1
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
PRESENT: SRI B.SAI KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHI,
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC: I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE.
MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
Monday, the 31st day of December, 2018.
POCSO.S.C. No.167 OF 2018
Crime No.107 of 2017 of P.S Manoharabad OffencesU/Ss363, 376 (2)(i), 302 I.P.C. 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Report or complaint16.12.2017 AccusedAjay @ Ravi Rajbar @ Shami Rajbar, S/o. Late Chandrika Rajbar @ Chandica Rajbar, Age 28 years, Caste: Rajbar, Occupation: Casual LabouratK.VCompany, Muppireddypallyvillage,R/o. Pakhanpur village, Post Shavan, Tq:Chilkohar, District Baliay, Uttara Pradesh State, now living at Muppireddypallyvillage, Manoharabad Mandal. Apprehension of accused07.12.2017 Release of accused on-- - bail Crime No. 107 of 2017 Committed by--- Commencement of trial23.10.2018 Close of trial09.11.2018 Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty Finding of the CourtAccused is found guilty of the charges of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(i), 302 I.P.C and 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Sentence or OrderAccused is convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C of the charges of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)
(i), 302 I.P.C and 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Prosecution conducted by Public Prosecutor 2
Accused defended byM/s.M.Dhanraj, T.Neelima, T.Srinivas, Advocates, Sangareddy.
The case came up before me for final hearing on this day (17.12.2018) in the presence of the learned Public Prosecutor for the
State and of M/s.M.Dhanraj, T.Neelima, T.Srinivas, Counsel for the accused; having perused the material on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration, the Court made the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police, Toopran Circle filed Charge Sheet against the accused in Crime No.107 of 2017 for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 376(2)(i), 302 I.P.C and 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:
On 06.12.2017 at 09.30 P.M, de-facto-complainant-Asina Kathun (L.W.1) came to the Police Station, Manoharabad and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that on 06.12.2017 at 08.00 A.M., her daughter, namely, Md. Kushbu (since deceased in this case), age 06 years, and her son, namely, Md. Sayad Ali, aged 12 years, went to
Muppireddypally Primary School, at about 12.40 P.M, the accused, who was residing in the top floor of their house, went to the said Primary
School, took away her daughter-Kushubu with him and that it was informed to her by her son, and as such; she had shown suspicion over the accused.
3
Basing on the complaint, the Sub Inspectorof Police,
Manoharabad (L.W.24) registered a case in Crime No.107 of 2017 initially for the offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C and took up investigation. On 07.12.2017 he visited the scene of offence situated at Primary School, Muppireddypally village, wherefrom the accused kidnapped the victim girl. He secured two panch witnesses, Chandram (L.W.11) and Narsimulu (L.W.12) and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drafted the map of the crime scene in their presence.
On 07.12.2017 at about 08.30 A.M., he received information from father of deceased that dead body of victim girl/deceased-Kushbu was found near a culvert at the outskirts of Muppireddypally village. Sub
Inspector visited the said place, found the dead body of victim girl, recorded the statements of witnesses, altered the section of law to the offences punishable under Section 302, 376(2)(i) I.P.C and 3 & 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The Inspector of Police (L.W.25) took up further investigation and apprehended the accused on 07.12.2017 at 06.30 P.M. On interrogation, accused confessed to have committed the offence. His confession was recorded in the presence two panch witnesses. At his instance, his clothes, viz., one pant, one T-shirt and baniyan, which he wore at the time of commission of offence, were seized. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Gajwel, where the Medical Officer conducted his potency test and opined that there was nothing to suggest that accused is incapable of performing sexual act.
4
Thereafter, accused was produced before the Court for judicial remand.
Vaginal smears of deceased, vaginal swabs and tuft of hair that was available in right hand of deceased including her wearing apparels were also preserved and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Hyderabad for chemical analysis. After analysis, F.S.L reported that human semen and spermatozoa were detected, but blood could not be detected. D.N.A profile of the source available on the wearing clothes of accused matched with the D.N.A profile of semen and spermatozoa were tallied to be the same biological origin of the accused. Dr.Shiva
Aitha (L.W.20) and Dr.Bhuvaneshwari (L.W.21) conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased in the Government Hospital, Gajwel and issued post mortem examination report opining that the cause of death of deceased was due to massive internal genital bleeding due to sexual intercourse. Date of birth certificate of deceased showing her date of birth as 22.05.2012 and that she was minor girl of five years old at the time of offence, was collected from the Primary School,
Muppireddypally village.
Investigation established that accused, who originally hails from
Madhya Pradesh, was residing at the same premises as a tenant at
Muppireddypally village, where the deceased was residing with her parents. Accused got well acquaintance with the family members of deceased, who hails from Bihar State. Accused used to bring some sweet to the deceased and moved very close to her. He used to call her to his room, made her to sit on his body, and touch her private parts to enjoy sexual feelings with her. Three days prior to incident, he called the deceased to his room and share bed with her. He touched 5 her private parts. He decided to fulfill his sexual desire with the deceased. On 06.12.2017 at about 12.40 P.M., accused went to the school of deceased, took her along with him from the school, took her to a grocery shop, purchased sweets, held her hand and took her near to a culvert in the outskirts of village, where he forcibly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of rape on her near. The deceased died with massive internal genital bleeding due to the above acts of sexual intercourse committed on her by the accused. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 (2)(i), 302 I.P.C. 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3.Finding that there is prima facie material in the allegations of the
Charge Sheet, this Court took cognizance and registered the case as
POSCO S.C. No. 167 of 2018 for trial and disposal in accordance with law.
4.On appearance of accused, this Court complied with all legal formalities, heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the defense counsel. The charges for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 376 (2)(i), 302 I.P.C. 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were framed against the accused, read over and explained its contents to him in vernacular language, whereupon, he pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried.
6
5.The prosecution examined P.Ws1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P1 to
P20 and M.Os1 to 4 on its behalf. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which, he denied the incriminating evidence found against him and reported no oral evidence for his defense.
6.Heard both sides.
7.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is falsely implicated in this case, there was no mens rea on the part of the accused to commit the alleged offences, and as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
8.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the accused committed the inhuman act of aggravated penetrative sexual assault with the meaning of rape on the deceased, due to which, the deceased died with massive internal genital bleeding and that therefore, the accused is liable for punishment.
9.The point for determination is:-
Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the
accused for the charges of offences punishable under
Sections 363, 376 (2) (i), 302 I.P.C. 3 & 4 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 I.P.C beyond
all reasonable doubt?
POINT:
10.The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:
7
Accused, who hails from the State of Bihar and was residing in the same premises at Muppireddypally village, where deceased with her parents and family members, were residing. Accused befriended with the family of deceased. Accused used to call the deceased minor girl to his room, made her to sit on his body and touched her private parts. Once he shared bed with her in his room. On 06.12.2017 at 12.40 P.M accused picked up the deceased from her school, took her to grocery shop, provided sweets to her and took her to a culvert in the outskirts of village, where the accused forcibly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the deceased, due to which; the deceased died massive internal genital bleeding and that thereby, the accused rendered himself liable for punishment for the offences 363, 376 (2)(i), 302 I.P.C. 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
11.In support of the case of the prosecution, P.Ws1 to 21 were examined and Exs.P1 to P20 and M.O.1 to 4 were marked. Among the witnesses, P.W.1, who is de-facto-complainant in this case, is the mother of deceased. P.W.2 is father of the deceased. P.W.3 is the owner of grocery shop, wherefrom accused purchased sweets/chocolates for the deceased. P.W.4 is colleague of P.W.2, who accompanied P.W.2 in searching for the deceased. P.W.5 (minor boy) is elder brother of deceased minor girl. P.W.6 is the other person, who also searched for deceased along with P.Ws1 and 2. P.W.7 is the school-teacher of deceased, while P.W.8 is Vidya Volunteer, working in the same school. P.W.9 is landlord (house-owner) of accused. P.W.10 is 8 a photographer. P.Ws11 and 12 are panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, inquest panchanama. P.W.13 is the
Headmistress of the School, who issued Ex.P9 bona fide certificate of deceased. P.W.14 is panch witness for seizure of M.O.1 under Ex.P10.
P.W.15 is panch for confession and seizure of M.O.3 under Ex.P11.
P.Ws16 and 17 are the Medical Officer, who held autopsy over dead body of deceased and issued post mortem examination report. P.W.18 is the Medical Officer, who conducted potency test of accused and issued Ex.P15 report. P.W.19 is the Sub Inspector of Police,
Manoharabad, who registered the case on receipt of complaint from
P.W.1. P.W.20 is the Assistant Director (DNA finger printing expert) from Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. P.W.21 is the Inspector of Police, Toopran Circle, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet in this case.
12.Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is a bunch of three photographs along with Ex.P3 C.D. Ex.P4 scene of offence panchanama with Ex.P5 rough sketch, Ex.P6 is the other scene of offence panchanama with
Ex.P7 rough sketch. Ex.P8 is inquest report. Ex.P9 is bona fide certificate of deceased. Ex.P10 is recovery panchanama. Ex.P11 is seizure panchanama. Ex.P12 is inquest panchanama. Ex.P13 is F.S.L report. Ex.P14 is final opinion. Ex.P15 is admission register of the
School. Ex.P16 is the application. Ex.P17 is attendance register,
Ex.P18 is F.I.R., Ex.P19 is alteration memo and Ex.P20 is F.S.L electro report. M.O.1 is shirts skirt overcoat school innerwear. M.O.2 is heir- 9 clip, pencil, slate pencil. M.O.3 pant, T-shirt and banian of accused and
M.O.4 is tuft of heir of accused.
13.P.W.1, mother of deceased, deposed that she is a native of
Nayagov Byravagajja, Taluq: Sonpuri, District Chaptra, Bihar and at present, she has been residing at Muppireddypally village. She is a house wife. (L.W.2) Md.Kalam is her husband, (L.W.5) Sayad Ali is her son. She knows (L.W.3) Ch.Krishna and (L.W.4) Sudhakar. The deceased Kushboo is her daughter. She knows the accused, who is native of Uttar Pradesh and resides opposite to their house. Her deceased daughter was studying first standard in Government School at Muppireddypally at the time of incident. The incident occurred about ten months back. About ten months back both of her children went to school at 08.00 A.M., in the morning and in the evening hours, her son came alone, then she enquired with her son as to why the deceased had not come to the house. Then her son informed her that the accused took her daughter during lunch hours. P.W.1 identified the accused in the Court. Then she searched in and around her area and also at the school, but her efforts went in vain. Afterwards she gave complaint in the evening. Ex.P1 is the compliant given by her to the police. Police drafted Ex.P1 on her dictation in Hindi and they translated into Telugu and read over and explained the same to her in
Hindi. The Sub Inspector of Police examined her. On the next day morning, her husband and some of her well-wishers searched for her daughter in the forest near the school. They found the dead body of deceased in culvert. After receiving information, immediately she 10 went there and found her in the pool of blood and the blood is oozing from her private parts. Immediately police came to the spot and conducted inquest panchanama on the spot. M.O.1 is the shirt, skirt, over coat and inner wear of deceased. M.O.2 is the hair clip, pencil and slate pencil. After conducting inquest panchanama the body was sent for post mortem examination. After completion of P.M.E., the body was handed over to them for final rites. C.I. of Police again recorded my statement.
14.The learned counsel for accused cross-examined P.W.1 and she deposed in her cross-examination that two months prior to the incident, she was residing at Muppireddypally Village. The school timing of her children is 09.00A.M., to 03.00P.M. The lunchtime would be from 01.00 to 01.40 P.M. Her son came at about 03.00P.M. The teacher of her daughter told her son that her daughter was not seen.
She denied the suggestion that her daughter and son did not go together to the school in the morning. She does not know who is the teacher in the afternoon for her daughter. The school attenders and aya usually would not send the children with strangers. P.W.1 added that it did not happen so with her daughter. She went to the school initially to enquire about her daughter. She went to the school at 03.00
P.M. The school is short distance from her house. Her neighbor children also go to the same school. She denied the suggestion that her children did not go to the school on that day and that when her daughter is playing, street dogs have bitten her and caused injuries.
The accused had night shift on the day of incident. She denied the 11 suggestion that due to the previous enmity, she deposed false against the accused and implicated the accused falsely in this case and that that accused had not committed any such offence. Both of her children used to carry books in one bag.
15.P.W.2, father of deceased, deposed that he is a native of
Nayagov Byravagajja, Taluq: Sonpuri, District Chaptra, Bihar and at present, she has been residing at Muppireddypally village. She is a private employee. He studied up to 4th class. He can only sign his signature. P.W.1 is his wife. L.W.5 is his son. I know (L.W.3) Ch.Krishna, (L.W.4) Sudhakar and L.W.6. The deceased Kushboo is his daughter.
He knows the accused, who is native of Uttar Pradesh and resides opposite to their house in first floor. His deceased daughter was studying first standard in Government School at Muppireddypally at the time of incident. On 06.12.2017 both of his children went to school at 08.00 A.M. to 08.30 A.M. in the morning. On that day, he went to his duty at 08.00A.M., and after receiving information that her daughter is missing, he obtained permission from his superior and returned back at 06.00 P.M and made search for his daughter in and around my area, but couldn’t found her. His son informed his that the accused came to school at 12.45 P.M during lunch hours and took her daughter along with him, in spite of his request not to take her outside. Subsequently
P.W.1 submitted complaint in the Police Station. He also accompanied
P.W.1 to P.S., Manoharabad. They remained in the police station up to 12.00 midnight, later they returned to their house. On the next day, he along with his company men searched for his daughter in forest 12 area. They found the dead body of his deceased daughter in a pool of blood in a culvert. Later police came to the spot and conducted inquest panchanama. After conducting inquest panchanama the body was sent for post mortem examination. After completion of P.M.E., the body was handed over to them for final rites. C.I. of Police examined him and recorded his statement. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 denied the suggestion that he does not know as to whether his daughter went to the school or not on the day of incident. He took permission for one hour at 06.00P.M., and after one hour again he went to his duty and he stayed there till 08.00 P.M. in his office. He denied the suggestion that P.W.1 did not make any search for his daughter until 08-00 P.M., in the evening and that his son did not inform him about his daughter and that he had not enquired with the school staff about his daughter. He knows the accused since he resides in his area.
The accused works in another company, but he does not know about his duty timings. He had not seen the accused on the day of incident.
He denied the suggestion that his daughter did not go to the school on the day of incident and when she was playing on the road and some street dogs bitten her and that the accused is not the resident of their area and not committed any offence as narrated by him and that he deposed falsehood and falsely implicated the accused in this case.
16.P.W.3 deposed that he is resident of Muppireddypally village,
Manoharabad Mandal and he runs a grocery shop. He know P.Ws1 & 2 and L.W.5 Syed Ali and deceased Kushbu, since they were residents of their locality. He knows the accused. In the month of December, 2017, 13 on one day, at about 01.00P.M., when he was in his shop, the accused brought the deceased to his shop and purchased sweets and chocolates for Rs.5/- and given the same to the deceased and took her towards Rangaiahpally Village leading to the culvert. At that time, the deceased was in school uniform. M.O.1 is the school uniform. On the same day at about 04.30 P.M., P.W.1 came to his shop and enquired with him whether he had seen the deceased, then he replied that the accused brought the deceased along with him at about 01.00P.M., in the afternoon and bought chocolates for her and took her towards
Rangaiahpally Village. In spite of the search made by all the persons, the whereabouts of the deceased was not found. In the evening hours, at about 06.30 P.M., P.W.1 made a complaint to the police. On the next morning, he came to know that the deceased was found dead under the culvert. He came to know that the deceased was killed after sexual assault by the accused. Police examined him and recorded his statement. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 deposed that his shop is situated just opposite to the house of P.W.1. The compound wall is there to the house of P.W.1. The school is at a distance of half a kilometer. There were shops in and around the school also. The population of the village will be around 2000. There are around 5 to 6 shops in our village. The school and his shop are situated on the opposite fag ends of the village. He had not seen the deceased while she was going to the School. The incident occurred on 06.12.2017.
He denied the suggestion that the school was closed on day of incident due to Black day and that he had not stated before the police that the accused has purchased chocolates from my shop by the deceased.
14
P.W.2 came to his shop at about 05.30P.M. He had not accompanied
P.W.1 to lodge complaint. Both the deceased and accused came by foot to his shop at about 01.00 P.M. He denied the suggestion that the deceased went to her house after taking chocolates from the accused and that he deposed false that accused taken the deceased towards
Rangaiahpally Village and that the accused never brought the deceased to his shop and purchased chocolates and sweets and given to her and took her towards Rangaiahpally Village on 06.12.2017.
P.W.2 is his customer. He denied the suggestion that as P.Ws1 & 2 are his customers, he deposed false at their instance and falsely implicated the accused in this case and that he could not identify the accused.
17.P.W.4 deposed that he is a resident of Kalakal Village and he is a private employee work along with P.W.2. He knows P.W.1 and deceased
Kushbu. On 06.12.2017, at about 03.30 P.M. to 04.00 P.M., P.W.2 received phone call from P.W.1 that the deceased did not return home from School. Immediately, P.W.2 went to his house, he also accompanied P.W.2 and they made search for the deceased, but could not found her. On the next day morning, they found the dead body of deceased under the culvert in a pool of blood and blood was also oozing from her private parts. Police came to the spot and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased and shifted to hospital for post mortem examination. Police examined him and recorded his statement. In his cross-examination, P.W.4 deposed that his village is at a distance of 2 km from the village of P.Ws1 & 2. P.W.2 15 is working along with him since three to four years. P.W.2 and himself are close friends. He denied the suggestion that the mobile phones are not allowed in our company. Himself and P.W.2 went to School of deceased after receiving information. They obtained permission from of their superior and left the company at about 03.30 P.M. The school is at a distance of 1km from their company. They directly went to the school and asked the teacher about the deceased and he could not say the name of the teacher. He does not exactly say the school timings.
By the time they reached the school the school was open and students also present there. From the school they directly went to the house of
P.W.2 and enquired with P.W.1. They waited until 06.00P.M., for the deceased and thereafter he returned to the company. P.W.1 did not return to the company. He also made search in the morning and found the deceased under the culvert. At about 09.00A.M., they found the body of deceased under the culvert. He denied the suggestion that he never accompanied P.W.2 to the school or made any search for the deceased on the next day morning and the deceased was not found under the culvert and that being close friend of P.W.2, he deposed. Police recorded his statement at the scene of offence.
18.P.W.5 is elder brother of deceased minor girl-Kushbu and minor son of P.Ws1 and 2. Being a child-witness (aged 12 years), he gave rationale answers to the preliminary questions posed by the Court, as such; after satisfying that he is fit to testify, this Court proceeded with recording his evidence. In his chief-examination, P.W.5 deposed that he is a native of Nayagov Byravagajja, Taluq: Sonpuri, District Chaptra, 16
Bihar and now he has been residing at Muppireddypally village and that he is a student. P.Ws1 & 2 are his parents and he knows P.W.3.
The deceased Kushbu is his younger sister. Himself and his deceased sister were studying in Government School, at Muppireddypally Village.
On 06.12.2017, at about 08.00A.M., they both went to School. During lunch hours at about 01.00P.M., the accused came to School and asked him about his sister, for which he replied that she is taking lunch.
Later the accused asked him to call his sister and then he told the accused not to take his sister anywhere. Then, the accused replied that he would not take his sister anywhere. Later on when he went to urinals, the accused took his sister. He does not know where the accused has taken his sister. Usually his school timings is for 04.00
P.M., but on that day the school was closed by 03.00P.M., by that time his sister did not come. Then, he informed his mother-P.W.1, who made search for his sister and as his sister was not found, his mother called to his father, who also came and searched for his sister till 08.00 P.M.
On the next day, his father along with his friends searched for his sister and they found his sister in a culvert. He also went to the scene and found his sister in the pool of blood. Police also came to scene of offence. M.Os1 & 2 belongs to his sister. Police examined him recorded his statement. In his cross-examination, P.W.5 denied the suggestion that himself and his sister did not go to the school together.
There is a gate to my school. There would not be any Teacher or
Attender at the school gate and lock to the gate. All the students take lunch together. He denied the suggestion that he had seen the accused for the first time after the filing of the case. The accused did 17 not come to the school prior to the date of incident. The accused never spoke to him or to his sister prior to the date of incident. He admitted that during lunchtime they go out of the school to purchase chocolates and biscuits. The accused resides near to their house on the upstairs of the kirana shop and he know him prior to the incident.
The accused took his sister along with him when he went to the urinals.
He did not inform to any person or teacher about the accused asking him for her sister. Nobody enquired him about the accused as he is a stranger. He denied the suggestion that his sister and himself carry the bags separately. He does not know the reason for closing the school at 03.00 P.M., on the day of incident. He did not inform anybody that in spite of his request the accused took away his sister. He did not inform any teacher that the accused took away his sister. He denied the suggestion that the accused never came to his school and not took away his sister and that his sister purchased chocolates and went outside the school and he had not stated before the police that he had informed to his mother and his mother informed the same to his father and that he had not stated before the police that the accused came to him and asked him about his sister and that he deposed false at the instance of P.Ws1 & 2.
19P.W.6 deposed that he is a of Muppireddypally village,
Manoharabad Mandal and he is a business man. I know P.Ws1 to 5.
P.Ws1 & 2 along with their children used to reside as tenants in his house. He knows the accused who is resident of their locality and used to reside opposite to his house. He knows the deceased Kushbu. On 18 06.12.2017, at about 06.00P.M., he came to know that the deceased
Kushbu was found missing. On that day P.Ws1 & 2, himself and some other villagers searched in and around their locality for the deceased, but they could not find her. On the next morning, he came to know that the deceased was found died in the culvert situated near
Mondikunta Vagu. Immediately, he also rushed to the scene of offence and found the deceased naked in a pool of blood and the clothes of the deceased found near the body of deceased. Police brought the naked body out of the culvert. Police conducted inquest panchanama and sent the body for P.M.E. Police examined him and recorded his statement. During examination, Police also obtained the photographs of the deceased. In his cross-examination, P.W.6 deposed that there were six portions in his house. The house in which the accused residing is a double stored building, but he does not know how many portions are there. He had seen the accused for two months prior to the incident in that house. The accused has no family. P.W.3 informed him that the deceased is missing. P.W.3 runs a kirana shop. The kirana shop is visible from the house of P.Ws1 & 2. He does business of flou mill and also mineral water plant and stay at the place of his business. P.Ws1 & 2 did not inform him about the missing of their daughter. He does know the daily routine life of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that on the day of incident, the school is closed due to black day and that the deceased while playing went somewhere and was not found and the accused is not responsible for the death of deceased and that the deceased died due to dog bite and that he 19 deposed false at the instance of P.Ws1 & 2, who happen to be his tenants and that he never visited the school or the scene of offence.
20.P.W.7 deposed that he is a resident of Medchal Town & District and working as Secondary Grade Teacher, Primary School,
Muppireddypally Village from 21.07.2015. I knows the deceased
Kushboo and P.W.5, who are his students. During the academic year 2017-18, the deceased studying first standard in the school, while
P.W.5 studied second standard. He knows (L.W.8) Sangeetha who is working as Primary Vidya Volunteer in the School. On 06.12.2017, the deceased and P.W.5 came to school. After lunch hours they did not find the deceased, as such he asked P.W.5, then P.W.5 informed him that one uncle who resides his locality took her out of the school on the pretext of purchasing chocolates. Later he informed the parents of the deceased. On the next day he came to know that the deceased was lying died in the culvert on the way to Rangaiahpally Village near
Mondikunta Vagu. As the deceased happened to be his student, they all rushed to the spot and found the dead body of deceased in a pool of blood. M.O.1 is the school uniform. Police examined him and recorded his statement. In his cross-examination, P.W.7 deposed that his school timings is from 09.00 A.M., to 04.00 P.M. He had not given the attendance register of their school to Police. The admission will be in the month of October, but he cannot say the date and admission number. L.W.8 is the class teacher of deceased. The lunch hour timings are from 12.10 noon to 01.00 P.M. After the lunch hour immediately, he called P.W.5 and enquired about the deceased. Then 20
P.W.5 replied that one uncle has come to their school and took his sister to give her chocolates. After one hour, he informed the same to
P.W.1. He is not the Head Master of the School. He had not informed to his superior, since he was on medical leave. There are no Attendars or Ayas to their School. There is no compound wall and gate to their school. He denied the suggestion that the children will go out of the school if there is no class as there are no attendars or ayas. The provisional store is besides the school. If any stranger comes, they shall take permission from the class teacher. There is no P.E.T. Teacher to their school. He denied the suggestion that the deceased did not attend to the school on that day, he deposed false at the instance of
P.Ws1 & 2 and police, and that P.W.5 did not inform to him and that himself and headmaster never visited the scene of offence and he deposed false.
21.P.W.8 deposed that he is a resident of Muppireddypally Village.
Previously, she worked as Vidya volunteer Teacher in Primary School,
Muppireddypally from 12.06.2017 to December, 2017. She knows
P.W.7, deceased Kushbu and P.W.5. The deceased was studying first standard and P.W.5 studying second standard in their school. She was the class teacher to first class. On 06.12.2017, the deceased and P.W.5 came to their School and attended their classes. The lunch hours of school is from 12.10 noon to 01.00 P.M. After lunch hours, when she again took attendance, the deceased was missing and then she asked
P.W.5 about the deceased, she informed that one uncle took away the deceased after lunch hours while she was playing on the pretext to 21 give biscuits. As the deceased did not return to school, she informed the same to P.W.7 and she sent P.W.5 to his home in order to inform about the missing of deceased. P.Ws1 & 2 and some other villagers came to school at about 03.00 P.M., they also searched for the deceased along with P.Ws1 & 2 and villagers, but they could not find her till 07.00 to 08.00P.M. On the next day, they came to know that the dead body of deceased was found in a culvert. Immediately they rushed to the spot and found the body of deceased in a pool of blood.
The sweater, top and lower were removed and she was half-naked and she was profusely bleeding. M.O.1 is the uniform. Later police came there. Police examined her and recorded her statement. In her cross- examination, P.W.8 deposed that she had no idea about the admission of deceased in their School. She has not given the attendance register to the Police. There would not be any aya in their school, but cooking people will be there. There are no Attendars to their School. The class teacher of P.W.5 is Mamatha. After coming to know about the missing of the girl, she immediately informed to P.W.7. She had not enquired anybody, but P.W.7 enquired about the deceased. She does not know about P.W.5 and she did not enquire with him. She can identify P.Ws1 & 2. P.Ws1 & 2 came to their school at about 03.00 P.M. After 03.00P.M., all of them made search for the deceased. There is no provisional stores besides the school. In the leisure period, somebody will be looking after the children. When any stranger comes, they will enquire him. If any children want to go out, they cshall take permission from her. On the day of incident, nobody took permission as it was lunch hour. She had not sent P.W.5 to his house. She denied 22 that suggestion that the deceased did not attend the school on that day and she deposed false at the instance of P.Ws1 & 2 and Police and that P.W.5 did not came to her and informed about deceased and that she did not go to the scene of offence on the next day and that no person came to their school and took the deceased.
22.P.W.9 deposed that he is a resident of Muppireddypally Village and he is an agriculturist. He know P.Ws1to 5 and deceased Kushboo.
P.W.6 is his younger brother. I know the accused, who is his tenant since 2 years prior to the incident. P.Ws1 & 2 and his children resides opposite to their house. About eight or nine months back, he came to know that the deceased Kushbu was raped and killed and the dead body was found in a culvert near Mondikunta on the way to
Rangaiahpally Village. He came to know through the villagers that the accused is the person committed the offence. Police examined him and recorded his statement. In his cross-examination, P.W.9 deposed that accused along with two to three families resides in their house.
He goes to agriculture in the morning and return in the evening. He had not taken the address or details of accused while giving house to him. One of the colleagues of accused brought the accused to him for rent a house. The accused used to work in a plastic bucket manufacturing company. He had only one house. He does not know whether the accused went to work in company on the day of incident.
He denied the suggestion that the accused never used to reside in his house as tenant and he deposed false at the instance of P.Ws1 & 2.
23
23.P.W.10 deposed that he is resident of Gajwel and he is a photographer. On 07.12.2017, police called him to scene of offence, which is situated at Mondikunta Vagu to take photographs of scene of offence and deceased. He got photographed the scene of offence, later he went to Govt., Hospital, Gajwel and there he took the videos of dead body at the time of P.M.E and handed over (03) photographs and
C.D. to the Police. Ex.P2 is (03) photographs. Ex.P3 is the C.D. of video. Police examined his and recorded his statement. In his cross- examination, P.W.10 deposed that there is no written requisition given to him by police. He denied the suggestion that he never took the photographs of deceased nor took the videos of dead body at the time of P.M.E and handed over the same to the Police and that he had not given any receipt to the Police. He admitted that there is no stamp of our photo studio on the photos.
24.P.W.11 deposed that he is a resident of Kondapur H/o Kallkal
Village, Manoharabad Mandal and working as V.R.A., Muppireddypally
Village. He know P.Ws1 to 8 and L.W.12. About ten months back, on one day, police called him and L.W.12 M.Narsimulu to the Government
School at Muppireddypally Village. Police observed the school premises (first scene of offence panchanama) and prepared panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of school in their presence and obtained their signatures. Ex.P4 is the school premises (first scene of offence panchanama). Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. In his cross- examination, P.W.11 deposed that at about 08.30 A.M., in the morning, he was called by the S.I. of Police to the School. He could not say the 24 date. There are two schools, one is primary school and the other is secondary school. There is a gate to the school. There is no lock to the gate. One of the gates is damaged. He denied the suggestion that
P.W.2 works along with him and that he is stock witness to the police.
The school is a single stored building along with open place. After the children going into the school, the gate will be closed. He denied the suggestion that he did not act as panch witness to the scene and police obtained his signatures on white papers in the police station.
25.P.W.12 deposed that he is a resident of Muppireddypally Village,
Manoharabad Mandal and he is an agriculturist. He know P.Ws1 to 9, 11 and (L.W.14) Ch.Shankar and (L.W.l5) P.Pramodini. About ten months back, on 07.12.2017, he came to know that a dead body of a girl was lying in culvert situated on the way to Rangaiahpally near
Mondikunta Vagu. He went there and saw many persons of village gathered there. Meanwhile, Police also came there and himself, (L.W.14) Ch.Shankar and (L.W.l5) P.Pramodini voluntarily approached to the police to act as mediators. Police observed the scene of offence and got photographed the scene. Media personnel also arrived there and took the photographs of the scene. Police took the dead body from the culvert and the dead body was completely blood stained and blood was also oozing from her private parts. The dead body was half- naked. They found hair in her right hand and they also found hair pin, one pencil and one piece of slate pencil. Police prepared scene of offence panchanama and seized M.O.2. Ex.P6 is scene of offence panchanama. Police also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence.
25
Ex.P7 is rough sketch of scene of offence. Police also held inquest over the dead body of deceased in their presence. Ex.P8 is the inquest panchanama. He is of the opinion that the deceased girl was raped and killed. In his cross-examination, P.W.12 deposed that the scene of offence is half kilo meters from our village. The scene of offence is surrounded by agricultural lands. He went to the scene of offence at 10.00A.M., did not see the police, when he visited the scene of offence. About 100 people were present at the scene of offence. The parents of the deceased also present at the scene of offence. The body of the deceased was not taken out of the culvert at that time.
P.W.1 is not his friend. He was present at the scene when panchanama was conducting. The panchanama was drafted on the road beside the scene of offence. There is possibility of wild animals roaming at the scene of offence in the nighttime. The locality people informed about the incident. He had not observed the company of M.O.2. He had not been to the scene on the day of incident. He denied the suggestion that he had not been to the scene of offence and no panchanama or rough sketch was conducted in his presence and he signed on Exs.P6 to 8 at the police station and that the deceased did not die after being sexually assaulted.
26.P.W.13 deposed that he wasworking as Headmistress in
Government School Muppireddypally Village, Manoharabad Mandal from 15.05.2013. She know P.Ws1, 2, 5 and deceased. The deceased
Kushbu was admitted in their School in first standard vide admission
No.333, on 16.10.2017. At request of police, she issued Bona fide 26
Certificate of the deceased. Ex.P9 is bona fide Certificate. As per records, the date of birth of deceased is 22.05.2012. Police examined her and recorded her statement. As the deceased happens to be her student, she went to the culvert situated near Mondikunta Vagu and in her presence and also in the presence of P.W.12, L.W.14 the scene of offence was observed by police and prepared and inquest was held on the dead body of deceased. The dead body was half-naked. The blood was oozing from the private parts of deceased. The panchas opined that the deceased girl was raped and killed. M.O.1 is the uniform and sweater in maroon colour, which was donated by Shantha
Biotechs. In her cross-examination, P.W.13 deposed that all of their school staff went to the scene at about 10.00 A.M. There are no specific boundaries of scene, but it is a pipe line. She admitted that
Ex.P9 does not contain the date of admission. She adds that the date of admission will be noted in the admission register. She admitted that she had not given the same to the Police. She adds that if it is required the admission register will be produced before the Court. He admitted that Ex.P9 was issued on 16.03.2018 and the year of admission was also not mentioned on Ex.P9 and that the general admission will be taken up to August. She adds if the late comers also possibility of taking late admission. She admitted that she had not produced the admission form of the deceased. She was on leave on 05th & 6th of
December, 2017. She was working on 07.12.2017. She admitted that none of their school staff have given complaint as the girl as missing.
There are no Ayas or Attenders to their school. Their school timings are from 09.00 A.M to 04.00 P.M., As there is no compound wall the 27 children also plays outside the school. She denied the suggestion that no incident occurred as narrated by her and the deceased went playing outside and was missing and that he deposed false at the instance of
P.Ws1 & 2 and police. In her re-examination, she deposed that admission register and the application form are available with them and she can produce the same. On 02.11.2018 she brought the original Admission Register, Application form and attendance register and the attested copies of the same are supplied to the defense counsel. Ex.P15 is the attested copy of relevant portion of admission register. As per Ex.P16, the deceased joined the school on 16.10.2017.
Ex.P17 is the attested copy of attendance register for the month of
December 2017. In her re-cross-examination, she admitted that no photo was affixed to the application form. She had filed Ex.P16 application form. She denied the suggestion that attendance register on the date 06.12.2017 was tampered and that there is no instance of half-day attendance in entire register. They would take attendance in the afternoon also and class teacher usually take the attendance. She denied the suggestion that on the date of incident, the deceased did not attend the school and they marked her attendance at the instance of police and that ExsP15 & P16 were fabricated for the purpose of the case.
27.P.W.14 deposed that he is a resident of Muppireddypally Village,
Manoharabad Mandal and he is an agriculturist. He know (L.W.17)
Mohd. Anwar. About ten months back, the C.I. of Police, Toopran called him and L.W.17 to the Government Hospital, Gajwel. Police 28 asked them to act as mediators for recovery of clothes from the body of deceased girl. Police seized M.O.1 under cover of seizure panchanama. Ex.P10 is seizure pancahama of clothes/M.O.1. In his cross-examination, P.W.14 admitted that the uniform is same for all government schools. He cannot say whether the school uniform will be available in the open market or not and he cannot say the exact size of uniform. The M.O.1 was seized at the hospital. He denied the suggestion that police never seized M.O.1 in his presence and he is deposing false at the instance of Police and police obtained his signature on Ex.P10 at the police station and that that police did not affix panch slips on M.O.1 and he had not signed on it.
28.P.W.15 deposed that he is a resident of Yavapur Village, Toopran
Mandal and working as V.R.O Kulcharam Village Cluster, which consists of three villages Kulcharam, Jeedipally and Muppireddypally. He knows
L.W.19 Ch.Mallesham, who is V.R.O. of Ramaiahpally Village. On 07.12.2017 at about 07.00 to 07.30 P.M., the C.I. of Police, Toopran called him and L.W.19 Ch.Mallesham to the K.V. Company situate at the outskirts of Muppireddypally Village. There they found accused in the custody of police. The C.I. of Police requested him to question the accused. Accordingly, they questioned the accused and the accused confessed the commission of offence. In pursuance of the confession, accused lead them to the house and from there he brought his pant, T- shirt and banian and he observed some stains on the pant, which was seized by the police and the police has taken his signatures on the panch slips. The seizure panchaama is marked as Ex.P11. The pant, T- 29 shirt and banian is marked as M.O.3. In his cross-examination, P.W.15 deposed that distance between the K.V. company and the village is one kilometer. He denied the suggestion that he is not the V.R.O. for
Muppireddypally Village. There is no written authorization from his superior to act as panch and only on oral instructions of his superiors, he acted as panch. There are streetlights near the company. Beside the company, he questioned the accused. The accused informed his name as Ravi Jabbar and he belongs to Uttar Pradesh. The accused resides at the house of Sattaiah/P.W.9. He does not know since how long the accused living in the said house. The distance between the
K.V.Company and the scene of offence is about two kilo meters. The distance between the scene of offence and the village is half kilometer.
He denied the suggestion that accused never confessed before him about the commission of offence and nothing was seized in his presence and M.O.3 and Ex.P11 are fabricated for the purpose of this case. He could not say the house number of P.W.9. The deceased and her family reside in another house besides the house of accused.
He did not enquire as to how many portions are present in the house of deceased. The house of the accused is bounded by East: CC Road,
South: K.Mallesh house, North: M. Nagamma House and West: House of
Narsareddy. He could not say the house numbers. He denied the suggestion that he deposed false at the instance of police. He admitted that the date is not mentioned on the panch slips.
29.P.W.16 deposed that he worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Community Health Centre, Gajwel since November, 2014. He received 30 requisition from S.I. of Police, Manoharabad to conduct P.M.E. over the dead body of deceased Kushbu. Accordingly, he along with L.W.21 Dr.
Bhuvaneshwari started P.M.E. on 07.12.2017 at 02.00 P.M., and concluded it by 03.00 P.M. and found the following anti-mortem injuries on the body, viz., External: Multiple bruises over upper back region (brownish coloured) and over anterior aspect of neck region.
Internal: Nothing particular, Genitilia: External Genitilia: nothing particular, Internal genitilia: vaginal, tears present, hymen rupture present, vagina with blood clots. He preserved two vaginal swabs and two vaginal smears for onward transmission to the F.S.L. The approximate time of death is within 24 hours prior to conducting of
P.M.E. They had given short opinion. The cause of death was due to massive internal genital bleeding and due to smothering. After receipt of F.S.L., report from Red Hills, Hyderabad, they issued final opinion as to cause of death basing on the F.S.L Report as internal massive genital bleeding due to sexual intercourse. Ex.P12 is P.M.E.
report. Ex.P13 is F.S.L., Report. In his cross-examination, P.W.16 deposed that Ex.P12 does not contain the number. Ex.P12 drafted on the same day. He admitted that Ex.P12 does not bear his signature at end. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P12 was not prepared on 07.12.2017. The final opinion was drafted on Ex.P12 on a different date. He drafted the final opinion on Ex.P12. There are chances of causing the injuries sustained by the deceased while playing. Himself and L.W.21 conducted P.M.E. He denied the suggestion that the Ex.P12 was prepared at the instance of Police only to implicate the accused in this case.
31
30.P.W.17 deposed that she worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Community Health Centre, Gajwel from 01.12.2017 to 30.06.2018. On 07.12.2017, P.W.16 received requisition from S.I. of Police,
Manoharabad to conduct P.M.E. over the dead body of deceased
Kushbu. Accordingly, she along with P.W.16 started P.M.E. on 07.12.2017 at 02.00P.M., and concluded it by 03.00P.M and found the injuries mentioned in Ex.P12 and after receiving report from F.S.L., she issued separate final opinion, marked as Ex.P14. She deposed in her cross-examination that she had only assisted P.W.16 in this case. she did conduct the vaginal examination and she has given the separate report Ex.P14. On 07.12.2017, they did examination at about 06.00P.M. The first page of her report does not bear her signatures.
She affixed her signature at the end. She denied the suggestion that she only assisted P.W.16 and she does not know about the case. She denied the suggestion that as he was fresher no work should assigned to her and she has given Ex.P14 report at the instance of Police and that he deposed false at the instance of Police.
31.P.W.18 deposed that she has been working as Civil Assistant
Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Gajwel from 07.09.2017. On 08.12.2017, at 05.50 P.M., she received a requisition from Police
Manoharabad to conduct potency test on a male by name Ajay @ Ravi
Rajbar. Witness identified the accused present in the Court.
Accordingly, he examined the person and gave his report that there is nothing to suggest that accused is incapable of performing sexual act.
Ex.P15 is the report given by him. P.W.18 deposed in his cross- 32 examination that the person subjected to test himself will collect the semen in the presence of their staff. The semen will not be collected in his presence. Witness adds that he had examined the accused. He denied the suggestion that he had not examined the accused person and deposing false at the instance of Police and that the accused is impotent and incapable for sexual act.
32.P.W.19 deposed that he worked as Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.,
Manoharabad from 18.05.2017. On 06.12.2017, at 21.30 hours, he received Ex.P1complaint from P.W.1, basing on which he registered a case under section 363 of I.P.C and issued F.I.R. Ex.P18 is the F.I.R.
issued by him. He recorded the statements of P.Ws1 & 2 in the police station. On 07.12.2017, he visited to the Primary School,
Muppireddypally Village and secured the presence of P.W.11 and L.W.12
Narsimulu and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. On the same day, he recorded the statement of P.W.3 at his kirana shop. He also examined P.W.4 and recorded his statement. On the basis of evidence collected, he added the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)(1) of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of POCSO Act from Sec.363 of IPC and filed memo before J.F.C.M.,
Gajwel. Ex.P19 is the Section Alteration Memo. As the case is grave in nature, the C.I. of Police, Toopran Circle took up further investigation in the matter. In his cross-examination, P.W.19 deposed that he did not receive any other information other than the Ex.P1complaint. He admitted that as per Ex.P1, the accused resides on the upstairs of deceased house and as per Ex.P5 the school is bounded by compound 33 wall. He had not examined the neighbours of the school. The school gate has a lock. Witness adds that on that day it was not locked. He had not taken the house number or the door number of the kirana shop. He had not taken the details as to how much was purchased from the kirana shop on the day of incident. The distance between the school and kirana shop is half kilo meters. He did not observe any kirana shop besides the school. He admitted that P.Ws2 & 4 are colleagues and work in the same company. He had not been to the company to enquire the duty timings of P.W.2. P.Ws1 & 2 both came to the Police Station and gave complaint. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not take the deceased and he was falsely implicated in this case and that he deposed false and that he did not go to the school and did not conduct scene of offence panchanama and did not recorded the statements of P.Ws1 to 4 & 11.
33.P.W.20 deposed that he has been working as Assistant Director
DNA finger printing expert, Telangana State Forensic Science
Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad since 1997. On 12.12.2017, he received requisition from Sub-divisional Police Officer, Toopran Sub
Division for conducting serological and DNA examination. He received (9) sealed cloth parcels and one sealed card board box, each sealed with four seals, which are intact and tallying with the samples sealed through Sri.S.Gattes P.C.Noo.2603 of P.S., Manoharabad on 12.12.2017.
The cloth parcels contained a plastic jar contained, (1) Two glass slides with dried smear on each marked as item No.1, (2) Two cotton swabs marked as item No.2. A cloth parcel with label of item No. II, 34
Cr.No.107/17, P.S., Manoharabad Dist. Medak with PC contained. (3)
Tuft of hair marked as item NO.3. A cloth parcel with label of Item
No.III, Cr.No.107/2017, P.S., Manoharabad Dist.Medak with PC contained. (4) A dark blue colour terry cotton frock marked as item
No.4. A cloth parcel with label of item No. IV, Cr.No.107/2017 with PC contained (5) a blue and white colour checks design terry cotton half sleeves shirt marked as item No.5. A cloth parcel with label of item No.
V, Cr.No.1074/17 with PC contained. (6) A black colour mill made legging marked as item NO.6. A cloth parcel with label of item No.VI,
Cr.No.107/17 with PC contained. (7) A dark red colour Woolen sweater with full sleeves marked as item NO.7. A cloth parcel with label of item
NO.VII, Cr.No.107/1\7 Dist. Medak, with PC contained. (8) An ash colour mill made track pant marked as item No.8. A cloth parcel with label of item No. VIII, Cr.NO.107/17, Dist. Medak with PC contained. (9)
A turban white colour mill made cut sleeves banian marked as item
No.9. A cloth parcel with label of item No. IX, Cr.No.107/17, Dist.
Medak PS Manoharabad with PC contained. (10) A black colour mill made T-Shirt with dirty stains marked as item No.10. A card board box with label of “semen for analysis” Cr.NO.107/17, Accused Ajay @ Ravi
Rajbar contained. (11) Whitish turbid liquid marked as item No.11.
During Serological and DNA Examination, item numbers 1 to 11 are examined, the Human semen and spermatozoa are detected on item
Nos.3 to 8, 10 & 11, but their blood group could not be determined.
Semen and spermatozoa are not detected on Item Nos.1, 2 and 9 and
Blood group was not detected on item Nos.3 to 10. The result of his examination is that D.N.A is extracted from item Nos.1 to 11 and 35 subjected to Autosomal STR analysis by using investigator ID plex plus kit. An identical female DNA profile has been generated from item Nos.
1 and 2. The DNA profile obtained from item Nos8, 10, 11 is compared with the DNA profiles obtained from item Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The allelic pattern of item Nos. 8, 10, 11 matches with the allelic patterns of item Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. There is no amplifiable DNA yield from item
No.9. The autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that the DNA profile of source of item Nos.8, 10, 11 (Ajay @ Ravi Rajbar) is matching with the DNA profile of source of item Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 and they are of same biological origin. Ex.P20 is the report of the DNA electro- phonogram contains (12) pages. P.W.20 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused and he denied the suggestion in his cross- examination that that the blood is not detected on item Nos.1 to 11 and that due to delay the accurate report cannot be given by the F.S.L.
He admitted that they have not filed the C.D. of Ex.P20 report and denied the suggestion that he had not done investigation on proper lines and issued a false report. It was elicited in his re-examination that the delay of four days was not material as the items No.P1 to P11 are stains and can be ascertained even after lapse of years. In his re- cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he deposedfalse at the instance of police.
34.P.W.21 deposed that he worked as Inspector of Police, Toopran
Circle from 15.03.2017. On receipt of information, he collected C.D.
from P.W.19 and took up investigation. Later he visited the scene of offence Mondikunta Vaagu, conducted the scene of offence 36 panchanama in the presence of P.W.12 and L.W.14 and seized M.Os 1 to 3 and also seized Tuft of Hair from the right hand of deceased.
M.O.4 is the Tuft of hair of the deceased, which was received from the
F.S.L. Later he had drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence and again he recorded the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.Ws4 to 8.
Thereafter he secured the presence of one lady panch P.W13 for the purpose of inquest panchanama in addition to P.W.12 and L.W.14. After that he got photographed the scene of offence through P.W.10. He had also recorded the statement of P.W.10. Later the body was sent for post mortem examination to Gajwel Hospital. During the P.M.E P.W.17 preserved smears and swabs. After the P.M.E he seized cloth. M.O.1 in the presence of PW.14 and LW.17. After the completion of the P.M.E., he handed over the dead body to the blood relatives. Same day on credible information he apprehended the accused near the K.B.
company, Muppireddipally. On enquiry accused confessed the commission of offence. Immediately he secured the presence of panch witness P.W.15 and L.W.19. Accused confessed the commission of offence in the presence of PW15 and LW19 and he lead them to his house and he brought MO3 Shirt, Pant and Baniyan and the same were seized in the presence of PW15 and L.W.19. After the completion of seizure, he recorded the statement of P.W9. After informing the grounds of arrest, he arrested the accused and sent him to Govt.
Hospital, Gajwel for potency test and later on he sent the accused to judicial remand. Later M.O.1, 3, 4, 5 and smears and swabs were sent to FSL through our SDPO for examination and also for DNA profile. He also recorded the statement of PW.13. He collected the bona fide 37 certificate of the deceased (Ex.P.9). After receiving the seized property from F.S.L., he deposited before the Court. After collecting all the relevant documents, he filed charge sheet. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused and he deposed in his cross- examination that prior to his examining all the witnesses, L.W.9 has examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to 4. He denied the suggestion that he had suppressed the statement recorded by P.W19.
He admitted that the scene of offence is a busy area. Scene of offence is at a distance of half kilo meter from the village and it cannot not be viewed from the village. He denied the suggestion that if a girl shouts from the scene of offence it can be audible at the village. The culvert is newly constructed; as such, water is not flowing from the Lake. He admitted that there is only one route from the lake i.e. from the
Culvert. Witness adds that there is no water in the Lake. The scene of offence is surrounded by agricultural fields. He admitted that he had not examined any of the neighbouring landowners of the scene of offence. The K.V company is situated nearly at a distance of one kilo meter from the scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that he had not sent M.O.4 for DNA test to the FSL., and that accused never resided in the house of P.W.9 and that he planted M.O.s 1 to 3 for the purpose of this case; and that he had not seized M.O.3 from the house of P.W.9; and that he had not mentioned the house number of PW.9; and that he had not filed any documents to show that P.W5 studies in the same school as of the deceased. He admitted that he had not filed any document to show that PW10 has taken the photographs of the scene of offence and that he had not examined the staff of Mid day 38 meals. There are no attenders in the school of the deceased. He had not observed any Kirana shop near by the School. The house of the deceased is at a distance of half kilo meter from the School. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted investigation properly, never visited scene of offence, nor conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seized M.O.1 to 4 so also he had not apprehended the accused and accused has not confessed anything before P.W.15 and LW19. He admitted that no date is mentioned on the panch slips.
He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted panchanma as there is no date on the panch slips and that he had not done the investigation property and falsely implicated the accused in this case and that accused is no way concerned with alleged offence and he deposed false.
35.Now it is to be seen from the oral and documentary evidence on record as to whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 (2)(i), 302 I.P.C. 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt.
36.In this case, there is no direct evidence. The prosecution adduced only circumstantial evidence to prove its case. In order to prove the guilt of accused by way of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to necessarily establish complete chain of circumstances leading to conclusively pointing out guilt towards the accused. P.W.1 happened to be the mother of the deceased. She 39 deposed that deceased Kushboo is her daughter and that she knows the accused, who is a native of Uttar Pradesh and resides opposite to their house. The incident occurred about ten months ago. On that day, her children (minor son and minor daughter) went to school at 08.00 A.M and in the evening only her minor son returned home and as such; she enquired with her minor son as to why her minor daughter (deceased) did not come house. Her minor son informed her that accused took away her minor daughter during lunch hours. This piece of her evidence gains corroboration from the evidence of her minor son examined as P.W.5. P.W.1 further deposed that she searched for her minor daughter (deceased) in and around their area and also at the school area, but her efforts in tracing out her minor daughter turned futile. She lodged Ex.P1 complaint with the police. Next morning her husband and their well-wishers searched for her minor daughter and found her dead body near a culvert in the outskirts of village. She went to the spot and found the dead body of her minor daughter in a pool of blood. She also found that blood was oozing from private parts of her deceased minor daughter.
37.P.W.2 is father of deceased, who deposed that on 06.12.2017 at 08.00 A.M., when his children went to School, he went to his duty.
While in duty, he received information about missing of his daughter.
As such, he took permission from his superior, returned at 06.00 P.M., made search for his minor daughter in and around their area.
However, he could not trace out his minor daughter. His minor son, who also went to school in the morning along with his minor daughter, informed him that at 12.45 P.M accused took away the deceased from 40 the school, in spite of his son’s request not to take away her outside.
As such, P.W.2 accompanied his wife (P.W.1) to P.S Manoharabad and
P.W.1 complained to the Police. The minor son of P.W.2 was examined as P.W.5 deposed that on 06.12.2017 he accompanied his deceased minor sister to school and at about 01.00 P.M accused went to school, asked him (P.W.5) about his sister (deceased), for which, he (P.W.5) replied that she (deceased) was taking lunch. P.W.5 further deposed that when accused asked him (P.W.5) to call his sister (deceased), he (P.W.5) told the accused not to take away his sister (deceased) to anywhere. P.W.5 further deposed that the accused replied him (P.W.5) that he (accused) would not take away his sister (deceased) anywhere but later on, when he (P.W.5) went to urinals, accused took away his sister (deceased). After returning home, P.W.5 informed his mother (P.W.1), who in turn, informed her husband (P.W.2) when she could not trace her deceased daughter. The evidence of P.Ws1, 2 and 5 is corroborated with each other. Their evidence established the fact that deceased, who went to school in the morning, did not return. Their evidence further established that accused took away the deceased from the school during lunch hour and thereafter, her whereabouts were not known and that on next morning, they found the dead body of deceased near culvert in the village outskirts in pool of blood and that blood was also oozing from the private parts of the deceased.
This piece of their evidence further gains corroboration from the evidence of P.W.4, who is colleague of P.W.2, who also accompanied
P.Ws1 & 2 in searching for the deceased. P.W.4 also deposed that on next morning, they found dead body of deceased under a culvert in the 41 village outskirts and that blood was oozing from private parts of deceased.
38.P.W.3 is the other circumstantial witness in this case. He deposed that runs a grocery shop in the village and his shop is adjacent to the school. He knows the deceased and P.Ws1, 2 and 5. On one day during December 2017 at about 01.00 P.M when he was in his shop, accused brought the deceased to his shop, purchased sweets and chocolates for Rs.5/-, gave the same to deceased, took the deceased towards Rangaiahpally village leading to culvert. P.W.3 further deposed that deceased was in school uniform at that time. At 04.30
P.M when P.W.1 enquired him about deceased, P.W.3 informed P.W.1 that the accused brought the deceased to his shop at 01.00 P.M and took away the deceased towards Rangaipally village after buying chocolates for her. P.W.3 further deposed that on next morning, he came to know that deceased found dead under the culvert and that accused sexually assaulted and killed the deceased. Learned counsel
for accused could not elicit anything specific in the cross-examination
of P.Ws1 to 5 to disbelieve their above version. P.Ws1 to 3 and 5 identified the accused.
39.P.W.6 deposed that P.Ws1 and 2 along with children were his tenants and that he knows the accused, who was also a tenant in a house opposite to his house. On 06.12.2017 at about 06.00 P.M he came to know about missing of deceased and also came to know on next morning that dead body of deceased was found in a culvert near
Mondikunta vagu and that he went there and saw the dead body of 42 deceased in a pool of blood. P.W.7 School Teacher deposed that on 06.12.2017 deceased and P.W.5 attended the school and after lunch hours, when deceased was not found in the class and questioned
P.W.5., P.W.5 informed him that one, uncle, who resides in the same locality, took away the deceased from the school on the pretext of purchasing chocolates and that on next morning, he came to know that deceased was found dead near culvert near Mondikunta vagu, he went to the spot and found the dead body of deceased in a pool of blood.
P.W.8 Class-Teacher of deceased deposed that on 06.12.2017 deceased and P.W.5 attended the school and deceased was found missing after lunch. P.W.5 informed her that one uncle took away the deceased on the pretext of giving biscuits and that P.Ws1 and 2 came to school at about 03.00 P.M and searched for deceased and that on next morning, dead body of deceased was found in a culvert in a pool of blood.
Landlord of accused, examined as P.W.9 deposed that he came to know that accused raped and killed the deceased near Mondikunta on the way to Rangaiahpally village. Nothing specific was elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws6 to 9 to impeach their testimony in the chief-examination. P.W.10 is the photographer, who, at the instance of police, took Ex.P2 photographs and handed over Ex.P3 C.D and Ex.P2 to police. P.W.11 is a panch witness for scene of offence under Ex.P4 conducted at school premises with Ex.P5 rough sketch. P.W.12 is the other panch witness, in whose presence, police conducted Ex.P6 scene of offence panchanama, drawn up Ex.P7 rough sketch at the culvert.
He was also the panch for inquest held over dead body of deceased under Ex.P8. He too deposed that blood was oozing from private parts 43 of deceased and opined that deceased minor girl was raped and killed.
P.W.13 is the Headmistress of the School, who issued Ex.P9 bona fide certificate showing the date of birth of deceased as 22.05.2012. She also deposed that she saw the dead body of deceased near culvert at
Mondikunta vage and found that blood was oozing from private parts of deceased and that the panch witnesses opined that deceased girl was raped and killed. Police seized M.O.1 under Ex.P10 seizure panchanama, as deposed by P.W.14. P.W.15 is the panch witness for confession. He deposed that accused confessed the offence in their presence and in pursuance to his confession, police seized M.O.3 (pant,
T-shirt and banian) of accused under Ex.P11.
40.P.W.19 Sub Inspector of Police received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 on 06.12.2017 and issued Ex.P18 F.I.R initially for the offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C and on the basis of evidence collected by him, altered the section of law to the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 (2)(i), 302 I.P.C. 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012. P.W.21 Inspector of Police conducted further investigation. He apprehended the accused and on interrogation, in the presence of P.W.15 and another, accused confessed commission of offence and at the instance of accused, M.O.3 his clothes, which he wore at the time of commission of offence, was seized. P.W.21 sent M.Os, 1, 3, 4, 5 and smears and swabs to F.S.L through S.D.P.O. for DNA profile. He filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.
44
41.P.W.16 Medical Officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued Ex.P12 P.M.E report, stating that during his examination, he found from internal genitilia that vaginal tears present, hymen rupture present, vagina with blood clots. He preserved two vaginal swabs and two vaginal smears. P.W.16 gave final opining as to cause of death, which was due to internal genital bleeding due to sexual intercourse. P.W.17 Woman Medical Officer deposed that along with P.W.16, she conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P14 final opinion.
P.W.18 Medical Officer deposed that he conducted potency test on accused and issued report under Ex.P15 opining that there was nothing to suggest that the accused is incapable of performing sexual act.
42.P.W.20 Assistant Director (DNA finger printing expert) deposed that on 12.12.2017 he received incriminating material objects in item
Nos.1 to 11 together with requisition from the Sub-Divisional Police
Officer, Toopran for conducting serological and D.N.A examination. He further deposed that he conducted serological test and detected human semen and spermatozoa on those incriminating material objects in item Nos.1, 2 and 9, namely, (i) dried smear, (ii) cotton swabs and (iii) cut sleeves banian. He further deposed that he conducted D.N.A test from the incriminating material objects in items
No.1 to 11 and on subjecting to autosomal STR analysis by using investigator ID plex plus kit, an identical female DNA profile was generated from items No.1 and 2, viz., (i) dried smear and (ii) cotton swabs and on comparing the DNA profile, the allelic pattern in item
Nos.8, 10, 11 matched with the allelic patterns of item Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. P.W.20 further deposed that autosomal STR analysis 45 conclusively proved that DNA profile of source of item Nos.8, 10, 11 of accused-Ajay @ Ravi Rajbar) matched with D.N.A profile of source item
Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and that they are the same biological origin.
P.W.20 issued Ex.P20 report of the DNA electro-phonogram.
43.From the above-discussed evidence, it is clear that all the chain of circumstances have been established that the accused kidnapped the victim minor girl (deceased) on 06.12.2017 at about 01.00 P.M when she was in the school, on the pretext of giving chocolates and sweets, took her to the shop of P.W.3, purchased sweets and chocolates for Rs.5/- from P.W.3, gave the same to the victim minor girl (deceased), took her to an isolated place at a culvert situated near to a steam called ‘Mondikunta vagu’, in the village outskirts, committed on the victim minor girl aged about five years the onslaught of aggravated penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of rape, and killed her.
Therefore, it is concluded that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 (2) (i), 302 I.P.C. 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, the point is answered.
44.In the result, while the accused is found guilty for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 (2) (i), 302 I.P.C. 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and he is 46 convicted there-for under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of December,
2018.
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
45.With regard to quantum of sentence, when questioned U/S 248(2) of Cr.P.C, the accused pleaded for mercy, claiming that he is innocent.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the charge of offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the charge of offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) I.P.C. He is further sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012. The substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(i), 302 I.P.C and 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 47 shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by him, if any, shall be set off U/S 428 Cr.P.C against the substantive sentence of imprisonment. M.Os1 to 4 and the unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENSE
P.W.1 is Smt. Asina KathunNIL
P.W.2 is Md. Kalam
P.W.3 is Ch. Krishna
P.W.4 is is K.Sudhakar
P.W.5 is Sayad Ali
P.W.6 is K. Narsimha
P.W.7 is G.Venkat Rajyam
P.W.8 is K.Sangitha
P.W.9 is K.Sathaiah
P.W.10 is A.Yadagiri
P.W.11 is P.Chandram
P.W.12 is S.Sathyanarayana
P.W.13 is P.Promodini
P.W.14 is S.Election Reddy
P.W.15 is P.Rama Rao
P.W.16 is Dr. Shiva Aitha
P.W.17 is Dr. Bhuvaneshwari
P.W.18 is Dr. Madhava Chary D.
P.W.19 is M.Vara Prasad
P.W.20 is Dr. G.Pandu 48
P.W.21 is G.Lingeshwar Rao
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P1 is the complaint
Ex.P2 is a bunch of three photographs along with Ex.P3 C.D.
Ex.P4 scene of offence panchanama with Ex.P5 rough sketch
Ex.P6 is the other scene of offence panchanama with Ex.P7 rough sketch. Ex.P8 is inquest report.
Ex.P9 is bona fide certificate of deceased.
Ex.P10 is recovery panchanama.
Ex.P11 is seizure panchanama.
Ex.P12 is inquest panchanama.
Ex.P13 is F.S.L report.
Ex.P14 is final opinion.
Ex.P15 is admission register of the School.
Ex.P16 is the application.
Ex.P17 is attendance register
Ex.P18 is F.I.R.
Ex.P19 is alteration memo and Ex.P20 is F.S.L electro report.
M.Os marked
M.O.1 is shirts skirt overcoat school innerwear.
M.O.2 is heir-clip, pencil, slate pencil.
M.O.3 pant, T-shirt and banian of accused and
M.O.4 is tuft of heir of accused.
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
49