Telangana HC suspends man’s sentence over child’s rape-murder; points out lapses in identification, prolonged incarceration

The case stemmed from a complaint lodged on May 9, 2019, by the father of a 7-year-old boy, who was found dead with head injuries after being sent to a shop near their home the day before. The investigation led to the apprehension of the appellant on May 13 that year, based on CCTV footage and suspicion raised by a witness.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant lured the deceased, committed unnatural sexual acts, and then fatally hit the child’s head on the ground. The appellant was convicted on July 20, 2021, for offences under sections 363 (kidnapping), 377 (unnatural offences), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He was awarded multiple sentences for the offences, including rigorous imprisonment of five years, life imprisonment, and two sentences of 10 years each, all of which were directed to run concurrently.

The division bench, however, noted several critical issues with the prosecution’s case, one of them being that there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged unnatural sex, kidnapping, or murder. The court also highlighted the “inordinate and unexplained delay” of 150 days in conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP) after the accused’s arrest.

The court felt the identification of the appellant by the witnesses was unreliable due to the long delay, noting that the witnesses had only seen a person running away from the scene in the dark and provided a vague description.

“It is settled law that the Test Identification Parade should be held without any unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused, which is necessary for eliminating the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses before the Test Identification Parade,” the order read. The court also found that the Investigating Officer was unable to determine the blood group of the deceased or the accused, nor confirm if the bloodstains on seized items belonged to the accused.

The court referred to the precedent set in Batchu Ranga Rao and others v State of Andhra Pradesh, which provides guidelines for releasing accused persons who have been in custody for more than five years.

As the appellant had been in jail for over six years as of the order date, the court found it to be sufficient grounds for granting bail. The bail was granted subject to several conditions, including furnishing of a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with two sureties.