Safiya Malik

The High Court of  Telangana Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji has set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant accused in a criminal appeal challenging his conviction for rape and criminal intimidation. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to serious inconsistencies in evidence and lapses in investigation. Directing immediate release of the appellant if not required in any other case, the Court also issued remarks stating the need for improved investigative standards to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The matter arose from a criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellant, challenging his conviction by the Spl. Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-cum-XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar. By the impugned judgment dated 11 September 2024, the Trial Court had found the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 376(2)(f)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment and one year’s rigorous imprisonment, respectively, along with fines.

Also Read: Right to Digital Access Part of Article 21 | Supreme Court Directs Inclusive eKYC | Orders Govt Platforms, Payment Systems and Websites to Ensure Accessibility for Persons With Disabilities

The case originated from a complaint lodged on 25 April 2017 by PW.1, who stated that she was living with her divorced mother (PW.2) and alleged that the appellant, a close friend of PW.2 and serving as an administrative officer at DRDO Shameerpet, had developed a friendly relationship with her and her brother (PW.12). It was alleged that while PW.2 was away on an official tour, the appellant stayed overnight at their house, entered PW.1's room at midnight, coerced her into sexual relations, and repeated the act the following morning. PW.1 stated that the appellant threatened her to maintain silence.

Subsequently, when PW.1 discovered she was pregnant, she informed the appellant, who allegedly gave her the option to either keep the child and live with him or undergo an abortion. PW.1 later disclosed the pregnancy to her father (PW.3), who took her for medical examination, leading to the filing of the complaint against the appellant. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case proceeded to trial.

During the trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and marked twelve exhibits along with four material objects. The defence examined one witness and produced four exhibits, including a sterilization certificate (Ex.D1) showing that the appellant had undergone vasectomy in 2005. The Trial Court convicted the appellant, relying primarily on the testimony of PW.1.

Challenging the conviction, counsel for the appellant argued before the High Court that there were glaring contradictions in the evidence regarding the victim's mother's tour, inconsistencies in the victim’s statements about locations, absence of crucial medical documentation about the pregnancy and abortion, inconclusive DNA analysis, and procedural lapses in handling medical evidence.

The State opposed the appeal, asserting that the delay in complaint filing was justified due to threats from the appellant. It was submitted that PW.1’s testimony, supported by medical evidence indicating pregnancy, was sufficient to establish the charges.

The Division Bench observed serious doubts in the prosecution’s case. Referring to material gaps in medical evidence, the Court stated in its analysis, “The natural course of events as described by PW.1 would necessarily generate a trail of medical documentation... The inexplicable absence of the crucial medical records, coupled with the prosecution’s failure to produce or explain their absence, creates serious doubts about PW.1’s allegations.”

Examining contradictions in witness statements, the Court recorded, “This Bench also observed the glaring inconsistencies in PW.1’s statements regarding her mother’s whereabouts on the day of the incident... Such material contradictions... severely undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative and raise serious doubts about the truthfulness of PW.1’s testimony.”

Regarding the forensic evidence, the Court observed deficiencies, stating, “The prosecution also failed in proper collection, preservation and prompt analysis of the product of conception for DNA testing... The conception (foetus) sample sent to the FSL itself was highly putrefied making DNA analysis impossible.”

The Court recorded that the Trial Court had incorrectly relied on corroboration by PW.2, PW.3, and PW.12, stating, “The Trial Court has erroneously concluded that PW.2, PW.3, and PW.12 corroborated PW.1’s version, when in fact, the case rests solely on PW.1’s testimony.”

Referring to precedents, the Court stated, “Where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies... no reliance can be placed upon her evidence.”

The Bench also recorded the principle of benefit of doubt, stating, “The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence.”

In conclusion, the Court found, “The prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, with material inconsistencies in key witness testimonies and overlooked documentary evidence that supports the appellant’s case.”

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction recorded by the Trial Court. It directed that the appellant stands acquitted of all charges and shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

In doing so, the Court noted with concern the deficiencies in the investigation and recorded the need for systemic improvements.

It recorded that investigations must be conducted with caution, free from tunnel vision, and in accordance with prescribed procedures.

The Court observed that a dedicated team of trained personnel should be assigned to investigative work and that investigating officers must be held accountable for the thoroughness and quality of investigations.

Further, the Bench stated that performance assessments linked to officers’ career progression would encourage diligence and professionalism.

The judgment held that continuous training in investigative skills and legal procedures should be institutionalized and complemented by the establishment of an independent supervisory mechanism to monitor investigation quality and provide feedback.

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court rejects compromise | Locking of university gate deemed serious breach | FIR to proceed as per law

The Court expressed its considered view that such measures would enhance standards and outcomes of police investigations.

It concluded by recording that the appropriate governments should consider instituting these recommendations to secure the fundamental right of citizens to fair, impartial, and prompt investigations, and expressed hope for proactive engagement and decisive action from all stakeholders involved in criminal investigations.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, Mr. Enuganti Sudhanshu, Mr. Nikhil Chainani, Ms. Anishka Vaishnav, Advocates

For the Respondent: Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: XXX v. The State of Telangana

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 946 of 2024

Bench: Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji

[Read/Download order]