Page No.1 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
FORM-A
IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL SESSIONS COURT FOR
EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,
AT JAGTIAL.
PRESENT: SMT. C. RATNA PADMAVATHI,
Prl. District and Sessions Judge,
JAGITIAL.
FAC: Spl.Judge (POCSO cases), Jagtial.
Dated on this the 4 th day of May, 2026.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 66 of 2023
(Cr.No. 272 of 2023 of P.S . Dharmapuri )
ComplainantThe State through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jagtial
Sri. Ch. Rama Krishna Rao, Spl. Public
REPRESENTED BY
Prosecutor.
ACCUSEDSayyad @ Syed Apsar, S/o. Babu Khan @ Syed Baba, age 59 yrs, Muslim, R/o. Dharmapuri town.
REPRESENTED BY
Sri. K. Venkateshwar Rao, counsel for accused.
FORM-B
Date of Offence08.10.2023 Date of F.I.R.08.10.2023
Date of Charge sheet31.10.2023
Date of Framing of Charges09.07.2025
Date of Commencement of evidence08.09.2025
Date on which judgment is reserved15.04.2026
Date of the Judgment04.05.2026
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any ---
Page No.2 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
Accused Details:
Rank ofName ofDate ofDate ofOffencesWhetherSentence Period of theAccusedArrestRelease onchargedAcquittedImposedDetention AccusedBailwithorUndergone convictedduring Trial for purpose of section 428 Cr.P.C
Accused Sayyad @09.10.202306.12.2023 underAs perNil59 days Syed Apsarsectionsthe result 452, 376paragraph
(AB) IPC,
Sec. 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 * * *
This case is coming before me on today for final hearingbefore me in the presence of Sri. Ch. Rama Krishna Rao, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri. K. Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate for accused, having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This case emerges out of the charge sheet that was filed by the Sub-
Divisional Police Officer, Jagtial, P.S Dharmapuri in Cr.No. 272 of 2023 for the offences under sections 452, 376 (AB) IPC, Sec. 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 against accused.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
That on 8.10.2023, defacto-complainant/LW.1 lodged a complaint stating that on 8.10.2023 at about 4.30 p.m her husband left their younger daughter aged 9 years in their kirana shop while he was going for namaz and after attending works
Page No.3 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair) in the house at about 05.00 p.m, the defacto-complainant went to kirana shop and found the accused behaving indecently with her daughter. On noticing her, the accused person fled away from there. On enquiry, her daughter revealed that accused came to the shop, forcibly touched her cheeks, kissed her lips, opened his pant zip, asked to catch his penis and put his fingers inside her private parts and prayed for necessary action.
Basing on the said complaint, LW.16/SI of Police, Dharmapuri P.S registered a case in Cr No.272/2023, U/s. 376 (AB), 452 IPC, Sec. 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act- 2012 and issued express FIR.
Later, LW.17/SDPO, Jagtial took up investigation and he instructed
LW.7/Women SI of Police to record the statement of victim girl. Accordingly, LW.7 recorded the statement of victim girl/LW.3 and the same is videographed by LW.8 at the house of LW.1.
Later, LW.17, recorded the statements of Lws.1 and 2 and sent LW.3 to
Government General Hospital, Jagtial for medical examination and report.
Later, on 09.10.2023, LW.17 visited the scene of offence and conducted
CDF in the presence of mediators i.e. Lws. 10 and 11 and conducted CDF and also drew the rough sketch of the scene of offence and recorded the statements of Lws.
4 to 8.
Later, LW.17 sent a requisition to LW.9/Head Master, Kerala English
Medium School, Dharmapuri for issuing the Date of Birth Certificate of LW.3.
Page No.4 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
Accordingly, Lw.9 issued the date of birth certificate of Lw.3/victim girl which disclosed the date of birth of the victim girl is 08.09.2014. Later, LW.17 recorded the statement of Lw.9.
Later, on 09.10.2023, LW.17 apprehended the accused and on interrogation he voluntarily confessed the offence and after effecting his arrest he was sent for potency test and LW.13/Medical officer examined him and issued the potency test report and then the accused was produced before the concerned Magistrate for judicial remand.
Later, Lw.17 submitted requisition before concerned Magistrate for recording the 164 Cr.P.C statements of Lws.1 to 3 and accordingly she recorded the same. The material objects which are preserved by the Medical Officer after examining the victim girl were sent to RFSL, Karimnagar for RFSL report and
LW.14 given opinion stating that “semen and spermatozoa are not detected”.
Basing on the FSL report, LW.12 gave final opinion and after completion of investigation, LW.7 filed charge sheet.
3.This case was taken on file under sections U/s.452, 376 (AB), Sec. 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 against accused by against accused by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial.
4. Later, the case was transferred to this Court as per Dis.No.379/2025, dt.23.04.2025 and received on 22.05.2025.
Page No.5 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
5.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
6.Thereafter, heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel
for accused under section 226 Cr.P.C. Upon considering the material on record
under section 228 of Cr.P.C, charges, were framed for the offences under sections 452, 376 (AB), Sec. 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and the same were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried.
7. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.11 and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 are marked.
8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence on record and reported no defence evidence.
9.Heard both sides.
The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of the victim girl i.e. PW.3 is duly corroborated by the evidence of her parents i.e. Pws. 1 and 2 and further supported by the evidence of Pws. 4 and 5 which is sufficient to prove the prosecution case and the accused is liable to be convicted. He relied on the citations as referred in the succeeding paragraphs.
Whereas the learned defence counsel filed written arguments and mainly argued that the medical examination report of PW.9 clearly confirmed that there is
Page No.6 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair) no evidence of penetrative sexual assault as the Hymen is intact and there is no vaginal penetration and presence of erythema is possible due to infections but not necessarily due to sexual assault.
He further argued that no independent witnesses are cited as witnesses though the kirana shop of Pws.1 and 2 is located in a busy road and shops are there adjacent to the kirana shop. It is further argued that the motive for registering the crime is Imam post dispute between the father of the victim and accused and it is the reason for false accusation and there is no independent corroboration to the evidence of Pws. 1 to 5. Therefore, the testimony of family members cannot be believed without the evidence of independent witnesses and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged assault.
He further argued that non collection of CCTV footage and absence of independent witnesses are the material lapses and benefit of doubt accrues to the accused and the offence under section 5 r/w 6 of the POCSO Act does not attract.
Even if touching occurred it only constitutes the offence under section 354 IPC and not the offence under section 376 IPC and Sec. 5 r/w 6 of the POCSO Act.
The learned defence counsel further argued that as there is deficiency in the evidence i.e. medical evidence contradicts the penetration, forensic evidence absent, erythema explained by non-assault causes, hymen intact, as all witnesses are family members and want of CCTV footage and want of independent witnesses and delay medical examination and delay in conducting the scene of offence
Page No.7 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair) panchanama is sufficient to hold that the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proof and failed to prove the said offences and prayed for acquittal of the accused.
The learned defence counsel referred several citations in his arguments but not submitted the said citations and prayed for acquittal of the accused.
10.Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the
offences under sections 452, 376 (AB), Sec. 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012
against accused beyond all reasonable doubt (or) not ?” 11.POINT :-
The accused herein is charged for the offences under sections 452 IPC,
376(AB) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and and Sec. 5
r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-2012 (hereinafter
referred to as POCSO Act).
It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused criminally trespassed into the kirana shop of the complainant and he with an intent to fulfill his sexual desire forcibly, touched the cheeks of the victim girl who is under the age of 12 years and put his finger into the vagina of the child and made her to catch his penis and thereby committed the alleged offences. Therefore, it is for the prosecution case to prove its case.
12.At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the Protection of Children
From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO)-2012 Act is a special enactment which
Page No.8 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair) engraved a statutory presumption under section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012 i.e., reverse burden theory in respect of the offences committed (or) attempt to commit the offences under sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act. In view of the said statutory presumption, the special Court shall presume that the accused have
committed (or) attempted to commit the offence as the case may be unless the
contrary is proved. Therefore, the initial burden of proof lies on the
prosecution to prove the foundational facts by preponderance of probabilities
so as to connect the accused with the alleged offences and the burden is heavy
on accused to rebutt the statutory presumption by proving that he has not
committed the alleged offences.
13.In the case on hand, the accused is also charged for the offence under section 5 r/w 6 of the POCSO Act (as the victim girl is below 12 years of age) to which the above said statutory presumption applies. In the light of the said statutory presumption, under section 29 of the Act, the evidence on record is to analyzed carefully to find out whether the prosecution is able to establish the foundational facts by preponderance of probabilities so as to bring out the complicity of the accused for the offence u/s. 5 r/w 6 of the POCSO Act-2012, which equally constitutes the offence punishable under section 376 (AB) IPC also for which the accused was also charged.
14.In support of the prosecution case, Pws. 1 to 11 are examined and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P13 are marked. Among them PW1 is the mother of the victim girl, PW.2 is
Page No.9 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair) the father of the victim girl, PW.3 is the victim girl, PW.4 is the maternal uncle of the victim girl, PW.5 is the neighbour, PW.6 is the Principal of Kerala English
Medium High School, Dharmapuri, PW.7 is the Videographer who took video while recording the statement of victim girl, PW.8 is the panch witness for CDF,
PW.9 is the Lady Medical Officer who medically examined the victim girl, PW.10 is the Duty Medical Officer who issued the potency test report of the accused and
PW.11 is the Investigating Officer.
Whereas on behalf of the accused no defence evidence was adduced and no documents are marked.
15.The POCSO Act, 2012 being a special Act it is enacted with the objective
that the children are not abused sexually and to protect them from sexual
exploitation.
Here in the cases of this nature, the evidence of the victim and her
parents is very crucial and it can form basis to sustain conviction provided if
their evidence is cogent, consistent and found to be reliable and trust worthy.
16.No doubt in order to invoke the provisions of the POCSO Act, it is for the prosecution to prove that the victim is a “child” within the meaning of Section 2
(d) of the POCSO Act -2012 as it is sine qua non to attract the provisions of the
POCSO Act-2012.
Page No.10 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
Section 2 (d) of the POCSO Act defines a “child” means “any person
below the age of 18 years”. Unless and until the same is established by the
prosecution, the offences under the POCSO Act does not attract.
17.In this regard, the prosecution is mainly relying upon the evidence of
PW.6/Principal of Kerala English Medium, Dharmaram and he categorically deposed as follows:
“On 09.10.2023, he received requisition from SDPO,
Jagtial to issue the date of birth certificate of the victim
girl and accordingly he issued the same. As per the date
of birth certificate of the victim girl, her date of birth is
18.09.2014”.
“Ex.P2/Requisition, Ex.P3/Study cum conduct cum date of birth certificate of the victim girl are marked through PW.6”.
Therefore, as per the testimony of PW.6, the date of birth certificate of the
victim girl/Ex.P3 is 18.09.2014. Whereas, the date of alleged offence is
08.10.2023 i.e. victim girl is 9 years old.
18.It is pertinent to note that during the course of cross-examination of
PW.6/Principal of Kerala English Medium High School, Dharmapuri, the fact that
PW.6 is the Principal of said school is nowhere denied and the date of birth of the victim girl as mentioned in Ex.P3 is not denied (or) disputed specifically. It is not
Page No.11 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair) even suggested to PW.6 that the victim girl is “major”. It is not the contention of the accused that the date of birth of the victim girl is otherwise and not as mentioned in Ex.P3.
19.Further as per Ex.P1/report lodged by PW.1/mother of the victim girl, the age of the victim girl is 9 years as on the date of offence. The contents in
Ex.P1/report in that regard is nowhere specifically denied (or) disputed while cross- examining PW.1. Therefore, the contents in Ex.P1/report in that regard, further
lends enough corroboration to the evidence of PW.6 and Ex.P3 on record.
20.Apart from PW.6, the best persons to speak about the exact age of victim is her parents i.e. Pws. 1 and 2.
PW.1/mother of the victim girl during the course of her evidence categorically deposed that “On 08.10.2023 i.e. on the date of offence, the victim girl is aged about 9 years”.
The said fact is nowhere specifically denied (or) disputed while cross examining her.
So also PW.2/father of the victim girl, deposed on the same lines as that of
PW.1 and clearly testified that “victim” is aged 9 years as on the date of alleged offence.
The testimony of Pws. 1 and 2 which remained unshattered lends enough corroboration to the evidence of PW.6 and Ex.P3 on record. Thus, the
Page No.12 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair) evidence of Pw.6 is duly corroborated by the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 and also
Ex.P1/Report and Ex.P3/Study conduct cum date of birth certificate of victim girl.
21. It is further pertinent to mention that PW.3/victim girl at the time of giving evidence clearly deposed her present age is “11 years” and she is studying sixth class and she gave evidence on 25.11.2025,which is nowhere denied (or) disputed by the defence counsel while cross-examining PW.3.
Consequently, the said testimony of PW.3/victim girl regarding her age further lends enough corroboration to the evidence of PW.6. Thus, the
evidence of Pws. 1, 2, 6 which is consistent all through coupled with Ex.P1 and
Ex.P3 clearly proved that the victim girl is a “child” within the meaning of
section 2 (d) of the Act.
Therefore, the provisions under the POCSO Act applies. However that itself is not sufficient and it is for the prosecution to bring out the complicity of the accused by proving the foundational facts by preponderance of probabilities so as to prove the charge under section 5 r/w 6 of the POCSO Act (which equally constitutes the offence under section 376 (AB) of IPC).
22.Now the evidence of crucial witnesses i.e. Pws.1 to 3 is to be analyzed carefully.
In the cases of this nature, even the sole testimony of victim girl if found to be consistent and reliable can alone form the basis to sustain conviction and corroboration need not be insisted upon as it amounts to adding of insult to injury.
Page No.13 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
23.At this juncture, this Court relied upon the ruling of “The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh –vs- Sanjay Kumar
alias Sunny, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 51, in paragraph 31 observed as
follows:
“………………………By now it is well settled that the testimony of
a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are
compelling reasons, which necessitate looking for corroboration of
a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the
testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the
accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence.
Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same
as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to
injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus to be taken as a
whole. Needless to reiterate Criminal.Appeal (J) 17/2016 Page 7 of
11 that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can
be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher
pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult
to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence
which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration,
except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of
the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult
Page No.14 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that
her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in
material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime.
Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of
rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted
with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about
lack of corroboration has no substance (See Bhupinder Sharma v.
State of H.P).
24.In this regard, the learned Spl.Public Prosecutor relied upon the following citation in support of his arguments i.e.,
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Judgment in Criminal Appeal
No.33114/2025 (Bhanei Prasad @ Raju Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh)
wherein it was held that
“the testimony of the child victim if found credible
and trust worthy requires no corroboration.”
In the light of above citation, the evidence of the victim girl/Pw3 who is 9 years old on the date of offence is to be analyzed carefully.
25. PW.3/victim girl categorically deposed as follows.
“I am studying 3 rd class at that relevant point of time.”
“On 08.10.2023 as it was Sunday I was at my home and at about 04.30 p.m my father/PW.2 made a phone call to my
Page No.15 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair) mother and informed her that he was going for Namaz and
PW.1 to look after the kirana shop during his absence. Then, my mother/PW.1 instructed me to sit in the Kirana shop as she has some work in the house. Our kirana shop is nearby our house. Accordingly, I went to sit in our Kirana shop as per instructions of my mother/PW.1.” “Then, one Syed Apsar (accused) came to our Kirana shop and kissed me on my lips by touching my cheeks. Then the accused opened his pant zip and asked me to caught hold of his penis. Then, I refused to do by saying as “vaddu vaddu”.
Then the accused put his hand by inserting his finger into my vagina on which I raised the cries and on that the accused
threatened me not to disclose the same to anyone.”
In the meanwhile my mother/PW.1 came there and on seeing her, the accused fled away.
She further deposed that “My mother/PW.1 came there and on seeing them, accused fled away.
She further deposed that my mother/PW.1 asked me to why I am crying and what
has happened and on that I clearly revealed about the said
Page No.16 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
incident to my mother. In turn my mother informed the same
to my father.”
Thus, the above said testimony of PW.3/victim girl is in consonance with
Ex.P1/report lodged by PW.1.
During the course of cross examination of PW.3/victim girl nothing material could be elicited from out of her cross-examination so as to discredit her testimony. There is no reason to disbelieve her testimony as her evidence is
consistent all through and remained unblemished and inspires the confidence
of the Court. It is only suggested to PW.3 that there are previous grudges in between the family of the victim girl and accused with regard to the Imam post in the Masjid and in view of the same a false case was foisted against accused so as to disqualify the accused for Imam post and the said suggestion is denied by PW.3.
Therefore, the testimony of PW.3 withstood the test of cross-examination and
found to be reliable and trust worthy.
26.Now the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 who are the parents of the victim girl is to be looked into.
The testimony of Pws. 1 and 2 is almost on the same lines as that of PW.3 and both Pws. 1 and 2 consistently deposed that on 08.10.2023, the accused came to the Kirana shop and behaved indecently with the victim girl by kissing her and opened his pant zip and asked the victim girl to catch hold his penis and the victim
Page No.17 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair) girl raised hues and cries and then PW.1 rushed there, the accused fled away from the said place.
The testimony of Pws. 1 and 2 lends enough corroboration to the evidence of Pw.3/victim girl.
27.The defence of the accused which is evident from the cross-examination of
Pws.1 to 3 is that a false case was foisted against the accused out of grudge so as to disqualify the accused for Imam post.
The said defence of the accused is improbable on face of it as no parent of girl child will stoop down to such an extent of foisting false case against the
accused merely for the sake of satisfying their personal grudges and to
disqualify the accused for Imam post by putting the character of their own
daughter who is of tender age of 9 years at stake as no parent will venture
upon to do so as the offence of sexual assault certainly leaves a scar (or) a
black mark on the victim girl throughout her life.
28.Further the accused failed to adduce any defence evidence in support of his defence. Hence, the improbable defence of the accused does not withstand.
Therefore, the evidence of Pw.3/Victim girl can form the basis to sustain
conviction “as the victim girl in sexual assault cases stands on higher pedestal
than an injured witness and corroboration even need not be insisted upon. But
in the case on hand, the evidence of PW.3/victim girl is also corroborated by
the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2.
Page No.18 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
29.The prosecution also examined Pws. 4 and 5 in support of the prosecution case. PW.4/maternal uncle of the victim girl and PW.5/neighbour.
Pws. 4 and 5 deposed on the same lines as that of PW.3 and in support of the prosecution case. They clearly testified that on 08.10.2023, PW.1 made a phone call and called them to come to their kirana shop and immediately they rushed their and there found PW.3/victim girl in weeping state and on questioning the victim girl as to what was happened she revealed about the entire incident as clearly deposed by PW.3 in her evidence.
Therefore, the said circumstantial witnesses i.e. Pws. 4 and 5 also corroborated the version of PW.3/victim girl.
Hence, the evidence of the victim girl/PW.3 which is consistent and inspires the confidence of the Court can be safely relied upon as the evidence of the victim girl clearly reveals that the accused came to their kirana shop and behaved indecently with her by inserting his finger into the vagina of the victim girl and also asked her to caught hold of his penis by opening his pant zip which certainly constitutes the offence of “penetrative sexual assault” “as even inserting of any part of the body (other than penis) into the
vagina of a child to any extent amounts to “penetrative sexual assault” as
defined under section 3 (b) of the POCSO Act-2012 and also defined under
Sec. 375 (b) of IPC and as the victim is only 9 years old child ( below 12 years),
Page No.19 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
any penetrative sexual assault on her amounts to “aggravated penetrative
sexual assault” as per section 5 (m) of the POCSO Act-2012.”
30.In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case i.e. the medical evidence though helpful but it is not mandatory. In the case on hand, the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of PW.9/lady Medical Officer in this regard.
PW.9/Lady Medical Officer, she categorically deposed that
She examined victim girl medically on 08.10.2023 at 11.50 p.m and took vaginal and vulval swabs and sent to FSL for report on which she received FSL report and gave final opinion “that the findings are not consistent with recent sexual intercourse/assault”.
She further deposed that there is erythema over vulva region of the victim girl. Ex.P7/requisition, Ex.P8/Medical examination report of the victim girl,
Ex.P9/FSL Report and Ex.P10/final opinion are marked through her.
The said medical evidence of PW.9 which clearly discloses the presence of erythema over vulva region of the victim girl lends enough support to the prosecution case. The final opinion given under Ex.P10 does not vitiate the
whole prosecution case as the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault
was committed by the accused against the victim girl who is 9 years old by
putting his finger in the vagina of the victim girl but not by his genital organs.
Page No.20 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
31.In this context, the learned Spl.Public Prosecutor relied upon the following citation in support of his arguments viz.,
Lillu @ Rajesh & Anr. V. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 643 wherein it was held that
“two finger test subject to the survivors of rape
unconstitutional and such practice violates the right to
privacy, dignity and bodily integrity of the women
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.
32.At this juncture, the learned defence counsel argued that Hymen is
intact and the medical opinion ruled out any recent sexual intercourse or
assault and as such there is no penetrative sexual assault and the accused is
entitled for acquittal, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned defence counsel as the “penetrative sexual assault” committed by the accused against the victim who is 9 years old by inserting his finger into the vagina of the victim girl even to slightest extent and not by his genital organ amounts to “aggravated penetrative sexual assault”. Therefore, the submission of the learned defence counsel holds no substance.
33.The prosecution though examined PW.10/Medical Officer who issued potency test report of accused under Ex.P12 but his testimony is noway helpful to the prosecution as the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault is
Page No.21 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair) committed by the accused against the victim by putting his finger in vagina of the victim but not by his genital organ.
34.The evidence of the other prosecution witnesses i.e., PW.7 who is the photographer who took the video while recording the statement of the victim girl and that of the panch witness to the CDF i.e. PW.8 lends support to the prosecution case. Whereas the evidence of the Investigating Officer i.e. PW.11 who clearly deposed about the investigation done by him in chronological manner lends corroboration to the evidence of Pws 1 to 5.
Though the prosecution has given up the evidence of LW.7/Women SI of
Police who recorded the statement of victim girl but it does not vitiate the whole prosecution case as she died.
Thus, the testimony of Pws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and as well as the medical
evidence on record i.e. PW.9 and that of Pw11/Investigating officer lends
enough corroboration to the evidence of PW.3/victim girl as stated supra and
is sufficient to bring home the complicity of the accused for the offence under
section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, which equally constitutes the offence u/s
376(AB) IPC.
35.So far as the charge u/s 452 IPC is concerned, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully entered into the
Kirana shop of Pw1 after making preparation for hurt, assault (or) wrongful
restraint.
Page No.22 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
In the case on hand, as per the evidence of Pws 1 and 2/the parents of the victim girl and as per the testimony of Pw3 as discussed supra, the accused unlawfully entered into the kirana shop for committing sexual assault. Therefore, the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and also that of Pws 4 and 5, which is found to be consistent and corroborates the version of Pw3 and is further corroborated by the evidence of investigating officer/Pw11 only attracts the offence u/s 451 IPC as there is no material on record to hold that the accused committed house trespass after making preparation for causing hurt (or) assault (or) wrongful restraint.
Therefore, only Sec.451 IPC attracts and not Sec.452 IPC.
Though no charge is framed u/s 451 IPC but framed u/s 452 IPC i.e. for
the major offence, the Court can still convict the accused for a minor offence
in terms of Sec. 222 of Cr.P.C. Hence there is no hesitation to hold that the
prosecution succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the
offence u/s 451 IPC and is liable for penal consequences.
36. For the foregoing reasons there is no hesitation to hold that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offences u/s 451 IPC section 5 r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and also Sec. 376 (AB) IPC.
Thus, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 451 IPC, 376 (AB) IPC and Sec. 5 r/w 6 of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, the accused is to be convicted in terms of Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Page No.23 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me, in the
open Court on this the 4th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-
Prl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial. FAC: SPL.Judge (POCSO cases), Jagtial.
37.On questioning the accused about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him he submitted “ that his son was hospitalized and his wife is bed ridden and pleaded for mercy”.
This Court having considered the submission made by the accused on the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him opined that the accused having committed heinous offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the minor victim girl of tender age of 9 years as stated supra with the sexual intent and now praying this Court to take lenient view deserves no consideration and it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or under section 360 of Cr.P.C.
Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appropriate sentence as prescribed under law will meet the ends of justice.
38.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 451 of
IPC and he is convicted in terms of Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TWO (2) years and to pay
Page No.24 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine amount shall undergo
simple imprisonment for THREE months.
The accused is also found guilty for the offence under sections 376 (AB)
IPC and Sec. 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act and he is convicted in terms of Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C for the offence u/sec.376 (AB) IPC and Sec. 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act
but sentenced for the offence under the POCSO Act in terms of section 42 of
said Act (which provides for alternative punishment when the offence is
punishable under the provisions of POCSO Act and also under the provisions
of Indian Penal Code where the punishment is greater in degree) and no
separate sentence is imposed for the offence under section 376 (AB) of IPC as the minimum sentence prescribed under the POCSO Act and the minimum sentence prescribed under Indian Penal Code are one and the same and is sentenced for the offence u/sec.5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of TWENTY (20) Years and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of SIX months.
The sentences under the above counts shall run concurrently. The total
fine amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.5000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.15,000/-) is payable
by the accused to the victim girl under section 357 (1) of Cr.P.C and Sec. 6 (2) r/w Sec.33 (8) of POCSO Act.
Page No.25 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
Further, this Court in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Saxena and another Vs. Union of India wherein it mandated that special Court has to award compensation for sexual abuse under POCSO Act.
Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that granting of compensation apart from imposing punishment to the accused would meet the ends of justice. Hence,
this Court feels it necessary to direct the State Government to pay
compensation to the victim girl under section 33 (8) of POCSO Act rule 9 of
POCSO Rules 2020 for the rehabilitation of the victim girl.
Therefore, in addition to the total fine of Rs.15,000/- payable by the accused, the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) is payable to the victim girl by the State government represented by the District Collector as per rule 9 (4) of POCSO Rules, 2020 from the victim compensation fund or other scheme/fund established by it for the purpose of compensating and rehabilitation of the victim girl under section 357 (A) of Cr.P.C.
The State Government is directed to pay said compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the victim girl as ordered in this Judgment within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of Judgment in accordance with the rule 9 (5) of POCSO Rules-2020.
The accused is informed about his right of appeal before the Hon’ble High
Court of Telangana at Hyderabad and he is further informed that he is entitled to get free legal aid for preferring appeal against the Judgment of this Court through
Page No.26 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
District Legal Services Authority, Jagtial. The office is directed to furnish free copy of Judgment to the accused today itself.
The accused is entitled for benefit of set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C and his period of detention from 09.10.2023 to 06.12.2023 shall be set-off.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me, in the open Court on this the 4th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-
Prl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial. FAC: SPL.Judge (POCSO cases), Jagtial.
FORM-C LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES A. Prosecution
RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS
PW.1Mother of victim girl-details notMother of victim girl disclosed as PW.1 is family member of victim in P.O.C.S.O. case. PW.2Father of victim girl-details notFather of victim girl disclosed as PW.2 is family member of victim in P.O.C.S.O. case. PW.3Victim girl-details not disclosedVictim girl as PW.3 is victim in P.O.C.S.O. case. PW.4Uncle of victim girl-details notUncle of the victim girl disclosed as PW.4 is family member of victim in P.O.C.S.O. case.
Page No.27 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair)
PW.5ZaheerNeighbour PW.6Ch. Shyam SunderPrincipal, Kerala English Medium High School, Dharmapuri who issued the date of birth certificate of victim girl PW.7K. KishanVideographer PW.8Md. AfridPanch witness for CDF PW.9Dr. V. SravanthiLady Medical Officer PW.10Dr. VarunMedical Officer who conducted potency test of accused PW.11N. Venkata SwamyInvestigating Officer
B. Defence witnesses, if any:
RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS
NilNilNil C. Court witnesses , if any:
RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS
NilNilNil
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS A. Prosecution: Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number 1P1/PW.1Report 2P2/PW.6Requisition 3P3/PW.6Study cum conduct cum date of birth certificate of victim girl issued on 09.10.2023.
4P4/PW.7CD 5P5/PW.7Sec.65-B Certificate
Page No.28 of 28 S.C.No.66 of 2023 (Fair) 6P6/PW.8CDF along with rough sketch 7P7/PW.9Requisition 8P8/PW.9Medical examination report of the victim girl 9P9/PW.9FSL report 10P10/PW.9Final opinion 11P11/PW.10Requisition 12P12/PW.10Potency test report 13P13/Pw.11FIR B. Defence: Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number
NilNilNil
C. Court Exhibits Sl.No.ExhibitDescription Number
NilNilNil
D. Material Objects Sl.No.MaterialDescription Object Number
NilNilNil
Sd/-
Prl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial. F.A.C.: Spl.Judge (P.O.C.S.O., cases), Jagtial. //True copy//
Prl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial. F.A.C.: Spl.Judge (P.O.C.S.O., cases), Jagtial.