'Rape Case Filed Against Accused After He Refused To Marry Her': Telangana High Court Sets Aside Conviction In POCSO Case

Setting aside the conviction in a rape case dating back to 2015, the Telangana High Court said that the complaint was filed against the accused after he refused to marry the victim girl. The evidence on record shows that the victim had voluntarily stayed with the accused, said the court.

The accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years in April 2021 under Section 376 of IPC and provisions of POCSO Act by Sessions Judge.

Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy said the complaint was preferred after a lapse of two years, and noted the specific allegation of the victim girl was that she stayed with the accused in a rented house at two places and the accused, made false promise of marrying her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her.

"What made the victim girl not to prefer a report for such long period, is not at all explained by the prosecution," said the court.

In 2015, an FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim girl stating that the accused induced her minor daughter aged 17 years, with a promise that he will marry her after attaining majority and kidnapped her from the house in June 2013 to Desharajpalli. According to the FIR, he kept her in a house, used to sexually assault her and when the victim asked him to marry her, he dodged it from time to time.

It was further complained that about three months prior to lodging of complaint, when the victim asked the accused about their marriage, the accused abused her in filthy language and drove her out of the house, upon which, the victim returned to her parents’ house. Therefore, they waited for the accused to come for talks and later preferred the report.

According to the prosecution, during the course of investigation the accused voluntarily confessed the guilt. The appeal was filed by the accused challenging the trial court decision. The counsel for the accused argued that the age of the victim was not established by proper documents.

The counsel also submitted that except the victim and her mother, the rest of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and none of them supported the case of the prosecution.

On the other hand, the prosecution contended that it has successfully established the guilt of the accused for the offences charged, and therefore, there is no irregularity in the judgment of the Sessions Court.

After hearing both sides, the court said that the victim's brother, father, and others were witnesses who could speak about the accused staying with the victim in Desharajpalli. 

"PWs.3 to 8 and 13 i.e. including the brother and father of the victim, have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution," said the court, adding nothing could be established by the prosecution, as to the stay of the victim and the accused in the houses where the alleged offence took place.

The court noted that the doctor who examined the victim girl had opined that sexual assault might have occurred. However, in cross-examination, the doctor specifically testified that the victim girl did not disclose any details about the sexual assault, noted the court. 

It further said that the evidence of the victim disclosed that they waited for the accused to come for talking terms for a period of two months. 

On the question of age, the court noted that the victim, as per her mother's statement, had passed SSC Board examination prior to the date of incident. "... and therefore, the non-production of the Board Certificate before the Court is fatal to the case of the prosecution," said the court, adding it has not been answered by the prosecution why such certificate was not filed before the court. 

The court opined that out of all the evidence, the only evidence which is crucial is that of the victim and her mother. It concluded that the basis for the victim's mother lodging the complaint, as well as her deposition, was entirely based on the information alleged to have been given to her by the victim girl, who is her daughter. 

"The evidence of PW-1 [mother] can be treated as a hearsay evidence," said the court. 

The court noted that the FIR was lodged in 2015 and questioned why the parents of the victim preferred to file the report after two years of alleged kidnapping. 

"The evidence of PW-1 also disclose that she was not on talking terms with PW-2 when she was staying at Desharajpalli. Hence, it can be construed that the present complaint has been filed against the accused when he refused to marry the victim girl," said the court.

The court also observed that evidence does not disclose that she made hue and cry at the time of kidnapping though she travelled all the way from Renigunta village to Desharajpalli village along with the accused in a public transport.

"The entire contents of Ex.P-1 disclose that as the accused was not ready to marry the victim girl, filed the present complaint, and the contents of Ex.P-1 does not attract the ingredients of any of the offences charged against the accused," it added.

The bench noted that except for the evidence of her mother, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused had kidnapped the victim from her house and taken her to Desharajpalli village, stayed there with a promise.

"It can be concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has erred in convicting the accused for the aforesaid charges. In the absence of any corroboration as to the allegation of forcibly kidnapping the victim girl and of committing rape on her, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of the trial Court needs to be set aside," the court said, while setting aside the conviction.

Case Title: Kanukuntla Shekar v. State of Telangana

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment