Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 137 (TS)

Mohd. Jafaruddin @ Jaffar v. State of Telangana

2025-03-18

E.V.VENUGOPAL, K.SURENDER

body2025
JUDGMENT : K. SURENDER, J. 1. The present criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.01.2018 in SC No.156 of 2017, on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar. 2. Heard Sri Duggempudi Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 3. On 29.06.2015, at around 08.00 PM, the complaint was lodged by PW1/mother of the victim girl. In the complaint, PW1 narrated that the victim girl was mute by birth and was around 17 years old, and she used to beg in the streets near their house. On 29.06.2015, in the afternoon, after having lunch, the victim girl went out of the house. Later they came to know that the victim girl was taken in an auto by one person, and she was dropped back after some time. There was blood on the body of the victim girl, and it was informed by the people in locality that the victim girl was taken in an auto by one person, viz. Jaffar. PW15/Inspector of Police recorded the statements of PW1, PW2, and PW3. The victim girl was sent for medical examination to Modern Government Maternity Hospital. Thereafter, PW15 went to the scene of offence and examined PWs.4 and 5. The wearing apparel of the victim girl were seized, and were sent for examination to the FSL. 4. The appellant was thereafter arrested by PW11 and other police personnel at the auto stand near Sana Hotel, on 04.07.2015. After his apprehension, his confession was recorded, and his samples were taken for the purpose of DNA examination. 5. Ex.P16 is the FSL report that was received by the Investigating Officer. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. 6. The victim, being a mute girl, was not examined by the trial Court. PW7, who is the Headmaster of Government High School for Deaf and Dumb, Malakpet, deposed that the victim girl was mentally retarded, and a certificate was issued to that effect. Further, the victim girl was not even in a position to understand the sign language. PW12 is the Rehabilitation Psychologist, NIHM, Secunderabad. PW7, who is the Headmaster of Government High School for Deaf and Dumb, Malakpet, deposed that the victim girl was mentally retarded, and a certificate was issued to that effect. Further, the victim girl was not even in a position to understand the sign language. PW12 is the Rehabilitation Psychologist, NIHM, Secunderabad. On the requisition given by the police, PW12 conducted a psychological assessment of the victim girl, and issued Ex.P11/report stating that the victim girl was suffering from severe mental retardation with an I.Q. of 21. 7. The evidence against the appellant is the statements of PWs.4 and 5. Both PWs.4 and 5 stated that they saw the victim girl being taken by the appellant, and the appellant dropped her two hours thereafter. Seeing PWs.4 and 5, the appellant tried to escape but he was caught. PW4 stated in his cross-examination that the appellant left the victim girl around 07.00 PM, and his statement was recorded on the same day. PW5, in his cross-examination, stated that he caught hold of the appellant in his house at around 08.30 PM, and the locality people were also present. However, the evidence of PW15 is that the appellant was arrested by PW11 and other police personnel on 04.07.2015. 8. The version of PWs.4 and 5, that they caught hold of the appellant on the very same day, is contrary to the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the appellant was arrested six days after the occurrence of the incident on 04.07.2015. 9. The only evidence that could connect the appellant with the alleged offence is the medical evidence. Though it was stated by the Investigating Officer that they have collected the wearing apparel of the victim girl and sent them for examination to the FSL, no FSL report regarding any DNA test on the wearing apparel is present. Ex.P16 is the FSL report which states that no male DNA was yielded from Item No.2, a maroon-coloured underwear. It further states that no proper DNA profile was obtained from the wearing apparel sent to the FSL. Further, the male DNA profile on the underwear was insufficient to establish a conclusive DNA profile. 10. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 cannot be believed. It further states that no proper DNA profile was obtained from the wearing apparel sent to the FSL. Further, the male DNA profile on the underwear was insufficient to establish a conclusive DNA profile. 10. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 cannot be believed. Neither the wearing apparel of the victim girl nor the specimen swabs collected from the private parts of the victim girl, provided evidence of sexual intercourse, and they could not connect the appellant to the crime. 11. There is absolutely no evidence on record which could be relied upon to convict the appellant for the offence of rape. Accordingly, the conviction against the appellant is liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant vide judgment dated 05.01.2018 in SC No.156 of 2017 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar. The appellant shall be set at liberty forth-with if he is not required in any other crime.