Vadee Lazar , Lazarous v. The State of AP.,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-20. Vadee Lazar , Lazarous v. The State of AP.,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 277 OF 2013 Appeal filed under Section 374(2) ot Cr. p. C against the judgment dated 31-12-2012 Passed in sc No. 5i0/2011 on the file of the court of the V Additionat District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ranga Reddy District. Between: Vadee Lazar, Lazarous, S/o Mobaiah, Occ: Watchman at a Newly Constructing Apartment New Maruthi Nagar Colony Virat Nagar, Jillellaguda Saroornrjai Mandal Ranga Reddy Diskict. ... AppettanUAccused AND The State. o-f AP. , Rep by public proseculor its High Court of Ap. , Hyderabad through SHO. , Meerpet Cyberabad nanga neooy Diltiici. ... RespondenUComplainant Counsel for the Appeltant : Sri G. Gnana Raghav Amicus Curiae counsel for the Respondent : sri D.
Arun Kumar Additionar pubric prosecutor The Court delivered the following: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL APPE AL No. 277 of 2013 Date:20. 04. 2026 Between: Vadee Lazar @ Lazarous . Appellant /complainant And The State of A. P. , Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A P. , Through SHO, Meerpet, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District Respondent JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 31. 12. 2012passed in SC No 510 of 20'11 by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District 2. Heard Sri G. Gnana Raghav, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 3 The case of the prosecution is that that on 02. 09. 2011 at 10. 30 p. m.
, while the victim girl, who is aged 10 years, was present at Ganesh Pandal near their house, an unknown person approached and \ i \ Z Cd. A. No. 277 ot 2013 enticed her to accompany him, by offering a biscuit packet to a nearby apartment, which is under construction, where he removed her garments and attempted to assaurt her sexuaily. rt is aileged that upon hearing her hues and cries, the neighbours gathered and rescued her and some of them have beaten the offender as a result of which, he sustained minor injuries and that the elder of the colony prevented them from attacking the accused and called the police. Upon enquiry, the unknown person was identified as one Lazarus, aged 25 years. 3. 1. On the compraint given by the father of the victim pw i. e. 1, the police registered crime No. 423 of 2011 for the offence under Section 354 against the said Lazarus.
After thorough investigation, the police filed charge sheet and cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of V Additionar District & sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District for trial. 3. 2. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 6 and marked Exs. p1 p10. to No evidence was aclducecl by the defence. Based on the evidence on record, the trial court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 354 lpC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/_, in default to suffer imprisonment for three months for the said offence. Aggrieved by the said judgment of / / I v J ETD,J Crl. A. No. 277 ot 2013 conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant 4. Perused the record 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has submitted that there are many improvements in the evidence of PWs.
l to 4 and that there is no probability of the alleged incident to have occurred. He further has submitted that if all the allegations of the prosecution are believed to be true, the place of offence is an under construction building and that if the accused have taken the victim to the third floor of the premises, there is no possibility of the people staying in the ground floor to hear the hues and cries of the victim girl, which is highly improbable and that the said fact is also admitted by PW. 4. He further has submitted that the victim has stated that she was handed over to her Aunt immediately after the incident and the said Aunt is not examined by the prosecution, who would be a crucial witness and that the apparel of the victim also were not seized by the police.
Just because of the enmity of the father of the victim with the accused, he has filed a false case against the accused and that the chain of events is not closely linked so as to connect the accused with the alleged cqme. Further, the victim was not at all a minor and that the case of the prosecution itself is false'and hence, prayed to acquit the accused. ia'a Cd. A. No. 277 o12013 He relied upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Rammu Ramlal v. The State of M. P. 1 @ 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution could prove the offences alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the contents of the complaint are well corroborated by the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4.
The evidence of the victim is enough to convict the accused and that her evidence is also corroborated with the evidence of the other witnesses on record and the trial court has rightly convicted the accused and therefore, he prayed to uphold the same. 7. Now, the points that arise for consideration are 'l . Whether the prosecution could prove the offence under Section 354 IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are sustainable in law and under the facts? 3. To what relief? POINT No. l: 8. The appellant-accused is facing the allegations for the offence under Section 354 lPC. The said Section is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: ' crl. A. No. l573 of 2oO3 decided on 30. od,2024 / 5 ETD,J Crl. A. No. 277 of 2013 "354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
- Whoever assaults or uses cflminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty shall be punished wtth imprisonment of either description for a term whrch shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine. " 9. The victim girl is examined as PW. 3. She is aged 10 years as on the date of her examination i. e. on 28. 082012 and the offence is alleged to have occurred one year prior to her date of examinalion. PW. 3 stated clearly in her evidence that during the last year Ganesh festival she was attending pooja at the Ganesh Pandal in their locality and after taking prasadam while she was returning to her house- the accused called her and told her that biscuits and cooked rice are ready in his house and that if she accompanies him, he would give the same to her. He took her to the apartment nearby and that he made her naked and lay on the ground and fell upon her.
She raised hue and cry and after biting the hand of the accused, she ran down to the stair case by shouting. On hearing her shouting, the public came up into the building and enquired her as to what happened. She narrated the same to them Then the said persons caught hold of the accused and beat him. ln the meantime, her senior maternal Aunt came there and took her to their hut and after getting her properly dressed, she was taken to police station. PW. 3 also identified the accused present in the i lI ErD,J 6 '.. Ctl. A. No. 277 of2013 & dock. ln her cross-examination, nothing much was elicited to discredit her evidence. 10. PW. 1 is the father of pW. 3-victim. The version of the victim is well corroborated by the evidence of pw. 1 . rt is ericited from him that the said incident occurred at around 10. 00 p. m. , and that when he was searching for his daughter and was going upstairs of the buirding then he saw his daughter running down the building in a naked state. 11. PWs.
2 and 4 are'the residents of the same locality. Their evidence also corroborates thd version of the victim. Further, it is elicited in the evidence pw. 2 of that there were other apartments arso near the Ganesh pandal, and in the apartment, which is opposite to the under construction apartment with three floors i. e. the place of occurrence, severar famiries were residing in ail the five froors. whire, PWs. 2 and 4 were performing pooja at around 10. 00 p. m. , the residents of the buirding had seen a girr in naked state in the third floor and also the girl was shouting and weeping. So, they immediately rushed to these witnesses and informed that something wrong was \ going on in the under construction building. Then, the people have started going towards the upper floors of the said apartment. pw. 2 is the person, who stopped the persons from beating the accused and called the police and they have also sent pW. 1 to the police station to EfD,J Ctl. A. No.
277 of 2013 file the complaint. PW. 4 is another neighbour. He too stated that the residents in the nearby apartment informed them that they have heard the hues and cries from the under construction building, which is opposite to their building and immediately, they rushed there and found the victim girl coming down in a naked state by weeping. lt is elicited from him that the accused was also in a naked state and the people, who gathered there, beat the accused and on seeing the same, PW. 2 stopped them and handed over the accused to the police 12. Thus, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 are is corroborated PW 4 has admitted that However, the defence counsel has argued that the shoutings of a person made from the upstairs of the under construction building cannot be heard by the people in the ground floor. An answer is found in the evidence of PWs. 2 and 4.
They have stated that there are other buildings, which are totally occupied and that the residents of the building which is opposite to the building under girl raising hues construction (scene of offence), have seen the victim and cries and intimated the people near the Ganesh pandal On hearing from them, the people near Ganesh Pandal have rushed to the scene of offence. The evidence on record suggests that there is not the under construction much distance between the Ganesh pandal and buildingaswellastheoppositebuildingwhichisfullyoccupiedbythe \ 8 ETD, C . A. No. 277 ot ZO13 residents. The Crime Detail Form also shows a building opposite to the scene of offence. Thus, the evidence pWs.. l of to 4 is well corroborated and there is nothing much ericited during their cross- examination to discredit their evidence. 13.
The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that ExP'1-compraint does not discrose the detairs that the chird was seen in naked state when she was coming down and that the said improvement is made in the evidence of the witnesses including pW 1 But, a complaint cannot be an encyclopedia. An overall perusal of the complaint under Ex. p1 reveals that on 02. 09. 2011 at around 10. 30 p m one unknown offender ' has taken the daughter of the comprainant from the Ganesh pandal to the adjacent building, which is under construction and attempted to outrage her modesty and when she raised hue and cry, the pubric gathered at the scene of offence. Thus, the evidence of pW. 1 the corroborates the complaint. The said argument of the counser for the apperant that there are improvements in the evidence of pW.. l cannot be sustained. The material averments that are made in Ex. pl are deposed pW. 1. by Not onty pW.
1, but the neighbouring/ circumstantial witnesses have also stated the same. 14 Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the victim has stated that she was handed over to her Aunt I j ::---:-E- EfD,J Crt. A. No. 277 o12013 I i immediately after the incident and the said Aunt is not examined by the prosecution, who would be a crucial witness and that the apparel of the victim also was not seized by the police.
ln support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the High Court of Madhyapradesh in Rammu case (cited supra), wherein it was observed that @ Ramlal's the prosecutrix has deposed in her examination in chief that the accused tore her bra and also tore the buttons of blouse but these articles have not been seized by the police and that the prosecutrix has not given the above two articles to the police for seizure and there is no explanation for non-seizure of the above two articles and that as per the prosecution story, immediately after the incident she went to her husband and informed him about the incident. But, the prosecution has given up the evidence of husband. ln the said case, the trial court has convicted the accused, but the High Court has set aside the conviction 15. ln the present case, the victim is a 10 year old girl.
She cannot be expected to reveal all the details of her wearing apparel at the time of alleged incident and also with regard to whom she was handed over. PWs. 1 ,2 and 4 have uniformly stated in their evidence that when they were rushing upstairs on hearing the cries of the victim, the victim was coming down in a naked state and they caught hold of l0 C . A. No. 277 ot 2013 the accused. lt is also brought out in the evidence of PW. 3-victim that she was given another set of clothes after the incident. The non-seizure of the wearing apparel, by the prosecution is a lapse on their part in the investigation, but the said lapse cannot defeat the case of the victim. For the said reason, the conviction cannot be set aside when the other evidence is unimpeachable and points out the alleged acts of the accused constituting the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 lPC.
Therefore, the facts of the cited decision differ with the case on hand and hence, the same cannot be applied to the present case. 16. On a thorough perusal of the evidence on record, it is held that the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused by proving the charge under Section 354 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. POINT No. 2: 17. Hence, it is held that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has convicted the accused and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Therefore, the same is upheld and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The point No. 2 is answered accordingly. ,'/ EfD,J II Crl. A. No. 277 ot 2O1 3 POINT No. 3: '18. ln the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31 . 12. 2012 passed in SC No.
510 of 2011 by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, against the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC and the appellant - accused is directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith to serve the sentence of imprisonment passed against him. The bail granted to the appellant-accused shall stand cancelled. lf the appellant fails to surrender as ordered, the trial court is directed to take steps in accordance with law. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR .? //TRUE COPY// (? SECTION OFFICER To, The V Additional District and Sessions^Judge (Fast Track Court) --' Ranga Reddy District. (With " ' records) S* zc_;,,l*J+,1, 2 The &im&rse_triee+]'C"ntol Jail, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District. (By Speciat Messenger) ? The Slation House Officer, Meerpet, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.
4 Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for itre State of telangana, at Hyderabad (OUT) 5. One CC to Sri G. Gnana Raghav, Amicus Curiae b. Two CD Copies DLlKA v HIGH COURT DATED: 2010412026 ".. -. :: - /. , 1,),' l'1:, JUDGMENT )t tJ l. :J CRLA. No. 277 ot 2013 i-) 24 APtl 2 il1 ,t) . :,, DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL 0,r 1)^'
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.