1 SC.No.611 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL
OF POCSO ACT CASES, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.
Monday, the 4thday of May, 2026
Present: Sri. G.Srinivas, Special Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar
Sessions Case No. 611 of 2022
(Cr.No.65 of 2022 of P.S Hayathnagar)
1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Sub-InspectorofPolice,PS Hayathnagar.
2 Name of the Accused Gulshan Sahani S/o Radheshyam, Age personabout 22 years, Occ: Painting work, R/oGopitolaTeliyavillage, Pakdinauni Thana, Maharajganj District, Uttarapradesh State.
3 Offences charged Under Sections 354A(1)(i) r/w 354A(2) of Indian Penal Code and Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) against Accused 4 Crime No.& Name of the PS 65 of 2022 of P.S Hayathnagar 5 Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty 6 Finding of the CourtFound guilty 7 Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C for the offences under Section 354A(1)(i) read with 354A(2) of IPC and Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of POCSO Act. Considering the nature of the offences, the submission of the
Special Judge
2 SC.No.611 of 2022 accused and the age of the accused, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) years for the offence under section 354A(1)(i) of IPC, punishable under Section 354A(2) of IPC. The accused is also sentenced to under-go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default to under- go simple Imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act. The sentences imposed shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by the accused from 20-01-2022 to 21-04-2022 and 31-01-2025 to 18-07-2025 and 12-01- 2026 till date shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) is granted towards compensation. The District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy shall take steps for payment of compensation amount to the victim. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal before the
Hon’ble High Court. He is further
informed that he will be provided legal aid, if required. Free copy of the judgment is directed to be supplied to the accused forthwith.
8Name of the prosecution Sri. B. Bikshapathi Goud, Special counsel Public Prosecutor 9Name of the Defence counselSri. G. Venkataiah Deputy Chief Legal aid counsel for the Accused
Special Judge
3 SC.No.611 of 2022
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27-04-2026 in the presence of Sri. B. Bikshapathi Goud, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. G. Venkataiah, Deputy Chief Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This is a case where the accused is allegedly committed aggravated sexual assault against the victim who was two to three years old. The accused is tried for the offences under Section 354A(1)(i) r/w 354A(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9(m) r/w 10 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”).
2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Hayathnagar filed charge sheet mentioning that on 19.01.2022 at 06.20 p.m. the informant who is the mother of the victim presented report and basing on it,
L.W.16/Detective Inspector of Police, P.S.Hayathnagar registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2022 under Section 354 IPC and Section 11 r/w 12 of the POCSO Act and entrusted investigation to L.W.17/Sub Inspector of
Police. During the course of the investigation, L.W.17 examined and recorded the statements of the informant/L.W.1 and L.W.2/father of the victim. As the victim girl was unable to speak properly because she is baby of 2 years old, L.W.17 could not record her statement and also
Special Judge
4 SC.No.611 of 2022
Section 164 Cr.P.C statement. L.W.17 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch in the presence of L.W.8/K.Rajasekhar Reddy and L.W.9/K.Nagaraju. That
L.W.17 examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.3 to 7/G.Renuka,
K.Dasharatha, N.Raju, K.Jagan Kumar and G.Srinivas Reddy. Later, L.W.17 addressed letter to the Government Hospital, Hayathnagar and referred the victim baby aged about 2 years for medical examination and report under the escort of W.P.C.11446 of Hayathnagar Police Station.
L.W.12/Lady Medical Officer, CHC, Hayathnagar examined the victim, collected swabs and other materials and sent to TSFSL. That on 19.01.2022 at 06.20 p.m. the accused was brought by the public and handed over him to L.W.16/Detective Inspector of Police with blunt injury on his left eye. That on enquiry with them, it is came to know that after apprehension of the accused, public beat him and caused injury on his left eye. L.W.17 took the accused into custody and sent him to hospital for treatment, where L.W.13/Dr.G.Geetha treated the accused.
Thereafter, L.W.17 issued 41-A(1) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and called his explanation, that the accused immediately submitted his explanation, but L.W.17 was not convinced. The accused admitted his guilt. L.W.17 recorded the detailed confessional statement of the accused in the presence of mediators L.W.10/J.Ramulu and
Special Judge
5 SC.No.611 of 2022
L.W.11/Ch.Prabhakar. LW 17 effected arrest of the accused explaining the grounds of arrest to him and his relatives, duly serving notices under
Sections 50 and 50A Cr.P.C and sent the accused for judicial custody.
L.W.14/Assistant Director, TSFSL, who examined the material, issued report that items 1 to 6 are examined, semen is not detected on items 1 to 6; blood and foreign hair are not found in Item No. 5, blood and foreign materials are not detected on Item No.6. L.W.15/Dental
Assistant Surgeon, CHC, Hayathnagar conducted age determination test to the victim and opined that the victim is aged about 2 to 3 years. From the facts collected during the course of investigation, it is established that L.W.1 and L.W.2 are the parents of the victim and L.Ws.2 to 7 are the witnesses. That L.W.1 and her family members came down to Hyderabad from their native place for livelihood and for the past 6 months, LW1 and her family members are doing watchman work at new construction apartment located at Plot No.37, Ganesh Nagar Colony, Munaganoor
Village and they were staying in the same apartment's ground floor in a temporary hut. The accused was migrated to Hyderabad from his native state Uttar Pradesh about one year ago and he worked as Painting worker for few months. Later he went to his native place. That on 16.01.2022 again the accused came to Hyderabad for painting work and he contacted his painting contractor/L.W.6, on that the accused was
Special Judge
6 SC.No.611 of 2022 assigned with painting work at the said apartment of the informant. On 18.01.2022 the accused came to the said apartment and he was staying in a temporary hut, in the ground floor of the building, which is next to the temporary hut of the informant. That on 19.01.2022 around 04.00 p.m. the informant/L.W.1 was feeding his younger baby in their hut and in the meantime, the victim baby aged about 2 years went outside to throw water in a glass; that when the accused noticed the victim baby, went to her and then lured her on the pretext of giving chocolate and took her into his room by closing his room with the plastic cover; that the accused kissed her and touched her private parts and getting his sexual desire with her; that due to the acts of the accused, the victim baby was crying loudly. After hearing the voice of the victim, L.W.1 went to the room of the accused and noticed her baby and she raised alarm, on that the said apartment workers came there, caught hold the accused and beat him with hands, resulting injury on the left eye of the accused.
The accused was handed over to Police, Hayathnagar. The accused committed offences under Section 354 IPC and Section 11 read with 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3. Cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 354A(1)(i) r/w 354A(2) IPC and Section 9(m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act against
Special Judge
7 SC.No.611 of 2022 the accused and the case was registered as Sessions Case (POCSO)
No.611 of 2022.
4. After securing presence of the accused, copies of the case documents were furnished to him. The accused was examined under
Section 228 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences under Sections 354A (1)(i) read with 354A(2) IPC and Section 9 (m) read with 10 of POCSO Act are framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.
5. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
7. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned
Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defense Counsel for the accused. Learned
Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defense Counsel filed written arguments.
8. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 354A(1)(i) r/w 354A (2) IPC and Section 9 (m) r/w Section 10 of the POCSO Act, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Special Judge
8 SC.No.611 of 2022
POINT:
9. The accused is tried for the offences under Sections 354A(1)
(i) read with 354A(2) of IPC and Section 9(m) readwith Section 10 of
POCSO Act. Section 354A IPC and Section 9(m) of POCSO Act are extracted hereunder :
354A.-Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment--(1)
A man committing any of the following acts--
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. (2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause
(i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause
(iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.]
9. Aggravated sexual assault.
(m) whoever commits sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or
Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines sexual asssault and it is extracted hereunder :
7. Sexual assault.—Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without
Special Judge
9 SC.No.611 of 2022 penetration is said to commit sexual assault.
10. In proof of case of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 15 are examined.
It is to be mentioned that the victim is stated to be of 3 years old. P.W.1 is the mother and P.W.2 is the father of the victim. P.Ws. 2 to P.W.5 are examined as circumstantial witnesses. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are examined to prove scene of offence panchanama. P.W.8 and P.W.9 are examined to prove confession of the accused. P.W.13 is the doctor who examined the victim and issued report. P.W.11 is the Is the doctor who treated the accused. P.W.10 is Assistant Director of TSFSL, who issued FSL report.
P.W.14 and P.W.15 are the Investigating Officers.
11.The evidence of P.W.1 is that the victim is her daughter aged about 3 years at the time of the incident; that she got two daughters, the victim is her elder daughter. She also deposes that on the relevant day the accused came to their apartment for the purpose of painting and her husband was watchman of newly constructing apartment at the relevant time and it pertains to one Rajshekhar Reddy and Srinivas
Reddy and that it is situated in plot number 37 of Munaganool Village and they were residing in cellar. She also deposes that she along with her husband and two daughters were staying there and the accused also
Special Judge
10 SC.No.611 of 2022 used to stay in the same cellar. There is no challenge to this evidence of
P.W.1, P.W.2 also corroborates the said evidence.
12.The prosecution case as unfolded by the evidence of P.W.1 is that on 19.01.2022 at about 04.00 p.m. when she was giving milk to her younger daughter, the victim went out for pouring the water and she did not return, that she thought that she was playing but till half an hour she did not return, that after half an hour she got slept her younger daughter, and went out, searched for the victim and she was not present, that she heard her crying from the room which was covered with a sheet, pertaining to the accused, and she found that her daughter/victim was in naked condition and even the accused was found in naked condition and he was touching her daughter in her private parts with his hands. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that she brought her daughter, even dragged the accused outside and coolies gathered there and some of the coolies beat the accused and that their supervisor made telephonic call to police, police came to the spot and she lodged
Ex.P1 – report.
13.It is also the evidence of P.W.2 that the incident occured on 19.01.2022, at about 04.00 pm, that P.W.1 was giving milk to her younger daughter, the victim went out for pouring water, she did not return,
Special Judge
11 SC.No.611 of 2022
P.W.1 searched for the victim, P.W.1 heard the victim crying from the room which was covered with sheet pertaining to the accused, P.W.1 observed that the accused by that time removed his pant, removed the underwear of victim and tried to commit rape against his daughter, that his wife (P.W.1) shouted and brought his daughter out and that on hearing the shoutings, himself and other coolies went to the spot, grabbed the accused, but he tried to escape, they caught hold and tied the accused to a pillar and that their supervisor made telephonic call to the police, who came to the spot and P.W.1 lodged a report.
14.It is to be mentioned that in the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is suggested that while the victim was playing, she poured water on herself from the glass which was held by her, but P.W.1 denied the suggestion. Even if the said suggestion is considered, it is in corroboration of the evidence of P.W.1 in her chief examination that the victim went out for pouring water. It is suggested to P.W.1 that the accused was getting to play the victim and that she misunderstood the situation, what she had seen. From this suggestion the presence of the accused with the victim was proved. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 in regard to P.W.1 noticing the accused in naked condition and also her daughter. Further it is the evidence of P.W.1 that she heard crying of the victim from the room pertaining to the accused.
Special Judge
12 SC.No.611 of 2022
The victim would not have gone inside the house of the accused for pouring the water, unless she was taken to inside the room. It is to be mentioned that in the cross examination of P.W.1 it was suggested that there was quarrel between them and painters on some issue, some of the painting boxes were lost from the room and the accused was abused and in turn he scolded them and that as such, they were having personal grudges with the accused. P.W.1 denied the said suggestions. From these suggestions it appears that the case of the defence is that due to personal grudges with the accused, P.W.1 implicated the accused in false case. However, P.W.3 who was the construction supervisor of the apartment wherein P.W.2 was working as watchman, deposes that the accused came to the said apartment one day prior to the incident for painting work. P.W.4 also deposes that the accused came to their apartment one day prior to the incident. Therefore, there was no probability of previous grudges between the accused and P.Ws.1 and 2.
It is not the case of the defence that the stated incident of painting boxes lost from the room happened on the previous day of the incident, on which date the accused came to that apartment. It is also to be mentioned that it is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 that other than their room there existed two portioned rooms covered with covers, in one room painters, etc were staying and in another room
Special Judge
13 SC.No.611 of 2022 materials were kept, and that about 20 to 30 persons were staying in that room. Even if 20 to 30 persons, either workers or painters, were staying in that room, even if there was missing of painting boxes, there is no chance of developing grudge against the accused since he came to that apartment on the previous day of the incident only.
15.From the cross examination of P.W.2, it is evident that since about two to three months prior to presenting report, the painting work was going on; that on the backside of their room the painters and other workers were staying in a hut. It is also elicited from the cross examination of P.W.2 that painters and other workers used to consume alcohol after completion of work. It is also suggested that there were frequent quarrels between them and painters in regard to missing of material, there used to be missing of painting material, electric material and plumbing material frequently and that he committed theft of material from the construction site and when the accused threatened that he would inform the owner, he falsely lodged the report implicating the accused. P.W.2 denied the said suggestions. It is to be mentioned that nothing is suggested to and elicited from the cross examination of
P.W.3, who is construction supervisor, P.W.4 who was painting worker and P.W.5, who was the builder/developer of the apartment, in respect of missing of any painting material and frequent quarrels between P.W.2
Special Judge
14 SC.No.611 of 2022 and painters. Even if the material was lost previously, as the accused came to that apartment only on the previous day of the incident, it is not acceptable that P.Ws. 1 and 2 implicated the accused.
16.The evidence of P.W.3 and 4 also strengthens the evidence of
P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.3 is that on 19.01.2022 at 04.00 pm, he was present in the first floor of the building, he heard shoutings of P.W.1, on hearing the same, he came down and on enquiry with P.W.1, she informed that the accused on that relevant day took the victim aged about 2 years to the temporary tarpaulin shed in the apartment and behaved indecently with the victim, touched her in her private part and they all beat the accused and made telephonic call to the police. P.W.4 also deposes that on 19.01.2022, the incident occured between 04.00 and 05.00 pm, and at the relevant time of the incident, he was present in the groundfloor of the apartment, he heard shoutings of P.W.1, he went to her and enquired with her, that she informed him that the accused took the victim to his room, removed her clothes and behaved indecently with her, and that they all beat the accused. P.W.5 deposes that on 19.01.2022, he received phone call from P.W.3, who informed that the accused behaved indecently with the victim and he informed him to hand over the accused in the police station.
Special Judge
15 SC.No.611 of 2022
17. P.W.3 deposes that he worked as apartment supervisor for construction at Munaganuru village, P.Ws..1 and 2 worked in the said apartment and P.W.2 worked as Watchman of the said apartment.
According to him, one day prior to the incident, the accused came to the apartment for painting work. P.W.4 also supports this evidence of P.W.3.
P.W.5 deposes that P.W.2 worked as watchman in their apartment by name SVR Developers situated at Munaganooru village and P.W.3 worked as supervisor and P.W.4 was painting contractor for the said building. There is no suggestion to these witnesses. When it is the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 is the watchman, P.W.3 is construction supervisor and P.W.4 attended painting work for the building of scene of offence, their presence at the scene of offence is probable and is established from their unchallenged evidence. Furthermore, in the cross-examination of P.Ws..3 and 4, it is elicited that on hearing the shouting of P.W.1, P.W.3 came down from 1st floor and P.W.4 went to the place of offence. P.Ws..3 and 4 are not the eye witnesses to the incident, but they had been to the place of offence immediately after the incident. Their evidence is admissible under Section 6 of the Indian
Evidence Act (Section 4 of Bharathiya Shaksha Adiniyam – 2023). It is proved beyond doubt from the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4 that P.W.1 raised shoutings and hearing on her shoutings, they went to the place of
Special Judge
16 SC.No.611 of 2022 offence. It is also proved beyond doubt that immediately after P.Ws. 2 to 4 going to the scene of offence, P.W.1 informed in regard to the accused removing clothes of the victim, behaving with her indecently and touching her private parts. As already mentioned above, the evidence of P.W.1 that she noticed the victim and the accused in naked condition, is not at all challenged in the cross examination. It is also to be mentioned that from the cross examination of P.Ws. 2 to 4 it is established that P.W.1 raised shoutings and hearing them, P.Ws. 2 to 4 came to the scene of offence and P.W.1 informed about the incident. It is to be mentioned that the defence could not show any circumstances for P.W.1 to depose falsely against the accused implicating the accused in the case keeping the honour of the family and future of the victim at risk. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is reliable and trust worthy.
18.It is also to be mentioned that according to P.W.5, who was the builder/developer of the apartment, deposes that on 19.01.2022, he received phone call from P.W.3 that the accused behaved indecently with the victim and he informed P.W.3 to hand over the accused in the police station. The cross examination of this witness was recorded as nil as there was no representation from the learned counsel for the accused. Therefore, it is evident that P.W.5 was immediately informed
Special Judge
17 SC.No.611 of 2022 about the incident and this conduct of P.W.3 informing the developer about the incident is natural.
19.The case of the prosecution is also strengthened by the circumstances of the accused sustaining injuries at the scene of offence.
It is also to be mentioned that it is the evidence of P.W.1 that some of the coolies beat the accused after she dragged the accused from his room and after coolies gathered there. P.W.2 also deposes that on hearing shoutings, himself and other coolies went to the spot, they grabbed the accused, but he tried to escape and that they caught and tied him to a pillar. There is also no suggestion to P.W.2 on this evidence.
According to P.W.3, on hearing shouting of P.W.1, they came down from the first floor and on enquriy P.W.1 narrated the incident and they all beat the accused. P.W.11 is the Duty Medical Officer in Shadow
Hospitals, Hayathnagar. She deposes that on 19.01.2022 at 10.48 p.m. B.
Sahoni Gulshan (Accused) male came to the hospital with history of causing injury by unknown persons at his residence; that on examination she found injuries on left eye and right hand and that she issued Ex.P5 – injury certificate noting that he was having injury to left eye and mild bleeding on right hand and the age of the wound is 6 hours and causative weapon is hand. The injuries relates to the the time of the incident. The cross examination of P.W.11 was treated as nil as the
Special Judge
18 SC.No.611 of 2022 learned counsel for the accused was not present. According to P.W.15, he sent the accused to the hospital immediately, after he was handed over to him and that P.W.11 examined the accused and that he collected
Ex.P5 certificate. There is also no suggestion to P.W.15 in regard to Ex.P5 certificate. A perusal of Ex.P5 certificate shows that the accused was having injury to left eye and mild bleeding on right hand. Ex.P5 also supports the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 as to the persons at the scene of offence beating the accused after P.W.1 narrating about the incident, on the victim of 2 or 3 years.
20.It is to be mentioned that prosecution also examined P.Ws. 8 and 9 in respect of confession of the accused. However, confession made while in the custody of police is not admissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 is to be excluded from consideration.
21.It is to be mentioned that the Provisions of the POCSO Act can be invoked if the victim is a child. As per Section 2(d) of the POCSO
Act, “child” means any person below the age of eighteen years. The evidence of P.W.1, who is the mother of the victim is that the victim is aged about 3 years by the time of the incident; according to P.W.2, who is the father of the victim, the age of the victim was 2 years by the date
Special Judge
19 SC.No.611 of 2022 of the incident. P.Ws. 3 and 4 deposed that the victim was aged about 2 years. The prosecution relies on the evidence of P.W.12 in respect of age of the victim. P.W.12 deposes that on 16.05.2022 he received requisition from Police Hayathnagar, thereon, he examined the victim and gave age certificate as per tooth eruption pattern as second milk teeth was missing in oral cavity and rest of the remaining teeth are milk teeth and that 16 teeth were present, that he issued Ex.P6 - age certificate, opining that the victim is aged about 2 to 3 years. In the cross examination of P.W.12 it is elicited that he has not collected radiologist report. Learned Deputy Chief Legal Aid defence counsel would submit that as radiologist report is not received and filed, when
Ex.P6 show that the victim was referred to radiologist, the evidence of
P.W.12 shall not be taken into consideration. Even in the absence of radiologist report, the age of the victim can be determined with the tooth eruption pattern, though may not accurately, more particularly in the child of two or three years. As per Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence, all permanent teeth erupt by the age of Puberty. The victim was having milk teeth, as per the evidence of P.W.12. The difference in the age determination with tooth eruption pattern could not be with much difference. Therefore, Ex.P6 can be taken into consideration and the age of the victim can be held proved to be 2 to 3 years.
Special Judge
20 SC.No.611 of 2022
22.The prosecution examined P.Ws.6 and 7 to prove Crime
Details Form. P.W.6 deposes that in the month of January, 2022 police called him to police station, as well as to the apartment, where the incident occured and police prepared same thing in writing and obtained his signature. He identified his signature in the panchanama of scene of offence in Crime Details Form. As the witness was not able to tell as to what proceeding he was attended on the relevant day, the Crime Details
Form was not exhibited and he was declared as hostile and in the cross examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, he deposes that police conduced panchanma, prepared rough sketch in his presence and read over the contents of panchanama and obtained his signature. P.W.7 deposes that in the year, 2022 at the apartment of P.W.6, in
Munaganooru, police conducted panchanama as to the scene of offence in respect of an offence of misbehaving with victim girl. Ex.P3 is Crime
Details Form. In the cross-examination of P.W.7 it is elicited that the construction of the apartment was completed and painting works were going on by that date. He denied the suggestion that police did not conduct panchanama and did not prepare Crime Details Form. P.W.15 deposes in regard to visiting the scene of offence and preparing Ex.P3 -
Crime Details Form. A perusal of Ex.P3, it is evident that on the backside of the room of P.W.1, the room of the accused is reflected. It is also
Special Judge
21 SC.No.611 of 2022 relevant to mention that from the evidence of P.Ws1 to 4, there is no ambiguity as to the scene of offence.
23.The prosecution examined P.W.13 in respect of preliminary examination of the victim. P.W.13 deposes that on 20.01.2022 she received requisition from PS Hayathnagar to examine the victim and on the same day on general examination, she observed that the victim was stable and she was having no external injuries and there were no local injuries and hymen was intact. Ex.P7 is the preliminary examination report. Learned Deputy Chief Legal Aid Counsel relied on a decision in
Someshwar S/o Sri Ram Ambule Vs State of Maharasthra : 2026 : BHC –
NAG : 5598, wherein it was observed that medical examination report does not show any evidence of sexual intercourse, no evidence of attempt of sexual intercourse and no evidence of unnatural sex, the hymen is shown to be intact, no injuries on the labia majora, labia minora, that clitoris is shown intact, no injury to any genitals, no external or internal injuries and that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case and that as the medical evidence is not corroborating the testimony of the victim, there was no question of raising of presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. It is to be mentioned that in the said case, the offences alleged are under Section 376(2)(i) of
IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which requires proof of penetrative
Special Judge
22 SC.No.611 of 2022 sexual assault, but in the present case it is not the charge against the accused that he committed rape or penetrative sexual assault against the victim. Therefore, the said decision has no relevance to the facts of the present case. It is to be mentioned that when the case of the prosecution is not that of penetrative sexual assault or any injury to the victim, the medical evidence of P.W.13 assumes no importance. Learned
Special Public Prosecutor relied on a decision in Rajeswaran Vs The
Inspector of Police, All Women, Police Station, Nannilam : Crl.Appeal No.
823 of 2022 of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Madras, wherein it was observed that the appellant therein, touched the girl in inappropriate manner and no injuries were found on her body and in such circumstances, there was no necessity for the police to refer to victim girl to the doctor. It is not the evidence of any of the witnesses that the victim sustained external injuries, on the other hand the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 is that the accused was beaten and Ex.P5 injury certificate in this case is a vital document to connect the accused as to his presence at the place of offence. P.W.10 deposes in regard to examination of the material collected and sent to FSL and issuance of
Ex.P4 - FSL report. According to Ex.P4 semen is not detected on items no.1 to 3 and so also blood and foreign hair and foreign material. In the
Special Judge
23 SC.No.611 of 2022 circumstances of the case, FSL report is not relevant for establishing the charges leveled against the accused.
24. In so far as charge for the offence under Section 354A(1)(i) read with 354A(2) IPC is concerned, from the evidence of P.W.1, it is established that the accused had removed his clothes and the clothes of the victim, there is a physical contact and unwelcome and explicit sexual overture, within the ambit of the said section. The accused is also charged for the offence under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the
POCSO Act. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that P.W.1 found the accused and the victim in naked condition and the accused was touching private parts of the victim. The victim is aged about 2 or 3 years, this circumstance itself establishes sexual intent on the part of the accused. It is also to be mentioned that when the prosecution proved that the accused was found naked and also the victim who is aged about 2 or 3 years naked in the room of the accused, the presumption under Section 29 and Section 30 of the POCSO Act can be raised. Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are extracted hereunder:
Section 29: Presumption as to certain offences.— Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the
Special Judge
24 SC.No.611 of 2022 case may be unless the contrary is proved.
Section 30: Presumption of culpable mental state.—(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the 13 existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence
for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such
mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
25.It is to be mentioned that when the prosecution could prove foundational facts, it is for the defence to rebut the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. However, there is no such rebuttal evidence on the part of the accused. Learned counsel for the accused also relied on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Leeladhar : 2025 : NPHC –
JBP : 54577 and submit that when two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed. However, in the present case the defence could not establish that there are previous grudges between the accused and P.Ws.1 and 2 and that as such the base on which defence laid their case is without any substance. From the above discussion and as the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 establishes the case of the prosecution and invoking presumptions under Section 29
Special Judge
25 SC.No.611 of 2022 and 30 of the POCSO Act, it is held that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 354A(1)(i) read with 354A(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.
26.In the result, the accused is convicted under Section 235(2)
Cr.P.C for the offences under Section 354A(1)(i) read with 354A(2) of IPC and Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of POCSO Act.
Dictated to the Typist, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the
open Court, on this the 4 th day of May, 2026.
Special Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar
Quantum of Sentence:
27.The accused is questioned in regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him for the offences under Section 354A(1)(i) read with 354A(2) of IPC and Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of POCSO Act. The accused submitted that he is the sole bread earner of the family and having small children to look after and his mother is suffering with cancer. It is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in view of the nature of the offences.
Special Judge
26 SC.No.611 of 2022
28.Considering the nature of the offences, the submission of the accused and the age of the accused, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) years for the offence under section 354A(1)(i) of IPC, punishable under Section 354A(2) of IPC. The accused is also sentenced to under-go Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Five years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default to under-go simple
Imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act. The sentences imposed shall run concurrently. The remand period under gone by the accused from 20-01-2022 to 21-04-2022 and 31-01-2025 to 18-07-2025 and 12-01-2026 till date shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
29.Considering the age of the victim, the financial status of her parents as her father was a watchman, and also considering the mental trauma, and suffering of the victim, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (One
Lakh Fifty Thousand only) is granted towards compensation. The District
Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy shall take steps for payment of compensation amount to the victim.
Special Judge
27 SC.No.611 of 2022
30.The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. He is further informed that he will be provided legal aid, if required. Free copy of the judgment is directed to be supplied to the accused forthwith.
Dictated to the Typist, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the open
Court, on this the 4 th day of May, 2026.
Special Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(Witnesses examined)
For the prosecution:
P.W.1: Mother of the victimMother of the victim
P.W.2: Father of the victimFather of the victim
P.W.3: N. RajuWitness
P.W.4: K. Jagan KumarWitness
P.W.5: G. Srinivas ReddyWitness
P.W.6: K. Rajashekar Reddy Panch for SOC
P.W.7: K. NagarajuPanch for SOC
P.W.8: J. RamuluPanch for confession of the accused
P.W.9: Ch. PrabhakarPanch for confession of the accused
P.W.10: Dr. Shaik Haseena ParveenIssued FSL Report
P.W.11: Dr.G. GeethaTreated the accused
P.W.12: Dr.M.RajeshIssued age certificate of the victim
P.W.13: Dr.Ch. Swaroopa RaniExamined victim girl
Special Judge
28 SC.No.611 of 2022
P.W.14: R. NiranjanIssued FIR
P.W.15: D.SrinivasInvestigating Officer and filed charge sheet For the defence: -None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the prosecution:
Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Signature of P.W.6 on Crime details form Ex.P3: Crime details form Ex.P4: FSL Report Ex.P5: Injury Certificate Ex.P6: Age Certificate Ex.P7: Preliminary Examination Ex.P8: First Information Report
For the defence:
-NIL-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
Special Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar
Special Judge