled her to death dueto quarrel for dzrily wages or due to illegal relation or for any otherreason. Ex.P l-complaint was received by PW. 15. PW.15 r-ecorded thestatement of PW. 1 and then handed over the investigation to pW. I 6- Inspector of Police. PW.16 went to the scene of offence and observedthe scene of offence and dead body. Photographs were taken ald thestatements of PWs.2 to 5 were recorded. The blood stained soil,control earth and the wearing apparel of the deceased were alsoseized. PW. 14 who is the Doctor went to the scene of offence andconducted postmortem since the body was in a highly decomposedstate and could not be taken to hospital. On 25.12.2012, PW. 16examined PWs.6, 7,9 and 1O ald others 7 . While the investigation was pending, it is alleged that PW. 1 1who is an ex-sarpanch of Kaddam village, surrendered theappellant/Al before Police. According to PW. 11 the appellant went tohim ald confessed that he had committed the murder of thedeceased. Accordingly, PW. 11 took the appellant/A1 and handedhim over to PW. 16. In the presence of PW. 13 and another, confessionof appellant/A1 was recorded. Thereafter, A2 and A3-Juveniles werealso arrested by the police on the basis of information given by A1. Atthe instance of A1 and A2, the motorcycle used at the time of offencewas seized. On the outskirts of Narsapur village a stone was shownby A1 and A2 wit}:, which the deceased was allegedly killed. M.O.8 isthe said stone that was seized at the instance of A1 and A2

8. InvestigaL.on was concluded and charge sheet was Iiled againstA1 and 42. Ar:cording to PW. 16, A3/Juvenile was also involvedagainst whom charge sheet was frled in the Juvenile Court.

9. The cha4les framed against Al and A2 by the I AdditionalSessions Judge. Adilabad are as follows; "Firstlg: That gou accused No.1 and 2 along with A3 (jut'enile) on16th daA o1'December, 2O12 at about 7 p.m. at the outskirts ofNarsapur dllage in 59.No.287, caused the death of AthramLoxmi Bai bg throuing boulder on her face in uLhich you no.2caught Lnkt of the tegs of the deceased. You No. I pelted boulderon her face and A3 crushed her throat due to her illicit intimacgu,tith gou .Yo.7 and 2 and gou No.l and 2 therebg committed andoffence puttishable U/Sec. 302 r/u.34 of IPC and tuithin thecognizance of this Court.

Secondlg: ['.rhat ]gou A1 on the same date, time and place asmentioned in Charge No. 1 supra, committed rape on thedeceased bg taking her to the out skirts of Narsapur uillage andlater causetl her death bg throu.ting boulder on her head and thatgou No.1 tnerebg committed an offence punishoble tl/'5ec.376and 2O1 r/ut.34 of IPC and uithin the cognizonce of this Court."

10. Having examined the witnesses, the learned Sessions Judgeacquitted A1 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 r/w.34 ofIPC, acquitted A2 for the offence under Section 3O2 r/w.34 of IPC,and convicted A I only for the offence under Section 376 of IpC.

.l

li. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused wouldsubmit that conviction was recorded by the learned Sessions Judgefor committing rape of PW.2. However, PW.2 did not state anythingabout rape being committed by the appellant-Al as such, thequestion of conviction does not arise.

12. Learned Pub1ic Prosecutor would submit that A1 and A2 werearrested by the PoLice and pursuant to their confession, the stonewith which the accused committed murder of the deceased wasrecovered. The witnesses PW.6 and PW.10 haVe seen the deceasedgoing along with A1. Since there is last seen evidence and thereafterthe dead body was found, the learned Sessions Judge ought to haveconvicted the accused 7 and 2 for the murder of the deceased.

13. The evidence of last seen as stated by PW.6 and PW. l0 cannotbe made basis to infer that the deceased was with the appellant soonbefore her death. PW.6 is the aunt of the complainant-PW. 1. Shestated in the cross-examination that she had seen 41 for the firsttime in the Court on the date of her erridence. However, the saidversion of PW.6 that she saw the deceased going along with A1 wasnot informed to PW.1 nor finds place in the complaint frled by PW.1.Similar is the evidence of PW.1O who stated that he has seen the deceased movirrg along with A1. He further volunteered that thedeceased used to move with Tractor driver and also with A1 who wason his bike. The said evidence also cannot be considered in view ofthe vague statement that was made and also for the reason of notstating the samr: during the earliest point of time.on his bike. The said evidence also cannot be considered in view ofthe vague statement that was made and also for the reason of notstating the samr: during the earliest point of time.

),4. Accused N[o.1 was convicted for committing rape of the PW.2.PW.2 was declzred hostile to the prosecution case. She stated inCourt that she suspected that A1 and A2 might have killed hermother. PW.2 further stated that A.1 came to their house twice andslept in their house after consuming liquor. However, PW.2 did notstate about her examination by any doctor during her depositionbefore Court. PV'| .12 is the doctor who examined the victim girl/PW.2namely Athram Rajibai @ Rajitha d/o.Srinivas, aged 11 1,ears, on theground that she was raped by a known person nam.ely PedduriNaresh. At the time of examination pubic hair, vaginal swabs andvaginal smears were taken. PW.l2 gave opinion initially thatintercourse miglrt have taken place and final opinion would be givenafter Forensic la.b report. Ex.P6 is the examination report of PW. 12.The samples talien from the victim were sent to FSL. Ex.P7 is theFSL report. In tlx.P7 10 items were examined. Final opinion Ex.p8

was given and according to Ex.PS sexual intercourse was attemptedon Athram Rajibai @ Rajitha, d/o.Srinivas, aged 11 years.

15. PW.2 was examined on 15.09.2014. She stated that she wasaged 17 years tefore the Court. However, Ex.P6 and P8 show thatthe victim girl was aged 11 years. When PW.2 has not statedanything about rape being committed on her, learned SessionsJudge committed error in relying on Exs.P6 ald P8 to recordconviction under Section 376 of IPC. In the absence of any evidenceby PW.2 that she was subjected to rape relying on Exs.P6 and P8,which do not reflect any injuries on the body or any kind of blood orsemen to be that of the appellant, the question of conviction does not\. [arise. ][Firstly, ][PW.2 ][did ][not support the ][version of ][rape ][committed ][ontr]her ald secondly Ex.P6 and P8 do not contain any details o{commission of rape.

16. Insofar as the appeal by the State is concerned, the learnedSessions Judge has rightly found that only on the basis of M.O.S-stone, recovered at the instalce of A1 and A2, it cannot be said thatit was A1 and A2 who committed the murder. Even according to theprosecution case, the dead body was found and thereafter complaintwas filed. The place of offence was not discovered at the instance of appellant or the other accused. The learned Sessions Judge hasrightly acquitted A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 302 and2Ol r /w.34 of IPC.

17. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State in Cr1.A.No.914 of2017, is dismisr;ed

18. The apper:,l filed by ,A.1 in Cr1.A.No.865 of 2015, is allowedsetting aside the convibtion recorded by theI Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad,1n SC.No.9/:2014, dated16.09.2015, for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. Theappellant/A1 is acquitted.

A.V.S.S.C.S.M. [SARMA]JOINTEGIS,TRARF)SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

\

To,

'l . The I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad [(with records' ][if ][any)]

2. The Additional [Judicial Magistrate ][of ][First ][Class, Nirmal']

3. The Superin:endent, [Central ][Prison, ][Warangal']

4. The Station [louse ][Officer' Khanapur ][Police ][Station' Adilabad ][District']

5. Two CCs [to the ][Public ][Prosecutor, ][High ][Court ][for ][the ][State ][of ][Telangana ][at]Hyderabad [OUT]Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC [to ][{}ri S. Surender ][Reddy, ][Advocate ][[OPUC]]

7. Two CD [CoP'ies]

kam/gh

l

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 11212024

1HC sI.16(J2I JAN 2025znl,*{tsFarC

COMMON JUDGMENTCRLA.Nos.865 of 2015 and 914 ot 2017

CRLA.No.914 ot 2017IS DISMISSEDCRLA.No.865 of 2015IS ALLOWED

b10