IPC Section 376 — Punishment for rape

Judgments citing IPC Section 376

1. Gorre Naravana vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 20 June, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana20 Jun 2023

   Case Name: Gorre Naravana vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 20 June, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 20 June, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Rape (Section 376 IPC) – Identification of Accused – Test Identification Parade – Confession – Evidence Act Key Legal Propositions 1. In cases involving identification of an accused as a stranger, a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is crucial, and its absence creates doubt regarding the reliability of subsequent identification, especially after a significant delay. 2. A conviction cannot be solely based on identification made for the first time in court after a prolonged period, particularly when the initial complaint or FIR lacks specific descriptive details of the perpetrator. 3. An extra-judicial confession obtained under questionable circumstances (e.g., through coercion or from a non-credible source) is a weak piece of evidence and insufficient for conviction. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant was convicted by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, for rape under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. The pr

2. Gunni Pentaiah vs The State of Telangana on 04 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana4 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Gunni Pentaiah vs The State of Telangana on 04 July, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 04 July, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – POCSO Act, Rape, Indian Penal Code Key Legal Propositions 1. Age determination through ossification test is a valid method to establish minority, crucial in POCSO cases. 2. Absence of visible injuries is not conclusive evidence to disprove the testimony of a victim regarding sexual assault. 3. Consistent testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence (semen analysis, hymen condition), is sufficient for conviction. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Fast Track Special Judge, Ranga Reddy District, convicting the appellant under Sections 376(3) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The prosecution case alleges that the appellant, husband of PW1 and father of the victim (PW2), repeatedly raped his minor daughter. Held: A. On Age of Victim & Establishing Offence: Majority View: The Court upheld the finding of the trial court that

3. Smt A. Sreelatha vs The State of Telangana on 10 August, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. A party may withdraw an appeal with liberty to pursue other legal remedies. 2. Courts may dispose of appeals based on a request for withdrawal, without addressing the merits of the case. 3. Pending miscellaneous applications are closed upon disposal of the primary appeal. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant, Smt. A. Sreelatha, filed a Writ Appeal against an order dated 20.07.2023 in W.P. No. 3754 of 2023. The appeal related to a request for a fresh investigation into Crime No. 209/2022, filed against Respondent No. 5 for offences under Sections 417, 420, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant also filed an application seeking a stay of the impugned order. Held: A. On Withdrawal of Appeal: Majority View: The Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to pursue other legal remedies available to her. Dissenting View: None. B. On Miscellaneous Applications: Majority View: Any pending miscellaneous applications were directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Costs: Majority View: There would be no order as to costs. Dissenting View: None. Decision: The W

4. The State of Telangana vs Booruga Raju @ Yohan Raju on 15 June, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana15 Jun 2023

   Case Name: The State of Telangana vs Booruga Raju @ Yohan Raju on 15 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 15 June, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Rape and Criminal Intimidation – Reversal of Acquittal – Standard of Proof Key Legal Propositions 1. An appellate court should not disturb a trial court’s acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so. 2. Substantial and compelling reasons for reversing an acquittal include palpable errors in fact-finding, misinterpretation of law, a likelihood of grave miscarriage of justice, or a manifestly unjust/unreasonable judgment. 3. If two reasonable views are possible – one leading to acquittal and the other to conviction – the High Court/appellate courts must lean in favour of the accused. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from the reversal of an acquittal by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases relating to Atrocities against Women, concerning offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted the accused due to the lack of conclusive DNA evidence establi

5. Mohd Shahed vs The State Of A.P. on 20 January, 2014

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana20 Jan 2014

   Case Name: Mohd Shahed vs The State Of A.P. on 20 January, 2014 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 18 December, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Lakshman and Smt Justice P. Sree Sudha Subject: Criminal Appeal – Sexual Assault, Kidnapping, Attempt to Murder Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction can be sustained even without an identification parade, particularly when the victim had ample opportunity to observe the perpetrator in broad daylight. 2. Minor contradictions in witness testimonies do not necessarily invalidate a conviction, especially when corroborated by circumstantial evidence. 3. Proof of unlawful removal of a minor child from parental custody establishes the offence under Section 363 of the IPC. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant, Mohd Shahed, was convicted by the trial court for offences including kidnapping (Section 363 IPC), attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC), and sexual assault (Section 376 IPC) of a 7-year-old victim. He appealed the conviction and sentence. Held: A. On Article/Issue: Identity of the Accused & Reliability of Identification Majority View: The Court upheld the conviction, finding that the vict

6. Dyadala Naveen vs State of Telangana on 02 November, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana2 Nov 2023

   Case Name: Dyadala Naveen vs State of Telangana on 02 November, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 02 November, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – POCSO Act – Rape – Assault – Evidence – Conviction Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act requires proof of penetrative sexual assault, and lack of such evidence may warrant a conviction under a lesser offence. 2. The absence of corroborative medical evidence of penetration does not automatically negate the possibility of sexual assault, but necessitates careful consideration of the evidence presented. 3. Acts involving sexual intent with physical contact, even without penetration, can constitute an offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 8. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment of the II Additional District & Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy, convicting the Appellant/Accused for offences under Sections 376(2)(i), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(m)(n) r/w.6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The charges stemmed from an alleged incident of rape on a victim girl

7. Barmavath Subhash vs The State of Telangana on 13 June, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana13 Jun 2023

   Case Name: Barmavath Subhash vs The State of Telangana on 13 June, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 13 June, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – POCSO Act, IPC – Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376(2)(f)(i) of IPC. Key Legal Propositions 1. Corroboration of victim's testimony by circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction. 2. Evidence of the Headmistress identifying the appellant as having taken the victim from school supports the victim’s narrative. 3. Maximum sentence awarded requires no interference unless compelling reasons exist. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant, Barmavath Subhash, filed a Criminal Appeal under Section 378(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and sentence of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sangareddy, convicting him under Section 376(2)(f)(i) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentencing him to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The case involved allegations of sexual assault on a 7-year-old victim (P.W.2). Held: A. On Conviction under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IP

8. Saleh Bin Ali Bin Mahfooz @ Mohd @ Sareh vs The State of Telangana on 27 June, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana27 Jun 2023

   Case Name: Saleh Bin Ali Bin Mahfooz @ Mohd @ Sareh vs The State of Telangana on 27 June, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 27 June, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Rape, Sexual Offences, Evidence, Improbability of Narration Key Legal Propositions 1. A conviction based solely on the testimony of a victim, particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual assault, requires corroboration and must be assessed for internal consistency and believability. 2. Improbability in the narration of events, especially when coupled with a lack of supporting evidence, can create reasonable doubt and warrant acquittal. 3. Medical evidence, particularly the absence of corroborating physical injuries or evidence of recent sexual intercourse, must be considered in conjunction with witness testimony when determining guilt in sexual assault cases. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for offences under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 506 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged tha

9. Gundagallan Narender @ Kiran vs State of Telangana on 28 March, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Mar 2023

   Case Name: Gundagallan Narender @ Kiran vs State of Telangana on 28 March, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 28 March, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman and Smt Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Rape, Outrage of Modesty, Amendment of Penal Code Key Legal Propositions 1. Retrospective application of amended Section 375(b) IPC is not permissible; the original charge must prevail. 2. Acts constituting penetration with a finger fall within the definition of ‘rape’ under Section 375 IPC, specifically Section 375(b) as amended. 3. The Probation of Offenders Act can be invoked considering the accused’s age, the influence of media, and the duration of imprisonment already served. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arose from a judgment dated 26.06.2020, convicting the appellant/accused under Sections 376 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for offences committed in 2012. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine for the offence under Section 376 IPC, and five years imprisonment and a fine for the offence under Section 354 IPC. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence. The c

10. Md. Fazal Ahamqd vs The State of A.P. on 28 June, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Jun 2023

    Case Name: Md. Fazal Ahamqd vs The State of A.P. on 28 June, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 28 June, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Rape, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Key Legal Propositions 1. The testimony of a victim in a rape case, if found credible and consistent, can be sufficient for conviction even without corroborating evidence. 2. Absence of semen or spermatozoa in forensic evidence does not automatically negate the occurrence of rape, particularly if the victim’s testimony is reliable and consistent with the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC. 3. False implication in a grievous offence like rape requires a reasonable basis, and the absence of such basis strengthens the credibility of the victim’s testimony. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant was convicted by the Special Sessions Judge for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on the testimony of PW1 alleging rape. The appellant appealed the conviction, primarily arguing the lack o

11. Thota Sugunakar Somamoorthy vs The State of Telangana on 27 June, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana27 Jun 2023

    Case Name: Thota Sugunakar Somamoorthy vs The State of Telangana on 27 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 27 June, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – POCSO Act – Sexual Assault – Evidence Discrepancy – Re-evaluation of Charges Key Legal Propositions 1. Inconsistencies between oral testimony of the victim and medical evidence require benefit to be extended to the accused. 2. Lack of evidence of forcible penetration, coupled with medical findings of intact hymen and absence of spermatozoa, may indicate sexual assault rather than rape. 3. Touching private parts with sexual intent constitutes sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 8. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, based on the testimony of P.W.2 (victim) and P.W.1 (mother of the victim), alleging sexual assault. The appellant filed an appeal challenging the conviction, citing discrepancies between the victim’s statement and the medical evidence (FLS report, doctor’s testimony). Held: A. On Conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act: Majority View: The Co

12. Erranagula Gopala Krishna vs State of Telangana on 19 December, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana19 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Erranagula Gopala Krishna vs State of Telangana on 19 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana Date of Judgment: 19 December, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – POCSO Act, 2012 – Consent – Age Determination – Acquittal Key Legal Propositions 1. Failure to conclusively prove the age of the victim, particularly in POCSO cases, warrants extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. 2. Consensual sexual relations, even if followed by a refusal to marry, do not constitute rape, especially when no force or coercion is established. 3. Reliance solely on a conduct certificate to determine age is insufficient; corroborative evidence like birth certificates or examination of the person who provided the date of birth is necessary. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment based on allegations of sexual intercourse with the victim over a period of time, coupled with a subsequent refusal to marry her. The appellant filed a criminal appeal challenging the conviction. Held: A. On Age of the Victim: Major

13. Kanukuntla Shekar vs The State of Telangana on 12 April, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana12 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Kanukuntla Shekar vs The State of Telangana on 12 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 12 April, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Smt. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – POCSO Act, IPC Sections 366, 376, 417, 420, SC/ST (POA) Act Key Legal Propositions 1. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and a lack of corroborating evidence can be fatal to a conviction. 2. The delay in reporting a crime, coupled with inconsistencies in witness testimonies, raises doubts about the prosecution's case. 3. Evidence regarding the victim's age must be established through proper documentation, and reliance on inconsistent or unverified sources is insufficient. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, which convicted the Appellant/Accused under Sections 366, 420 of IPC, Section 376 of IPC (alternatively Section 4 of POCSO Act) and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989, sentencing him to seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000. The case stemmed from a report alleging that the accused enticed a minor gir

14. Mohd Feroz Khan vs The State of A.P. on 13 June, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana13 Jun 2023

    Case Name: Mohd Feroz Khan vs The State of A.P. on 13 June, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 13 June, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Rape, Bonded Labour, Assault Key Legal Propositions 1. The testimony of a victim, corroborated by other evidence, is sufficient for conviction, even in the absence of medical evidence confirming the assault. 2. Discrepancies in evidence do not automatically disqualify a witness, and the overall circumstances and corroborating evidence must be considered. 3. The trial court’s judgment should not be interfered with unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant, Mohd Feroz Khan, was convicted by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for offences including rape (Section 376 IPC), assault (Section 341 IPC), and intimidation (Section 506 IPC). The appeal challenges this conviction, arguing that the case was falsely registered after a dispute over wages and working conditions. The victim (P.W.2) testified that she was subjected to rape while working in the appellant’s brick kiln, and her brother (P.W.3) corroborated this a

15. Shankerlal vs State of Telangana on 20 December, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana20 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Shankerlal vs State of Telangana on 20 December, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 20 December, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – POCSO Act, Indian Penal Code – Conviction – Bail Application Key Legal Propositions 1. Evidence of victim and eyewitness, even with some hostile witnesses, can be sufficient for conviction under POCSO Act and IPC. 2. Absence of counsel does not preclude the court from examining the record and delivering judgment. 3. A conviction based on credible evidence, even if initially registered under different sections, is sustainable if the proven offences fall under a different statutory provision. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment dated 23 March 2021 of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of cases Under POCSO Act, 2012, Nampally, Hyderabad, convicting the appellant under Section 7 r/w 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Sections 354-B, 342, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant also filed a petition seeking suspension of sentence. Held: A. On Conviction & Evidence: Majority View:

16. Wadla Raju vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 02 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana2 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Wadla Raju vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 02 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 02 February, 2023 Bench: M. Laxman & G. Anupama Chakravarthy, JJ. Subject: Criminal Appeal – SC/ST Act, IPC – Sections 376, 417, 506, and 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act. Key Legal Propositions 1. The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt for any charged offence. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. 2. In cases involving Section 375 IPC, the age of the victim is crucial. Prior to the 2013 amendment, the age of 16 years was the threshold for determining consent. 3. Medical evidence must corroborate oral and ocular testimony to establish the commission of a crime, particularly in cases of alleged sexual assault. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment dated 02.07.2013, wherein the Appellant/Accused was convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 IPC, 506 IPC, and 3(2)(v) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, based on allegations of rape, cheating, and threats to the victim. The prosecution’s case alleged that the accused harassed the victim, forcibly raped her, and thr

17. Utnoori Thirupathi vs The State of Telangana on 22 September, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana22 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Utnoori Thirupathi vs The State of Telangana on 22 September, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 22 September, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Attempt to Rape, Assault Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction under Section 376 IPC can be altered to conviction for attempt to rape under Section 376/511 IPC based on evidence suggesting a struggle but lack of conclusive proof of penetration. 2. Hostile testimony from key witnesses, including independent witnesses and panchayat members, weakens the prosecution’s case but does not automatically lead to acquittal. 3. The presence of injuries consistent with physical assault, such as abrasions, bite marks, and contusions, can support a conviction for assault even in the absence of evidence confirming rape. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant was convicted under Sections 376 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rape and assault. He appealed the conviction, arguing the case was false and based on improbable testimony and weak medical evidence. The prosecution maintained the victim’s (P.W.1) testimony was credible. Held: A. On Section 376

18. Gajulaveeranna vs The State of Telangana on 14 December, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana14 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Gajulaveeranna vs The State of Telangana on 14 December, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 14 December, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Outrage of Modesty – Section 354 & 509 IPC Key Legal Propositions 1. To attract an offence under Section 354 IPC, using criminal force or assault with the intention to outrage modesty is essential. 2. Mere apprehension of an attempt to rape, without further acts, may not suffice for conviction under Section 354 IPC. 3. Gestures or approach that create a reasonable apprehension of outrage of modesty can constitute an offence under Section 354 IPC. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant was accused of attempting to rape the complainant (PW1) while she was working in a field. The trial court convicted him under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. The Appellant challenged this conviction, arguing the case was false and the allegations improbable. Held: A. On Section 354 IPC: Majority View: The Court found

19. Shivasani Sai Manideep vs The State of Telangana on 04 July, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana4 Jul 2023

    Case Name: Shivasani Sai Manideep vs The State of Telangana on 04 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 04 July, 2023 Bench: Not specified in the text. Subject: Criminal Law – Appeal – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – Age Determination – Consent – Burden of Proof Key Legal Propositions 1. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence. 2. Contradictory evidence regarding the victim’s age creates doubt and can lead to acquittal. 3. A margin of error must be considered when evaluating evidence like ossification tests to determine age. Judgment Summary Background: This is a Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against a judgment dated 16.02.2021 passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Warangal, concerning allegations of offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC. The appellant was granted bail by the High Court on 14.11.2022. The core issue revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offences. Held: A. On Issue of Victim’s Age an

20. Dharavath Bheema vs The State of Telangana on 24 August, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana24 Aug 2023

    Case Name: Dharavath Bheema vs The State of Telangana on 24 August, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 24 August, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Section 376 & 417 IPC – Conviction – Bail Application – DNA Evidence – Consensual Sexual Intercourse – Lack of Force – Fraudulent Inducement Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction under Section 376 IPC (Rape) requires proof of force or coercion; consensual sexual intercourse, even if followed by a refusal to marry, does not constitute rape. 2. DNA evidence corroborating the presence of semen on the victim’s clothing is insufficient to establish rape in the absence of evidence demonstrating non-consensual sexual activity. 3. A promise to marry, without evidence of fraudulent inducement or a misapprehension induced by the promise leading to sexual intercourse, does not establish the offence under Section 417 IPC (Breach of Trust). Judgment Summary Background: The appellant, Dharavath Bheema, appealed against his conviction under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, stemming from a judgment dated 05.03.2021 by the Special Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. T