Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice J. Sreenivas Rao has allowed an appeal by an accused convicted for an offence against a minor boy, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted him, with the bail bonds discharged. The Court said that when guilt is founded solely on a child victim’s uncorroborated testimony, the trial court must conduct and record a competency assessment under Section 118 of the Evidence Act. As no such assessment was undertaken, and the trial court proceeded mainly on the child’s deposition and a potency certificate despite the absence of any medical examination of the child, the Court held that the conviction could not be safely sustained.

The case concerns a criminal appeal filed by an accused challenging his conviction for an offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case originated from a complaint lodged by the father of a minor boy alleging that the accused, who was providing tuition to the child, subjected him to unnatural sexual acts and threatened him with academic consequences if the incident was disclosed. The complaint was lodged two days after the alleged occurrence.

Also Read: Deviation From “Bail Is The Rule, Jail Is An Exception” Principle Constitutionally Circumspect; Supreme Court Grants Bail To Wadhawan Brothers In DHFL Fraud Case

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Special Sessions Court, where charges were framed under Sections 377 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs/STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. During trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked documentary and material evidence. No defence evidence was adduced. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 377 IPC and imposed a sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred the present appeal.

The Court observed that “even according to the prosecution, the alleged offence has taken place on 21.07.2007, whereas the complaint was lodged on 23.07.2007,” and recorded that no specific reason was assigned for the delay. It further noted that “in the copy of the complaint, the name of the victim was mentioned as ‘K.Kenny’, whereas the victim’s name was spoken to as ‘Korani Rajesh’,” creating inconsistency.

The Court recorded that “PW.1 admitted that when the police referred his son to Government Hospital for treatment, they refused to get treatment,” and that the medical officer “specifically stated that it is not possible to give opinion about the cause of injuries in the absence of medical examination.” Despite this, the trial court relied upon the testimony of the minor witness and the potency certificate of the accused.

On the question of child testimony, the Court stated that “the prosecution as well as the trial Court has not followed the mandatory procedure as prescribed under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act,” particularly as the victim was a minor. Referring to precedent, the Court observed that “a child witness is competent to depose only if the trial Court first satisfies itself, through a proper preliminary inquiry, that the child understands the questions and can give rational answers.” It found that “the trial Court similarly failed to conduct the mandatory competency assessment of the child witness,” and that the conviction rested solely on uncorroborated testimony. The Court concluded that “the evidence relied upon by the trial Court is materially deficient, making the conviction legally unsustainable.”

Also Read: Police Investigation Must Show Arrest And Remand In Each Connected FIR; Telangana High Court Grants Bail To Doctor In Surrogacy Offences Case

The Court directed that “the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge convicting the accused for the offence under Section 377 of IPC is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted for the said offence, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Baddam Prashanth Reddy v. State of A.P.                                                                                               

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2010

Bench: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao