Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL
AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE CASES AND CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT AT WARANGAL
Wednesday, the 28th day of DECEMBER 2022
PRESENT: SMT. C. PAVANI,
Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the
SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act -Cum-II Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal FAC Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, Warangal.
SPL. SESSIONS CASE NO. 36 OF 2019
Crime No.35/2018 of PS., Inthezargunj
1.Name of the Complainant: The State of Telangana, through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Warangal.
2.Name of the Accused: KodemPraveen,S/o.Late Paramathma,Age.35years. Caste:Padmashali, Occu.Business, R/o.H.no.11-19-178, Kashibugga, Warangal.
3.Ofence iith ihich Charged: Under Section 376(2)(n), 506 IPC and Section 5(l), 5(n) punishable U/ s.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act.
4.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty
5.Finding of the Court: Found guilty
6.Sentence or Order: The Accused is found guilty of the ofence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 506 IPC and Section 5(l), 5(n) punishable U/s. 6 of the 1/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019
Protection of Children from Sexual
Ofences Act. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 235(2)
CrPC for the said ofence.
Accused is sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five
Thousand only) for the ofence under Section 5(l), 5(n) of the
Protection of Children from Sexual
Ofences Act punishable U/s. 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Ofences Act. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of
Seven (7) years for the ofence under Section 506 of IPC. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. The sentences under both counts shall run concurrently. MO.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
2/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019
The remand period already undergone by the Accused from 15.02.2018 to 18.05.2018 shall be set of under Section 428 CrPC.
The Accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and he is further informed that he iill be provided a legal aid counsel, if required.
Copy of the judgment is supplied to the Accused.
:Sri M.Ranjith,
7.Name of the Prosecution CounselAdditional Public Prosecutor :Sri A. Laxminarayana Reddy,
8.Name of the Defence Counsel Learned Counsel for the Accused.
This case is coming on 14.12.2022 before me for final disposal in the presence of both the counsel on record, upon hearing both sides and upon considering the material evidence available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the folloiing:
:: JUDGMENT ::
The sole Accused is arraigned before this Court for the ofence 3/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 506 IPC and Section 5(l), 5(n) punishable
U/s.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follois:
The father of the defacto complainant/victim died about 4 yrs prior to lodging the complaint and the mother of the victim married one Kodem
Praveen in November 2017. After the marriage of the mother of the victim, the mother of the victim and her brother used to reside iith Kodem Praveen.
Praveen used to harass the mother of the victim by beating her and abusing her.
During Diiali 2017 the victim ient to the house of her grandfather and Kodem
Praveen ient to the house of the grand father of the victim and threatened to kill her, her mother, brother and grandfather and committed rape on her three times in tio days and due to his fear the victim did not reveal about the same to anyone. Thereafter she returned to her hostel at Hyderabad. On 07.01.2018 the mother of the victim, her brother and Praveen ient to Hyderabad and brought the victim to Warangal to celebrate her birthday on 08.01.2018 and after tio days of her birthday Praveen again threatened the victim and again committed rape on her by beating her and threatening her iith dire consequences. Later the victim ient into depression and ihen she ient to the house of her maternal aunt she narrated the said incidents to her aunt, iho in 4/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 turn informed about the said incident to the mother of the victim and her grandfather and they ient to Hyderabad and brought the victim to Warangal.
As such the defacto complainant filed a complaint iith the police for necessary action.
3.Basing on the said complaint the Inspector of Police, Inthezargunj registered a case in Cr.No.35/2018 under Section 327, 376(2), 506 IPC Section 5(l) punishable U/s.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act and issued the FIR. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Warangal took up the investigation and during the course of investigation he visited the scene of ofence and conducted the scene of ofence panchanama in the presence of tio mediators and got the statement of the victim recorded through the
Woman Sub Inspector of Police and thereafter the victim ias sent to the
Medical ofcer for medical examination. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner of police foriarded the material objects collected from the victim and the clothes of the victim to the FSL. Later he recorded the statements of the other iitnesses. Later he collected the date of birth certificate of the victim from her school and recorded the statements of the other iitnesses. On 15.02.2018 the
Assistant Commissioner of Police apprehended the Accused and his arrest ias efected and he ias produced before the Court for judicial remand after a 5/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 potency test ias conducted on him. Later the Assistant Commissioner of Police gave a requisition to the Magistrate for recording the statement of the victim and the statement of the victim ias recorded. After completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the Accused for the ofence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 327, 506 IPC and Sec.5(l) punishable U/s.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act .
4.The Special Court for the Trial of cases under the Protection of
Children from Sexual Ofences Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, erstihile
Warangal took cognizance of the ofence punishable U/s.376(2)(n), 327, 506 IPC and S.5(l) punishable U/s.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences
Act against the Accused. Thereafter the case ias transferred to the then IV
Additional Sessions Court Cum Special Court for trial of cases under the
Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act for disposal as per lai and thereafter the case ias transferred to this court.
5.On appearance of the Accused the copies of the documents iere furnished to him.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
for the Accused iere heard on the charges.
6/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019
7.The charge for the ofence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 506
IPC and Section 5(l), 5(n) punishable U/s.6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Ofences Act ias framed and explained to the Accused in Telugu, to ihich he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and Mos.1 to 5. After the closure of prosecution evidence the Accused ias examined under Section 313 CrPC explaining him the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution iitnesses ihich he denied and reported no defence evidence.
9.Heard both sides and perused the record.
10.Noi the points for determination are:
1) Whether the victim girl was a child as defied uider Sectioi 2
(d) of Protectioi of Childrei from Sexual Ofeices ct ?
2) Whether the ccused beiig the step father of the victim committed
aggravated peietrative sexual assault agaiist the victim ii October
2017 aid ii Jaiuary 2018 by committiig rape oi her by threateiiig to
kill her, her mother, brother aid graidfather ?
3) Whether the prosecutioi proved the guilt of the ccused for the
ofeice puiishable uider Sectioi 37((2)(i), 00( .PC aid Sectioi 0(l),
0(i) puiishable U/s.( of the Protectioi of Childrei from Sexual
Ofeices ct, 2012 beyoid all reasoiable doubt?
7/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019
11.POINT NO.1:
The allegation of the prosecution is that the Accused being the step father of the victim committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the victim in October 2017 and in January 2018 by committing rape on her by threatening to kill her and her family members.
12.In order to prove the said allegation, the prosecution examined the mother of the victim as PW1. She deposed that the date of birth of the victim is about 08.01.2001 and as on the date of the alleged incident she ias studying in
Intermediate 2nd year at Hyderabad. She further deposed that her husband died on 23.02.2014 and after the death of her mother in 2012, she started residing at her father's house. She further deposed that during 2017 the
Accused approached their family members promising to marry her and look after her children and believing his iords she married the Accused on 30.11.2017. She further deposed that on 07.01.2018 she along iith the Accused and her son ient to Hyderabad and brought the victim to Warangal to celebrate her birthday and the victim stayed at the house of her grand father.
She further deposed that after the birthday the victim stayed at Warangal during the Pongal holidays and on 17.01.2018 she along iith the Accused and 8/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 her son took the victim to Hyderabad and dropped her at the hostel. She further deposed that on 12.02.2018 the victim visited the house of her maternal aunt at Hyderabad and on enquiry, the victim narrated the incidents that took place betieen herself and the Accused and she in turn informed about the same to them stating that on 08.01.2018 ihile she ias at her ofce the
Accused visited their house, threatened the victim stating that he iill kill her, her father and her son and committed rape on the victim. She further deposed that immediately she along iith her father and son ient to Hyderabad and enquired the victim about the same and she informed that during October, 2017 ihen she came to Warangal for Diiali the Accused threatened her, beat her and committed rape on her. She further deposed that they brought the victim to Warangal and a complaint ias lodged iith the police.
13.During cross examination PW1 denied the suggestion that the victim has not narrated any incident to her sister Kasturi or to them. She further deposed that after 3 days of marriage the Accused started harassing her, but she has not informed about the harassment to her father or her children or any other family members. She deposed that on 07.01.2018 during the night hours the Accused beat her in the presence of PW2 and her son and ihen PW2 intervened he pushed her aiay. She denied the suggestion that due to the said incident she bore grudge against the Accused and got filed a false case through 9/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019
PW2. She denied the suggestion that the Accused never committed sexual assault against PW2. She further deposed that after his retirement due to health condition of her father iho ias sufering iith cancer and other heart ailments he used to reside at the house. She admitted that her parents and sister opposed her marriage iith the Accused and PW2 ias also against the said marriage. She admitted that there iere no behavioral changes in PW2 ihen she left for her college after Diiali and also in January 2018. She deposed that betieen October 2017 to 13.02.2018 PW2 has not informed her about any untoiard incident that occurred to her. She deposed that since 21.03.2020 she is residing iith the Accused.
14.PW2 victim deposed that her date of birth is 08.01.2001. She further deposed that ihile she ias in 8th standard her father died due to ill health and ihile she ias in 10th standard the Accused used to visit their house noi and then taking advantage of his prior acquaintance iith her mother and other family members. She further deposed that during Diiali 2017 she visited the house of her grandfather, ihere the Accused moved closely iith her and threatened her stating that he iould not marry her mother and in the absence of the family members in the house, the Accused committed rape on her. She further deposed that during the one ieek of her stay at her grand father's house the Accused committed rape on her for 3 or 4 times by threatening to kill 10/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 her mother, brother and grand father and due to fear of the Accused she did not disclose the same to anyone. She further deposed that on 30.11.2017 her mother married the Accused and on 07.01.2018 her mother, along iith the
Accused ient to Hyderabad and brought her to Warangal and on 07.01.2018 she stayed at the house of the Accused and during the night hours she heard some sound and noticed that the Accused beat PW1. She further deposed that on 08.01.2018 her mother took her to the house of her grandfather and the
Accused ient there iith a cake and after 2 days of her birthday ihen her brother ias at school and she ias alone in the house the Accused threatened her and committed rape on her tiice. She further deposed that on the folloiing day the Accused visited her grand father's house and asked for Tea and ihen she ient into the kitchen he folloied her and tried to tie a Thali from back side and she managed to escape from the Accused but the Accused threatened that she should marry him. She further deposed that after she returned to her hostel PW4 called her and asked her to come to their house and she ient to their house and PW4 noticed that she ias dull and she informed
PW4 about the acts of the Accused and PW4 informed her mother about the same and PW1 and her grandfather ient to Hyderabad and brought her to
Warangal ihere she lodged a complaint.
11/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019
15.During cross examination PW2 deposed that she has not handed over the date of birth certificate to the police. She admitted that the house of her grand father is surrounded by other residential houses. She denied the suggestion that she opposed the marriage of her mother iith the Accused. She admitted that she has not disclosed about the acts of the Accused to her mother or other family members even prior to marriage of her mother iith the
Accused or thereafter. She denied the suggestion that the Accused never committed rape on her. She deposed that the Accused closed her mouth at the time of the alleged incident. She deposed that she has not made any attempts to share about the alleged incident iith her room mates. She deposed that in
Ex.P1 complaint she has not mentioned the exact date, timings of the alleged incident. She denied the suggestion that as she had no interest in the relationship of her mother iith the Accused and her mother's relation iith the
Accused ias strained, at her instance she filed a false complaint against the
Accused.
16.PW3 K. Kavitha Rani, Head Master of Vaagdevi High School,
Nayeemnagar, Hanumakonda deposed that on receipt of a requisition from the
Police and after verification of the records, she issued the Study, Conduct and
Date of Birth Certificate and Extract of Register of Admissions and as per the records, date of birth of the victim ias recorded as 08.01.2001. During cross 12/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 examination she deposed that she received the requisition in April or May 2018 and she issued Ex.P4 basing on the admission register.
17.PW4 Kasturi Akena, maternal aunt of the victim deposed that on 30.11.2017 the accused married PW1, after the death of her 1st husband and at that time PW2 ias prosecuting her Intermediate at Hyderabad by staying in hostel and occasionally she used to visit her house. She further deposed that on 03.02.2018 PW2 called her and informed her that she ias getting outing in the college and requested her to take her to their house and that she along iith her husband Srinivas Anil Kumar visited the hostel of the victim and took her to their house and as the victim appeared very dull and ias not doing anything at home and not interacting iith anyone, she suspected that something ient irong and she tried to interact iith PW2, but she did not open up. She further deposed that on 05.02.2018, her husband dropped the victim at her hostel and
before entering into the hostel, victim called her and informed that she lost
faith on life and ihen she tried to enquire iith her as to ihat happened to her, she stated that she iill tell her later and ihen her husband informed her that he enquired iith the victim and she stated that the accused subjected her to physical harassment. She further deposed that ihen he further insisted PW2 she stated that she iill call her and inform her. She further deposed that on 13/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 12.02.2018, PW2 called her and requested her to take her to their house and she along iith her husband again ient to the hostel of the victim and brought her to her home and on enquiry, PW2 informed her that ihen the victim visited the house of her grand father at Warangal during Diiali Vacation 2017 in the absence of the inmates of the house the Accused visited the house and started touching the victim and moving closely iith the victim and ihen the victim tried to move aiay the accused threatened her saying that he iill kill PW1, brother of the victim and her grand father Krishna and the accused forcibly committed rape on PW2 and that on 08.01.2018 ihen the victim visited
Warangal, on the occasion of her birthday the accused again visited the house of PW.7 and in the absence of the family members committed rape on the victim and PW2 further informed that as the accused threatened her she did not inform about the same to anyone. She further deposed that she informed about the same to PW1 and her father and they ient to Hyderabad and took the victim to Warangal.
18.During cross examination PW4 deposed that she does not knoi about the disputes betieen the Accused and PW1 and that PW1 never informed her about the same. She further deposed that PW2 has not informed her about the Accused abusing and beating PW1. She denied the suggestion 14/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 that she does not knoi anything about the case and PW2 has not informed anything to her. The omissions in the evidence of PW2 iere put to her. PW5
Srinivas Anil Kumar, husband of PW4 reiterated the facts stated by PW4 in her examination in chief and further deposed that on her enquiry PW2 informed him that the Accused committed rape on her and after returning home as his iife ias not at home, he informed his iife about the same after she reurned home. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that PW2 never called PW4 and informed her that she ianted to die and he never enquired
PW2 and she never informed him that the Accused committed rape on her. He further deposed that he does not knoi about the relationship or disputes betieen PW1 and the Accused. He admitted that PW2 has not informed him about the relationship or disputes betieen the Accused and PW1. He denied the suggestion that PW2 has not narrated him anything.
19.PW6 Anil Kumar, panch iitness for the scene of ofence panchanama deposed that about 1 ½ years ago, at the request of the Police,
Inthezargunj he visited the house of PW7 and in his presence and in the presence of one Venkateshiarlu, police prepared the panchanama and thereafter he signed on the panchanama. During cross examination he deposed that the panchanama ias prepared at the house of PW7 and in the middle of 15/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 the proceedings Venkateshiarlu came there and signed on the panchanama. He denied the suggestion that no panchanama ias drafted in his presence.
20.PW7 Grandfather of the victim deposed that the accused is the husband of PW1 and as the father of the Accused ias his classmate they had prior acquaintance iith the Accused. He further deposed that PW1 is iorking in
Food Corporation of India and subsequently she ias transferred to Warangal and she along iith PW2 and her son used to reside iith him. He further deposed that in November 2017 he performed the marriage of PW1 iith the accused and thereafter PW1 along iith her son started residing iith the accused, but PW2 used to reside iith him and thereafter the Accused started beating PW1. He further deposed that from December 2012 to June 2017 he iorked on contract basis in the Collectorate at Khammam and thereafter he ias transferred to Warangal and he iorked in the Warangal Collectorate in Civil
Supplies Division till April 2019. He further deposed that on 07.01.2018, PW1 along iith accused and her son ient to Hyderabad and brought PW2 to
Warangal to celebrate her birthday on 08.01.2018 and thereafter PW1 again returned to Hyderabad to her hostel and on 12.02.2018, PW4 called him and
PW1 and narrated the acts of the accused committed against PW2 and he along iith PW1 immediately ient to Hyderabad and on enquiry, PW2 narrated that in 16/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 the month of October 2017 ihen PW2 visited Warangal on the occasion of
Diiali festival the accused committed rape on her. He further deposed that
PW2 further narrated that ihen she visited Warangal, on the occasion of her birthday also, accused committed rape on her and the accused tried to tie Thali (Mangalasutram) to her. He deposed that immediately they brought PW2 to
Warangal and ient to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. During cross examination he admitted that PW1 did not apply for divorce till that day. He deposed that they have not found any abnormality in the behaviour of PW1 during the Birthday celebrations. He denied the suggestion that no incident occurred and as PW2 had no interest in the marriage of PW1 iith the Accused to break their relationship she lodged a false complaint against the Accused. He deposed that his house is surrounded by other residential houses.
21.PW8 Dr. S.Sietha, the then Civil assistant Surgeon, CKM Maternity
Hospital, Warangal deposed that on 14.02.2018, at about 10.15 p.m. the victim ias brought to their hospital by Woman Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S
Inthezargunj and that she has noted the moles of the victim for future identification and on examination of the victim no external injuries over the body of the victim iere found and her examination revealed that the Hymen ias not intact, Introitus admitted tio fingers loosely. She further deposed that 17/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 she has collected the pubic hair samples of the victim, tio vaginal siabs, smears and clothes and the same iere foriarded to the FSL and after receipt of the FSL report, she gave final opinion stating that there is no medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse and nothing is suggestive that she has not participated in sexual intercourse. During cross examination she deposed that in a ioman iho rides bicycle or does any physical activity Hymen may not be intact. She further deposed that the victim might have or might not have participated in sexual intercourse.
22.PW9 T. Kamala, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station,
Inthezargunj deposed that on 14.02.2018 on the instructions of her Higher
Ofcials she obtained the video of the statement of the victim being recorded by Sub Inspector of of Police and thereafter her statement ias recorded by
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Warangal. During cross examination she deposed that she took the video iith the camera supplied by the police. She further deposed that she has not handed over the memory card or chip to the higher ofcials.
23.PW10 Dr. Raza Malik Khan, Assistant Professor in KMC, Warangal deposed that on 17.02.2018 at about 11:00 A.M. he examined the victim and 18/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 conducted ossification test and after careful examination of the victim, physical, dental and after radiological examination, he opined that the victim ias aged about 17 years and accordingly he issued the Age Proof Certificate. During cross examination he admitted that generally the age may be of +1 or -1. He denied the suggestion that the age may be +2 or -2. He denied the suggestion that the victim ias aged 19 yrs and intentionally he gave the the age proof certificate of the victim shoiing her age as 17 yrs.
24.PW11 G. Sridevi, Sub Inspector of Police deposed that on 14.02.2018 at about 4:00 p.m. on the instructions of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Warangal she recorded the statement of the victim at Police Station
Inthezargunj and said recording of statement ias videographed by PW9 and thereafter she handed over the statement to the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Warangal. During cross examination she admitted that the victim did not state before her that ihen the Accused tried to commit rape on her she attempted to scream but the Accused closed her mouth. PW12 S. Ravi Kumar the then Inspector of Police, Inthezargunj deposed that on 14.02.2018 at 03:00 p.m. he received a complaint from PW2 and basing on the same he registered a case in Crime No.35/2018, U/s 376(2)(n), 506, 327 of IPC and Sec.5(l) r/i 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act and issued FIR and thereafter 19/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 he handed over the CD file to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Warangal.
During cross examination he admitted that there is a correction in the time portion of the endorsement on the complaint. He denied the suggestion that he received the complaint iith ante time. He deposed that the Copy of the FIR ias foriarded to the Magistrate immediately.
25.PW13 R. Prabhakar Rao, the then Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Warangal the inverstigating ofcer in this case categorically deposed about the manner of investigation done by him in this case. During cross examination he admitted that the houses of S. Venkateshiarlu, N. Mohan Rao are situated beside the house of PW7. He admitted that there is a possibility of the sounds coming from the house of PW7 being heard by the neighbours. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P3 and P4 iere created for the purpose of this case. He deposed that he has not collected the Attendence sheet from the college of
PW2. He admitted that PW7 retired from service in 2011. He further deposed that after retirement PW7 iorked in the Collectorate. He deposed that he has not collected any documents to shoi that PW7 iorked in the Civil Services
Department. He admitted that the grave crimes have to be investigated by the ofcer of Inspector of Police rank. He denied the suggestion that he is not authorized to get the statement of the victim recorded through PW11. He 20/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 denied the suggestion that iithout conducting proper investigation he filed the charge sheet against the Accuused.
26.The contention of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the evidence of PW1 to PW5, PW7 is consistent and reliable. It is contended that the age of the victim is proved through Ex.P2 to P4. He further contended that PW4 and PW5 are the persons to ihom the victim narrated the incidents and as such their evidence can be relied upon. It is contended that the evidence of PW2 is supported by the medical evidence.
27.The contention of the learned counsel for the Accused is that there are several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution iitnesses. It is contended that there is no clear evidence as to age of the victim.
It is contended that as per the Ossification test as the age of the victim is stated to be 17 yrs +2 or -2 has to be added to the said age. It is contended that as on the date of the alleged ofence the victim ias a major. It is contended that the date of birth certificate issued by the primary school is not produced and Ex.P3 and P4 are not reliable to prove the age of the victim. It is contended that though the house of PW7 is situated in a residential locality the neighbours are not examined. It is further contended that the CDR of the mobile phones of 21/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019
PW2, PW4 and 5 are not collected to prove the alleged conversations betieen them. It is contended that PW7 and the brother of the victim iere present in the house as on the date of the alleged ofence and as such there is no chance for the commission of the alleged ofence in the house of PW7. It is contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and there is no proper explanation for the delay and no explanation as to ihy the victim has not narrated about the said incidents to PW1 or other family members or her friends or room mates. It is contended that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of PW4 and PW5. It is contended that PW2 evidence does not inspire confidence and if really the Accused had committed rape on the victim in
October 2017, the victim iould not have alloied her mother to marry the
Accused in November 2017. It is contended that non mention of the crucial fact by PW1 about the Accused tying Thali to her in her Complaint amounts to material contradiction. It is contended that ihen tio vieis are possible and one viei is in favour of the Accused, benefit of doubt has to be given to the
Accused.
28.In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the Accused relied upon the Judgment of the Hoi'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh Vs. Muiii Ram aid others reported in 2010 (7) Supreme 949,
Baidi Mallaiah aid others Vs. State of idhra Pradesh reported in 1979 22/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019
Supreme (SC) 487, Sharad Biridichaid Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra
reported in .R 1984 SC 1((2, Gaipat Siigh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2017 Supreme (SC) 948 and the Judgment of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh in the case Chiitu alias Chiit Ram VS. State of Himachal
Pradesh reported in 1997 4 Crimes (HC) 343 iherein the principle that ihere there are tio possible vieis on the evidence adduced the viei in favour of the accused has to be considered and the principles iith regard to omissions, contradictions iere discussed.
29.The case of the prosecution is that as on the date of the alleged ofence the victim ias aged about 17 yrs. As per the evidence of PW2/Victim her date of birth is 08.01.2001. The said evidence is supported by Ex.P2 Date of birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation in 2002. The evidence of
PW2 is supported by the evidence of PW2, mother of the victim iho has also deposed that the date of birth of the victim is 08.01.2001. Further evidence of
PW2 is supported by the evidence of PW3, Head Mistress of the School ihere
PW2 studied and Ex.P3 and P4 Study and Date of Birth Certificate and the
Extract of the Admission register. Though Ex.P3 and P4 are not the primary documents to prove the age of the victim, they support Ex.P2 Date of Birth
Certificate, ihich is the primary document to prove the date of Birth of a person. Further the evidence of PW2 is also supported by the evidence of PW10 23/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019
Doctor iho conducted the Age determination test and opined that the victim ias aged 17 yrs. Though the learned counsel for the Accused contended that +2 or -2 has to be added to the age determined by Ossification test, in the present case the said principle is not applicable as PW2 has produced Ex.P2 Date of
Birth certificate. The evidence of PW1 to PW3, Ex.P2 to P4 remained unrebutted. Except suggesting that PW2 ias a major as on the date of the alleged ofence, no evidence is produced to disprove the evidence of PW2 and
Ex.P2. Through the evidence of PW1 to 3 supported by the evidence of PW10 and Ex.P2 to P4 and P9 the prosecution succeeded in proving that the victim ias a child as on the date of the alleged ofence. Hence, Point no.1 is held in favour of the prosecution.
30.Point No.2 and 3 :
As point no.2 and 3 are interlinked they are discussed together to avoid repetition. The relationship betieen PW2 and the Accused, the marriage of PW1 iith the Accused and the fact that the Accused is the step father of the victim is not in dispute. The evidence of PW2 Victim is to the efect that during
October 2017 and January 2018 the Accused had committed rape on her repeatedly at the house of PW7 by threatening her that if she did not cooperate he iould kill her mother, brother and grandfather. The evidence of PW2 is clear, 24/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 consistent and stood unshaken during cross examination. Nothing material ias elicited from her during cross examination to shake her evidence. Though it ias elicited from PW2 that ihen the Accused committed rape on her she did not raise cries, she has further deposed that ihen she tried to raise cries the
Accused closed her mouth.
31.Further, though it is contended that the Accused could not have committed the alleged ofence at the house of PW7 as PW7 and the brother of the victim iere aliays at home, as per the evidence of PW7 he used to iork in the civil services department post retirement till April 2019. Further, PW2 has categorically deposed that the Accused committed rape on her repeatedly in the absence of the housemates. Further, though it ias elicited from PW13
Investigating ofcer that the neighbours of PW7 iere not examined, the ofence took place iithin the four ialls of the house of PW7 and the non examination of the neighbours is inconsequential. Further, though PW2 deposed that in January ihen the accused committed rape on her her brother ient to school and it is contended that at that time the schools had Pongal
Holidays, the presence of the brother of PW2 in the house is not shoin through any cogent evidence and even otheriise the said discrepancy is a minor discrepancy ihich does not go to the root of the case. Further, though the learned counsel for the Accused tried to elicit that there ias no resistance from 25/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 the Accused, in viei of the age of the victim and the relationship betieen the victim and the Accused and the contention of the victim that she ias put under constant threat by the Accused, the same does not disprove the allegation of rape made against the Accused.
32.Further, though it ias elicited from PW2 that in the complaint she has not stated the date, time of the alleged incidents, FIR is not an encyclopedia and the informant need not state the minute details of the incident in the complaint. In her evidence PW1 has precisely stated the acts of the Accused ihich is believable. Further, though it ias contended that as no incident occurred as alleged by PW2, she has not stated about the same to her mother, other family members or friends, the said contention is not acceptable as it is possible that a teenage girl iho underient such a trauma iill go into depression and there is a possibility of PW2 not revealing about the same to
PW1 or other family members or friends in viei of her relationship iith the
Accused. It is pertinent to mention here that PW2 has deposed that due to fear of Accused she has not revealed the same to anyone.
33.Further, the evidence of PW2 is supported by the evidence of PW1, mother of the victim iho has corroborated as to the presence of PW2 at her father's house during Diiali holidays in 2017 and in January 2018. Further, PW1 26/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 has clearly deposed that after she came to knoi about the said incidents from
PW4 she enquired PW2 and she has stated to her that the Accused committed rape on her. The evidence of PW1 also remained unrebutted during cross examination. She has categorically deposed about the harassment of the
Accused against her. Though PW1 changed her version after her recall and deposed that there ias no behavioral changes in PW2 after the alleged incidents, the evidence given by her prior to her recall remained unrebutted and unshaken and the same supports the version of PW2. Further, as evident from the record for the reasons best knoin to PW1 she has compromised iith the
Accused, iho is her husband.
34.Further, the evidence of PW2 is supported by the evidence of
PW4 and 5, the maternal aunt and uncle to ihom PW2 narrated about the sexual assault committed by the Accused against her. The evidence of PW4 and 5 supports the version of PW2 in material particulars, though there are some omissions and discrepancies in their evidence ihich do not go to the root of the case. PW7 the grand father of PW2 also supports the version of PW2 and he has also categorically deposed that PW2 informed them about the ofence committed by the Accused against her. The evidence of PW2 is corroborated by the medical evidence of PW8 Doctor iho after examining the victim opined that though there ias no evidence of recent sexual intercourse, nothing is 27/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 suggestive that she has not participated in sexual intercourse. Further, though it ias elicited from PW8 that in a ioman iho rides a bicycle or does physical activity the hymen iill not be intact, no suggestion ias given to PW2 stating that she does cycling or physical activities. Even otheriise in viei of the reliable, trustiorthy evidence of PW2 all other discrepancies or inconsistencies are immaterial.
35.Further, though a suggestion ias given to PW1, 2 and PW7 that in viei of the disputes betieen PW1 and the Accused, as PW2 ianted the relationship betieen PW1 and the Accused to break she has filed a false complaint, there is no evidence to prove the said contention. As elicited from
PW7, PW1 has not applied for divorce from the Accused and as evident from the evidence of PW1 she is still residing iith the Accused. If really the victim intended to break the relationship of PW1 iith the Accused, she iould have informed about the commission of rape on her by the Accused in October 2017 and stopped the marriage of PW1 iith the Accused in November 2017. In such circumstances the contention that PW1 and PW2 bore grudge against the
Accused and filed a false complaint making a grave allegation of rape against him is not believable. The contention that a mother iould get a false complaint filed alleging that her husband committed rape on against her daughter, by putting the dignity, future of her young daughter at stake and push her into 28/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 social stigma is not believable. Further, though it is contended that there in delay in lodging the complaint, having regard to the nature of the ofence and more particularly the relationship betieen the Accused and PW2, the delay in lodging the complaint is inconsequential.
36.As per Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Ofences Act, 2012:
“Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any ofence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of the
Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the ofence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved”.
37.The Accused failed to rebut the presumption laid doin under
Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act. The Accused has not made any eforts to prove the alleged disputes betieen himself and
PW1, because of ihich a case ias registered against him.
38.In viei of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the Accused of the ofence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 506 IPC and Section 5(l), 5(n) r/i Section 6 29/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No.2 and 3 are held in favour of the prosecution and against the Accused.
39.In the result, the Accused is found guilty of the ofence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 506 IPC and Section 5(l), 5(n) r/i Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act. Accordingly he is convicted U/
S.235(2) Crpc for the said ofence.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of December 2022).
FAC Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, Warangal
The Accused is heard iith regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed, to ihich the Accused stated that he did not commit any ofence and prayed to take a lenient viei as he is having a family dependent on him. Taking into viei, the nature of ofence, the age of the victim, the relationship betieen the Accused and PW2 this Court is not inclined to take a lenient viei against the
Accused and to apply the provisions of the Probation of Ofenders Act of 30/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019
Section 360 CrPC to the Accused.
40.As per Section 42 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Ofences Act:
Where an act or omission constitutes an ofence punishable under this Act and also under Sections 166A, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 370, 370A, 375, 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, 376E, Section 509 of the
Indian Penal Code or Section 67B of the Information of Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), then, notiithstanding anything contained in any lai for the time being in force, the ofender found guilty of such ofence shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides or punishment ihich is greater in degree.
41.In viei of Section 42 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Ofences Act, as the victim ias a child as on the date of the ofence the
Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) for the ofence under Section 5(l), 5(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act punishable U/s. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act. He is 31/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years for the ofence under Section 506 of IPC. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. The sentences under both counts shall run concurrently. The remand period already undergone by the Accused from 15.02.2018 to 18.05.2018 shall be set of under
Section 428 CrPC. Mo.1 to Mo.5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
42.The Accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and he is further informed that he iill be provided legal aid counsel, if required. Copy of the judgment is supplied to him.
43.As the Accused being the step father of the victim is convicted for the ofence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Ofences Act for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the victim girl repeatedly causing physical, emotional and mental trauma, this Court is of the considered opinion that the victim girl has to be compensated for her suferance physical, mental and emotional and as such an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) is aiarded as compensation.
Therefore, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, is directed to take 32/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019 steps for payment of the said compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the victim girl at the earliest.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of December 2022).
(Sd/- Smt C.Pavani)
FAC Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Mother of victim PW.2 :Victim girl PW.3 :Smt K.Kavitha Rani/Head Master PW.4 :Akena Kasturi/Circumstantial iitness PW.5 :Thadakonda Srinivas/Circumstantial iitness PW6 :Sira Anil Kumar/Panch for scene of ofence PW.7 :Akena Krishna/Circumstantial iitness PW.8 :Dr.S.Sietha/Examined the victim PW.9:T.Kamala/WASI/videograhed the version of LW.1 PW.10:Dr.Raza malik,/Issued age determination certificate PW.11:G.Sridevi/WSI/Recorded the statement of victim PW.12:S.Ravi Kumar/Inspector of Police PW.13:R.Prabhakar Rao/Asst.Commissioner of Police. PW.14:Dr.Mohan Singh/Asst.Professor, FMD/KMC
FOR DEFENCE: --- Nil--- 33/34
Spl.S.C.no.36 of 2019
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1:Complaint given by PW.1. Ex.P.2:Date of birth certificate of the victim Ex.P.3:Original study, conduct and date of birth certificate of the victim Ex.P.4:Extract register of admissions Ex.P.5:Original Crime details form Ex.P.6:Preliminary examination Report Ex.P.7:F.S.L.report dated 10.5.2018 Ex.P.8:Final opinion Ex.P.9:Report age proof certificate issued by PW.10 Ex.P.10:First Information report Ex.P.11:Potency certificate dated 15.2.2018
FOR DEFENCE: ---NIL --
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO.1 Blue and ihite color top
MO.2 Blue colour pyzama
MO.3 Black top inneriare
MO.4 White brai
MO.5 Black color inneriare
(Sd/- Smt C.Pavani)
FAC Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Rape Cases and Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, Warangal 34/34