SC PCS.No.260/2022 1
IN THE COURT OF THESPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK
SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012,
AT HACA BHAVAN, HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : SRI. G. UDAY BHASKAR RAO,
SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR
EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER
RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT,
AT HACA BHAVAN, HYDERABAD.
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2026
SESSIONS CASE PCS No. 260 OF 2022
Crime Number and Police Crime No. 308/2022 of Police Station, StationChandrayangutta, Hyderabad.
Name and description of A1) Mohammed, S/o. Hamid Bamasdoos, the accused personAge : 24 years, Occ: Scrap Business, R/o. H.No. 4-87, Opp. To Omer Farooq Masjid, Errakunta, Balapur, R.R.District.
A2) Ishaq Khan, S/o. Late Azhar Khan, Age : 19 years, Occ: Work at Scrap Shop, R/o. H.No. 18-11-67/A/45/24/C, Salala, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.
Name and description of The State represented by Assistant the complainantCommissioner of Police of Falaknuma Division, Hyderabad.
Prosecution conducted bySmt. M.Rama Devi, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Defence conducted bySri. P.Rajashekar Goud, Advocate, Counsel
for Accused No.1 and of Sri. Syed
Shafeeullah Quadri, Counsel for the Accused No.2.
Offences chargedU/Sec. 366(A), 376(2)(n), 376(AB), 376(DB), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.5(g)(l)
(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, against the Accused.
Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.
Finding of the CourtFound guilty.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 2
RESULT In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable
Under Section 5(g) of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 376-DB of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted Under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences.
Further, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376-AB, 376(2)(n), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and
Sections 5(l) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and accordingly, they are convicted under
Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for the said offences.
The Accused No.1 and 2 are sentencedtoundergorigorous imprisonment for (30) Thirty years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees
Ten Thousand only) for the offence under
Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
In default of payment of fine the Accused
No.1 and 2 are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for Six (6) months each.
Further, the Accused No.1 and 2 are sentencedtoundergorigorous imprisonment for (25) Twentyfive years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for the offence under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of
POCSO Act, 2012. In default of payment
SC PCS.No.260/2022 3 of fine the Accused No.1 and 2 are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for Six (6) months each.
Further, the Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for Two (2) years each and pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each (Rupees
Two Thousand only) for the offence under
Section 506 of IPC. In default of payment of fine the Accused No.1 and 2 are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) month each.
The Fine amounts shall be paid to victim girl as compensation. The total fine amount is Rs.44,000/-.
All the sentences imposed shall run concurrently.
As seen from the record, the accused was in jail in this case from 03.06.2022 to 22.07.2022. The said period shall be given set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C against the substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed against him. A copy of the judgment is furnished to the accused at free of cost u/s.363
Cr.P.C by intimating him about his right to prefer an appeal against the present judgment and right to get free legal aid.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 4
Having regard to the financial condition and social status of the victim girl/PW2, this Court considers it appropriate to recommend awarding an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs only) to the victim girl, as final compensation. Therefore, the Secretary,
DLSA is hereby directed to take steps to pay the said compensation amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the victim girl at the earliest. Copy of the Judgment is forwarded to The
Secretary, Legal Services Authority,
Hyderabad.
:: JUDGMENT::
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police of Chandrayangutta Divi- sion, Hyderabad has filed the charge sheet against the Accused in Crime
No.308/2022, for the offence under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(n), 376(AB), 376(DB), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.5(g)(l)(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the Accused.
2. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is here- inafter referred as POCSO Act, 2012, Indian Penal Code is hereinafter re- ferred as IPC for brevity.
3. Brief averments of charge sheet are that:
SC PCS.No.260/2022 5
a) On 31-05-2022 at about 20:00 hours received a complaint from
PW1/Victim's Mother, stating that she blessed with one son, and a daughter (Victim) and they are residing at Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.
For some days she has seen her daughter in depression and was not feeling well and also feeling insecure. She enquired her daughter for her depression, and told her that nothing would happen to her. Then her daughter told her that one known person Mohammed i.e., Accused No.1 who works at Scrap shop beside her house, used to take her forcibly to the bathroom in scrap shop and molested her, and she further told that when her daughter was playing in front of her house then above said
Mohammed caught hold her daughter's hand and took with him into bathroom beside Scrap shop, and removed her daughter's dress and started kissing on her body, touched on her private body parts, etc., and
Accused No.1 continued the same thing for many days. Subsequently, one day Mohammed's friend Isaaq i.e., Accused No.2 called her victim daughter and they repeated the same thing and further threatened her daughter not to disclose about the incident to anyone, if she do then he would beat her badly. She was shocked to know that Mohammed and his friend Isaaq did sexual assault many times with her daughter. Her victim daughter was very scared and her daughter was in depression. She contacted with her husband, who is now at Kerala State and informed him the said incident, who advised her to go to PS and lodged a complaint. As such she along with her minor daughter came to PS
Chandrayangutta and lodged complaint against Mohammed and Isaaq to take necessary action against them.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 6
b)Basing on the above complaint, PW10, Sub Inspector of Police has registered a case in Cr No: 308/2022 U/s 363, 506 r/w 34 IPC & Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act and case file handed over to PW11 who took up the investigation.
c)During the course of investigation, PW10 have examined the complainant and recorded her detailed statement and PW11 have collected the Birth Certificate of Victim and the victim girl date of birth is 03-05-2014, and as on the date of complaint her age is 08 years 28 days.
On 01/06/2022 the Woman Police Officer PW9/Smt. M.Sadalaxmi, WSI of police, of Bharosa Centre have examined the victim girl PW2 and recorded her detailed statement and visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of two mediators LW-07 and LW-08 and in their presence conducted Scene of offence panchanama and drawn a rough sketch in the Crime Detail Form.
d)Basing on the statement of the victim girl, that the Accused No.1 and have forcibly committed penetrative sexual assault against the victim minor girl several times and both of them threatened the victim not disclose this act to any one, as such the acts of the both accused constitutes an offence punishable 366(A), 376(2)(n), AB, DB, 506 r/w 34
IPC, and Sec 5 (g)(l)(m) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. In view of the above facts and circumstances, PW11 have altered alter the section of law from Secs. 363, 506 r/w 34 IPC and
Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act to Under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(n), AB, DB, 506 R/W 34 IPC, And Sec 5 (g) (1) (m) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and issued section alteration memo and
SC PCS.No.260/2022 7 handed over the case file to PW12, who took up further investigation of the case.
e)The victim girl PW2 was examined at Modern Govt. Maternity hospital Petlaburj, Hyderabad and collected the scalp hair nail clippings, etc., and the said material objects were sent to Director FSL Hyderabad for examination and report.
f)During the investigation, PWs.1 and 2 were re-examined and also the statements of PWs.1 and 2 and LW-03 to LW-06 were recorded. As per the testimony of victim and other witnesses the offence against the accused Al and A2 has been proved. On 03.06.2022 at 05:15 hours apprehended the Accused No.l and also Accused No.2 and on interrogation they confessed the offence and their confessional
Statements were recorded and at the instance of Accused No.1 and 2 visited the scene of offence and drawn the rough sketch. The Director
FSL, Hyderabad examined the material objects and issued report. Thus the investigation has been established that the Accused has committed the offences U/Secs. 366(A), 376(2)(n), AB, DB, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 5 (g) (1) (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4.Basing on the material available on record, the case was taken on file and the Hon’ble Special Sessions Judge, Hyderabad was pleased to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(2)
(n), AB, DB, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 5 (g) (1) (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the Accused No.1 and 2, vide SCPCS No.260/2022. On
SC PCS.No.260/2022 8 appearance of the accused persons copies of documents are furnished to them U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.
5.On the appearance of the Accused No.1 and 2, and on hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons, the Accused persons are examined, and charges are framed against the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under
Sections 366(A), 376(2)(n), AB, DB, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 5 (g) (1) (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, read over and explained to them. Having understood the same, the Accused No.1 and 2 denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Accused No.1 and 2 were defended by their respective counsels.
6.Out of 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW12 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. No witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked on behalf of the accused.
7.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW3/Father of the victim girl, LW5/Shaik
Qayyum/Circumstantial witness, LW8/Shaik Imran, Panch for CDF and rough sketch, LW10/Mohammed Ali, Panch for Confessional Statement,
LW14/Smt.G.Swarna Rani, Forensic Expert, issued FSL Report,
LW15/Ms. K.Jyothirmai, Hon’ble III Metropolitan Magistrate, recorded
Sec. 164 Cr.PC Statement of PW2/victim, LW16/ K.Satyanarayana, HC
SC PCS.No.260/2022 9 and LW17/S.Naresh, PC, who assisted the I.O., and closed their evidence.
8.After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused
No.1 and 2 are examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.PC regarding the incriminating evidence available against them, for which the Accused No.1 and 2 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on behalf of the
Accused persons.
9.Heard both sides arguments.
10.Now the point for determination is :
(1) “Whether the prosecution has proved, the victim girl is a
child as on the date of commission of offence as defined
U/sec.2(d) of the Act, beyond reasonable doubt?”
(2) “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of
Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 366-A, 376 (2) (n), 376-AB, 376-DB and 506 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?”
(3) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of
accused for the offence under section Sec. 5 (g)(l)(m) r/w 6
of POCSO Act, 2012, beyond reasonable doubt?”
POINT No.1 to 3: As all the points are intertwined, they are discussed together.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 10
11.In this case, in order to substantiate the case of prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 were marked. The accused was charged for the offences U/Sec. 5(g)(l)(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and
Sections 366(A), 376(2)(n), AB, DB, 506 r/w 34 IPC.
12.Here in this case, the victim girl is examined as PW2. At the time of her evidence she was 10 years old. PW2/Victim girl was put with preliminary questions to ascertain of her capacity to give evidence and after satisfying with the answers, this Court has recorded her evidence, wherein she deposed that, PW1 is her mother. LW3 is her father and she knows LW4 and LW5, LW6 is her friend. She deposed that she know A1 and A2. She further deposed A1 and A2 used to work in different scrap shop and the said scrap shops are situated near to her house and also there is a bathroom beside the scrap shop. She deposed that while she was studying 2nd class in Royal Grammar High School, A1 took her to the bathroom situated on the back side of scrap shop and used to remove her pant and also remove his pant and kept his urine part in her private part and threatened her not to inform to anybody. She further stated that the Accused did like that for several times. She also deposed that,
A2/Ishaaq used to take her to a room situated in the scrap shop and removed his pant and also removed her pant and kept his toilet part into her private part. She further stated that Accused did like that for several times and even A2 threatened her that he will bet her if she reveal the same to anybody. Later she informed to her mother and she lodged complaint and the Magistrate has recorded her statement. She deposed
SC PCS.No.260/2022 11 that her date of birth is 03.05.2014.
13.In order to prove the PW2 is within the definition of law of
Sec. 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act. The prosecution has marked Birth Certificate of PW2 through PW1. Ex.P2 is the Birth Certificate of the victim girl. On perusal of the Birth Certificate, where the PW2 was born on 03.05.2014.
The date of registration of Birth Certificate is within the time frame. The date of registration is 02.06.2014, which proves the victim girl is below 12 years and falls within the definition of child as laid down U/Sec. 2(1)
(d) of POCSO Act.
14.PW2 in her cross-examination she stated that she cannot read, write and speak Telugu and she cannot understand Telugu. She also stated that the store room is having door and separate lock. The lock of the shop is under the custody of Ayub, who is the owner of the scrap shop. She also stated that, it is true there is movement of the public near to her house. She also stated that, it is true there is a lane between bathroom and her house. She also stated that, it is true to go to bathroom one has to cross her room. She also stated that, her house consists of two rooms. The A2 counsel adopted the cross-examination of
A1 counsel. The cross-examination clearly shows that PW2 has deposed in consistent way and clearly explain with regard to the scene of offence stated that the washroom was situated on the backside of the scrap shop and the said washroom is also beside to their house. Her evidence is that the A1 has done the penetrative sexual act on her in the said wash
SC PCS.No.260/2022 12 room and A2 has done the same sexual acts in the scrap shop, which is within the premises, as reflecting in Scene of offence Sketch. The evidence of PW2 is totally cogent and convincing. PW9 the Investigating
Officer. She deposed that she recorded the 161 Cr.P.C Statement of the victim girl, who is 9 years old on 01.06.2022. In her cross-examination, she stated that she do not know reading and writing and speaking Urdu.
The victim girl stated her statement in Hindi Language and she recorded the same in Telugu. She also stated that the mother of the victim girl was present while recording her statement. She also stated that she do not know whether the mother of victim girl is aware of any other language except Urdu. She did not talk with the victim girl in Telugu. In the cross-examination of A2 counsel she also stated that the victim girl stated in Hindi Language and she recorded in Telugu. The learned counsel has argued that the victim girl cannot read, write and speak
Telugu and she only can speak Urdu. PW9, the First Investigating
Officer, she has stated that the victim girl narrated the incident in Hindi
Language. Further she stated that the victim girl is 9 years old. Even
PW2 did not depose in her entire evidence that she does not know Hindi, as she is Urdu studying girl, definitely she had narrated the statement in
Hindi, as speaking Hindi comes naturally for Urdu Student. Further
PW9 evidence is not that she does not know Hindi. The evidence of PW9 clearly discloses that the victim girl given her statement in Hindi
Language, translated to Telugu. Urdu language and Hindi Language are mixed language, which is easily understandable to everyone. A person who speaks Urdu can also speak Hindi. In the same way, the PW9
SC PCS.No.260/2022 13 translated the statement of victim girl into Telugu. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW9 and there is no need of any translator in this case.
15.PW-1/Mother of the victim girl deposed that she is the resident of Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad and she is doing tailoring work in her house. Her husband used to do embroidery work at Kerala. She was blessed with two children. LW2/Victim girl is her younger daughter.
LW3 is her husband. LW4/ Razia Begum is her neighbour. LW5/Shaik
Kareem is having a stove repair shop near by their house. LW6/Sameera
Begum is the friend of her daughter. She know A1 and A2. A1 is having a scrap shop near by her house and A2 works in the shop of A1 relative by name Aayub Bhai. Date of birth of her victim daughter is 03.05.2014.
PW1 further deposed that on 31.05.2022 she observed that victim girl was under depression and on her enquiry she informed her that A1 used to take her to the washroom situated behind the scrap shop and used to remove her pant and also used to remove you A1 pant and committed sexual intercourse with her for several times and she used to get pain and she used to cry. The Accused No.1 used to threatened her not to inform to anybody. A2 used to take the victim girl into the room of A2 scrap shop and used to remove the pant of the victim girl and also his pant and committed sexual intercourse with her for several times and threatened the victim girl not to inform to anybody. Then PW1 informed to her husband who was in Kerela and she went to the police station and lodged the complaint. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by her. She handed
SC PCS.No.260/2022 14 over the birth certificate to the police. Ex.P2 is the birth certificate of the victim girl. The victim girl was referred to hospital at Petlaburz. Police examined her and recorded her statement.
16.PW1 in her cross-examination, she has stated that she too does not knowto read, write and speak Telugu. She studied upto 7th
Class in Urdu Medium. She can read English little bit. On her dictation, the complaint was typed in Police Station. She also deposed that there is a common bathroom in the premises for three tenants and there is another bath room at the outside of the premises. She also stated that there are four members residing in her house and another house two elders and two children are residing and in another one old age woman is residing. She also stated that for one family there is a separate bath room and other two families, there is common bath room. She further deposed that it is true there are two shops and scrap shop persons are using the common bathroom and stove repair shop persons are not using the bathroom. Her evidence clearly disclose that the accused working in the scrap shop having access to the common bath room.
17. In the cross-examination of A2 counsel, PW1 also stated that she came to know about this incident in between 4 to 8 days prior to lodging of this complaint and they were in their house for those 4 to 8 days. She also deposed that there is no sexual assault in those 4 to 8 days prior to lodging this complaint. She also stated that Ayub is the owner of the said scrap shop. The wash room is away to the place where
SC PCS.No.260/2022 15 the alleged offence took place, is not having any lock and the scrap shop keys will be with the owner Ayub and another keys is with A2. She also stated that she has personally saw the A2 opening the shop with the key.
The evidence of PW1 is cogent and convincing and with regard to the opening of the scrap shop by the A2. A2 is having the access to scrap shop, as he is also having another duplicate keys, which itself clearly establishes that A2 is having access to the scrap shop, as deposed by
PW2, where the alleged incident took place. As being worker, A2 certainly will have access into his shop, where he was working. The evidence of PW1 is totally cogent and convincing. In the cross- examination of A1 and A2 counsel, there is nothing to disbelieve the version of PW1.
18.PW3 in her cross-examination she stated that she do not have any relation with the victim girl. She never objected A1 and A2 for taking victim girl with them as she was under the impression that there are taking victim girl to play with them. PW3 is the resident of the same premises. Her evidence clearly disclose that A1 and A2 had well acquaintance with the victim girl and they used to take her to play with them. In the cross-examination of A1 counsel, she deposed that they are having bath rooms separately and others are having common bathroom outside of their house. She also stated that scrap shop keys are with the owner of the shop. The evidence of PW3 discloses that Accused A1 and
A2 are having access to the victim girl and also her evidence strengthens and supports the evidence of PWs.1 and 2.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 16
19.PW4 is the friend of PW2, wherein she stated that, she used to play with the victim girl, even she saw the A1 and A2 taking the victim girl along with them several times. In the cross-examination A1 counsel she stated that she has studied Royal Grammar School, where PW2 also studying. She also stated that she used to visit house of PW2 during holidays i.e., on Sundays. She used to visit PW2’s house at 12:00 Noon and returned to her house at 6 PM. She cannot speak English and
Telugu. The evidence of PW4 is also corroborating to the version of
PWs.1 to 3 and that accused used to take victim girl now and then.
20.PW6 panch for confession-cum-seizure panchanama and pointing out the memo. PW6 deposed that accused confessed the offence and they were taken to the scene of offence and A1 shown the place of offence and A2 shown the scrap godown, which they verified the scene of offence. Police prepared Confessional Statement and Police prepared panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P4 is the confession statement of A1 and A2. Ex.P5is the scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Witness identified A1 and A2 who were shown on the screen.
21.Ex.P5is the scene of offence panchanama which was shown by the accused along with rough sketch. The scene of offence is 1) bathroom and 2) scrap shop. Rough Sketch clearly discloses, the places where the offence took place, 1) the scrap/store room, scene of offence is which is Ayub Scrap Shop, where A2 had access, is the store room where
SC PCS.No.260/2022 17 the A2 took the victim girl and committed penetrative sexual assault on her and 2) Bathroom where A1 took the victim girl and committed penetrative sexual assault. Ex.P5 Panchanama of scene of offence along with rough sketch was signed by A1 and A2 along with panchas. In the cross of A1 counsel he has stated that he signed Ex.P4 and it was explained to him in Urdu. He did not see victim girl and he do not know her residence. He do not know how many portions are in Bada. He was also acted in any other case prior to this case. His evidence is seems to be relevant and also trustworthy, as per his chief examination, he is also panch for scene of offence, which was shown by accused and the scene of offence (1) is bath room and scene of offence (2) is scrap store room. The suggestion put by the A1 counsel, he denied the knowing of victim girl or her residence. The panch witness evidence is trustworthy to the extent of his evidence. However, the confession is not admissible as it not led to any seizure. Moreover, scene of offence is well-known to every witness.
PW6 evidence is that, both scene of offences are shown by A1 and A2, where they committed the offence. Wash room scene of offence (1) is
First one. The Scene of Offence (2) is scrap shop was located in the said premises. Hence, PW6 evidence is totally consistent and trustworthy to the extent of locating scene of offence and it is corroborating to the evidence of PW1 to PW5.
22.PW7 is the Investigating Officer, he conducted panchanama at the instance of A1 and A2 and established Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 which is in support of the case of prosecution.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 18
23.PW8 is the Doctor who examined the victim girl. She examined her and accordingly, collected nail clippings, swabs and smears from the victim girl. She opined that there is no sexual assault and she opined that the sexual assault cannot be ruled out. In the cross- examination he deposed that semen and spermatozoa not detected.
Basing on the history of the examination of victim girl, she has opined that there is possibility of sexual abuse.
24.PW10 has deposed of investigation done. In his cross- examination, he stated that he do not know Urdu Language and PW1 came to Police Station and lodged Ex.P1/Complaint and he discussed in
Hindi with PW1. Her evidence is also cogent and nothing is elicited in cross examination to disbelieve the version of PW10. Further PW10 in his cross-examination he deposed that there are 20 to 22 persons residing in that premises. His cross-examination is formal one. PW2 referred scene of offence as scrap shop which is scrap store room, which is owned by Ayub. There is no dispute with regard to alleged scene of offence.
25.PW12 another Investigating Officer deposed of conducting confessional panchanama and also Accused shown the scene of offence where they committed the sexual acts vide Ex.P5. Ex.P14 is the Rough
Sketch of scene of offence, dated 20.06.2022, which is shown by the
Accused. The rough sketch was separately marked as Ex.P14/Ex.P5
SC PCS.No.260/2022 19 through Investigating Officer. In the cross-examination, he deposed that, the Rough Sketch Ex.P14 does not reflect the signature of another panch witness. However, A1 and A2 signatures were reflected on Ex.P14/Ex.P5, along with PW6 panch witness. Another panch witness signature was not obtained, as PW6 signature is reflecting, and his evidence is cogent and convincing to this extent is consistent. Even the signature of another panch was not obtained on Ex.P5/Ex.P14, does not make PW6 evidence unreliable.
26.As seen from the record, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is cogent, convincing and trustworthy. The Accused was charged for the offence U/Sec. 5(g)(l)(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. Sec. 5(g) refer to whoever, commits gang penetrative sexual assault on a child.
Sec. 5(l) refer to whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child, more than once or repeatedly. Sec. 5(m) refer to whoever, commit penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years. As seen from the evidence on record, PW2 evidence is that A1 has committed penetrative sexual assault on her by taking her into the washroom and
A2 committed penetrative sexual assault by taking her into scrap shop.
27.The doctor who examined the victim has stated that there were no physical findings. However, she opined that sexual assault cannot be ruled out. In the clinical examination, she also pointed out that seminal sperm was not detected.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 20
28.The evidence of PW1 is that, after knowing about the incident, they lodged the complaint after four to five days. PW1 deposed that her husband doing embroidery work in Kerala and she informed him over phone. The reason for delay is quite understandable. PW2, in her evidence, also stated that A1 took her into the washroom and put his toilet part into her toilet part. In her Section 164 statement, she clearly narrated the incident, stating that the accused No.1 removed his clothes and also removed her clothes and put his toilet part attaching to her toilet part.
29. In a similar manner, PW2, in her evidence against A2, also stated that the accused took her into the scrap shop, removed her pant and his pant, and put his toilet part into her toilet part. In the same way, she narrated in her Section 164 statement that A2 removed his clothes and her clothes and put his toilet part attaching to her toilet part.
30.In the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, she clarified in a clear manner and narrated that A1 undressed himself, removed the clothes of the victim girl in the washroom, and put his toilet part into her toilet part. In a similar manner, A2, by taking her to the scrap shop, removed his clothes and her clothes and put his toilet part into her toilet part.
She also stated that she screamed and they threatened her not to reveal to anybody.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 21
31.The victim girl was examined by the police for recording her statements U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C, and her Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement was recorded by the Magistrate. The victim girl clearly narrated the manner in which A1 and A2 committed their acts, and she also disclosed in all her statements and evidence that A1 and A2 had done similar acts several times.
32.Further, the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement refers that the accused attached his toilet part to her toilet part, whereas in her Sec.161 statement, she has also stated that the accused put his toilet part into her toilet part. In her evidence, she stated that accused A1 and A2 put their toilet parts into her toilet part.
33. At the time of recording her Sec.164 Statement, victim girl skipped certain crucial events due to her tender age, as she could not explain everything in a natural and consistent manner. However, the surrounding circumstances and the manner in which she explained the incident should also be taken into consideration as even she stated that , she sustained pain when A1 and A2 put their private part in her urinary part. Moreover, the victim girl is consistent in her evidence that the accused put their private part into her private parts, which establishes thepenetrative as defined under Sec. 3 of POCSO Act and Sec. 375 of
IPC.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 22
34. Even though the medical evidence does not show proof of penetrative sexual assault against the victim girl, reference may be made to the citation of the Hon’ble Hight Court in State (NCT of Delhi) vs.
Khurshid, AIR Online 2018 Delhi 1153.
The Hon’ble High Court referred to the textbook Medical
Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, 6th Edition, page 538, authored by Dr. C.K. Parikh, which states:
"in young children as the vagina is very small and hymen deeply situated, the adult penis cannot penetrate it. In rare cases of great violence, the organ may be forcibly introduced, causing rupture of the vaginal vault and associated visceral injuries. Usually, violence is not used and the penis placed either within the vulva or between the thighs. And as such, only redness and tenderness of the vulva may be caused. The hymen is usually intact .............................. There may be no signs or very few signs of general violence, since the child has no idea of the act is also unable to offer resistance". (emphasis added) ............ In fact, medical literature shows that even in cases of penetrative sexual assault of minor children, often the hymen does not rupture. In this regard, we may quote an extract from "A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology", 24th edition, page 668, authored by Jaising P. Modi:
"in small children, the hymen is not usually ruptured, but may become red and congested along with inflammation and bruising of the labia. If
SC PCS.No.260/2022 23 considerable violence is used, there is often laceration of the fourchette and the perineum".
35.Law is now well settled that to constitute an offence of rape, it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of the penis with emission of semen and rupture of the hymen. Even partial or slightest penetration of the male organ into the labia majora or the vulva, and even an attempt of penetration into the private parts of the victim, would be enough to make out the offence under Section 375 of IPC or
Section 4 of the POCSO Act. There can be an offence of rape without injury to the genitals, but it must be remembered that there cannot be an offence of rape within the meaning of Section 375 of IPC or penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of Section 4 of the POCSO
Act without penetration or an attempt of penetration, manipulation, insertion, or application of mouth, etc.
36.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal
No.1707/2009, Radhakrishna Nagesh vs. The State of Andhra
pradesh, wherein it is held:
“This was a case wherein the accused was charged with the rape of a minor girl. The court observed that in cases of rape upon minor girls, penetration may not always result in tearing of hymen and same would depend upon the facts & circumstances of a given case. The Apex Court
SC PCS.No.260/2022 24 further held in this case that the court must examine the evidence in its entirety and then see its cumulative effect to determine whether offence of rape was committed or it is a case of criminal sexual assault or a criminal case outraging the modesty of a girl. In the present matter, although, no injury was found on the vagina of the victim and the hymen was also found intact but from this, it cannot be concluded that penetrative sexual assault was not committed on the victim.”
The above decision is applicable to the case on hand and also with regard to medical evidence.
37.The lack of physical injuries on the victim is understandable, as she was examined only after the matter was brought to the complainant's notice and a complaint was subsequently lodged four to five days later. Any tenderness on the private parts of the victim could have subsided during that time. Nevertheless, the evidence is totally consistent that accused A1 and A2 committed repeated penetrative sexual assault against her. As discussed above, even though no injuries were found in the medical evidence, the oral evidence is entirely consistent. The victim clearly narrated how A1 and A2 took her to the washroom or the scrap shop, where they undressed her, undressed themselves, and engaged in penetration. Furthermore, evidence from the
Section 164 statement indicates she experienced pain during the acts, which clearly establishes the occurrence of penetrative sexual assault.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 25 38.A girl of such tender age cannot be expected to explain more than she has. However, she stood firm during cross-examination and did not waver; she clearly revealed how the incident happened to her. The evidence also disclosed that her father does not reside with them, as the certificate reveals he is working in Kerala. Consequently, she was under the sole care and protection of her mother.
39.As per Section 29 of the POCSO Act, where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting an offence under Sections 3, 5, 7, or 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed the offence unless the contrary is proved. Further, Section 30 of the POCSO Act provides for a presumption regarding the existence of a culpable mental state, which includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact, belief in, or reason to believe a fact.
40.The only suggestion which was put to rebut the presumption that in order to get the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- they filed false case and given evidence against the innocents. The same is not considerable as there is no evidence of any enmity between the accused and for the sake of compensation no one will come forward involving their own daughter in such a heinous crime. Hence the version of the accused is not considerable. The evidence on record clearly disclose that the prosecution has successfully proved the charged leveled against the accused.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 26
41.In the present case, the accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumptions either by leading acceptable defence evidence or by discrediting the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act stand unrebutted.
42.The learned counsel for Accused relied on the decision of the
Honourable High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
229/2023, Munna Ansari vs. The State of Bihar, wherein it is held:
“He has only collected Adhar card to determine the age of the victim, as the age of the victim is determined under the statutory provision of
Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015, which is lacking in the investigation of the I.O.(PW-6) and prosecution has not taken pain to establish the age of the victim under statutory provision though, it is self proclaimed by the informant and other witnesses without any basis of legal requirement that victim is of 12 years.”
The above decision is not helpful to the case of defence.
43.The prosecution, by examining the material witnesses on record whose evidence is totally cogent and convincing, and through the
Investigating Officers evidence, has established that the investigation was conducted properly. There is nothing to disbelieve in the version of the investigation or the evidence of the victim and her mother, and the other circumstances also corroborate the versions of PW1 and PW2. Hence, I
SC PCS.No.260/2022 27 find that the prosecution has established this case beyond all reasonable doubt, and the defense has failed to rebut the statutory presumptions raised under Section 29 and Section 30 of the POCSO
Act.
44.Thus, the evidence on record clearly establishes the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 376-AB, 376(2)
(n), and 506 of the IPC, and Sections 5(l) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
45.The prosecution proived all the points beyond all reasonable doubt. The Accused No.1 and 2 were charged with offenses under
Sections 5(g), (l), and (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and
Sections 366-A, 376(2)(n), 376AB, and 376DB of the IPC. Section 5 pertains to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Section 5(g) refers to whoever commits gang penetrative sexual assault on a child. The evidence on record, as seen from PW2’s evidence, reveals that A1 and A2 committed the acts separately, and there is no evidence of they involving together. Hence, there is no case made out for the offense under Section 5(g) of the POCSO Act. Section 5(l) refers to whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child more than once or repeatedly, while Section 5(m) refers to whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below 12 years. The evidence on record, specifically the birth certificate
Ex.P2, clearly discloses that the victim's age is below 12 years. The
SC PCS.No.260/2022 28 evidence is totally consistent regarding the aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed by A1 and A2 separately. In this case, Section 376(2)
(n) refers to whoever commits rape repeatedly on the same woman.
Section 376AB refers to whoever commits rape on a girl under 12 years of age. Section 376DB refers to the gang rape of a girl under 12 years of age. However, there is no evidence that A1 and A2 formed a common intention to commit such acts against the victim. In the absence of such evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients necessary for an offense under Section 376DB against A1 and A2. Nevertheless, the evidence on record clearly establishes that A1 and A2 committed rape against the victim several times, as defined under Section 376(2)(n). Furthermore, as the victim is under 12 years of age, the prosecution has established that accused A1 and A2 committed rape under Section 376AB of the IPC, alongside Section 5(l) and (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
46.The accused are also charged with the offense under Section 366A of the IPC. The evidence on record establishes that A1 and A2 induced the victim and took her to scene of offence, such as a washroom and a scrap shop, where they committed sexual assault. This clearly demonstrates that the victim was taken away from her lawful guardianship with an ill motive; she was induced with the specific intention of committing sexual acts against her. Therefore, the ingredients of the offense under Section 366A of the IPC are established against A1 and A2.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 29
47.The Accused No.1 and 2 were also charged with the offense under Section 506 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. As previously discussed, there was no furtherance of common intention in the commission of the aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Consequently, a case is not made out under Section 506 read with
Section 34 of the IPC. However, the evidence provided by PW2 clearly discloses that accused A1 and A2 separately threatened the victim, warning her not to reveal their acts to anyone. Due to her tender age, these threats compelled her to remain silent. In this scenario, the prosecution has established the offense under Section 506 against A1 and A2 individually.
48.Accordingly, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offenses under Section 376(2)(n), Section
376AB, and Sections 5(l) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO
Act, as well as Section 506 against A1 and A2. Consequently, A1 and A2 are convicted for the offenses under Section 376(2)(n), Section 376AB,
Sections 5(l) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 506
IPC, and Section 366A IPC. The accused are acquitted of the offenses under Section 376DB IPC and Section 5(g) read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act, as the evidence does not support a finding of common intention.
49. In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable Under Section 5(g) of POCSO Act, 2012 and
SC PCS.No.260/2022 30
Sec. 376-DB of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted Under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences.
Further, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376-AB, 376(2)(n), and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, and Sections 5(l) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act, 2012, and accordingly, they are convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences.
Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I of this court and typed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1st day of April, 2026.
SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS
TRIAL OF CASES UNDER RAPE AND POCSO ACT,
AT HACA BHAVAN, HYDERABAD.
50.Heard the Accused No.1 and 2 on question of sentence. It is submitted by Accused No.1 that he did not commit any offence and requested for showing mercy. It is submitted by Accused No.2 that he is the only son and he is having mother who is mentally ill and that he did not commit any offence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the above submissions of the Accused No.1 and 2, this
Court considers it is not the case for taking a lenient view in imposing the sentence against the accused.
51. The Accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences U/s.
376-AB, 376 (2)(n), 506 of IPC and Sec.5 (l) and 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO
SC PCS.No.260/2022 31
Act, 2012. In view of the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act,
Alternate Punishment, as the offence under Section 5 (l) and 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 provides greater degree of punishment, as the
Accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Hence the
Accused is punished under POCSO Act being attracting greater degree of punishment.
52. The Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for (30) Thirty years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for the offence under Section 5(l) r/w 6 of
POCSO Act, 2012. In default of payment of fine the Accused No.1 and 2 are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for Six (6) months each.
Further, the Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for (25) Twentyfive years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for the offence under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. In default of payment of fine the Accused
No.1 and 2 are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for Six (6) months each.
53.Further, the Accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Two (2) years each and pay a fine of
Rs.2000/- each (Rupees Two Thousand only) for the offence under
Section 506 of IPC. In default of payment of fine the Accused No.1 and 2 are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) month each.
The Fine amounts shall be paid to victim girl as compensation.
The total fine amount is Rs.44,000/-.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 32
All the sentences imposed shall run concurrently.
54.As seen from the record, the accused was in jail in this case from 03.06.2022 to 22.07.2022. The said period shall be given set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C against the substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed against him. A copy of the judgment is furnished to the accused at free of cost u/s.363 Cr.P.C by intimating him about his right to prefer an appeal against the present judgment and right to get free legal aid.
55.Having regard to the financial condition and social status of the victim girl/PW2, this Court considers it appropriate to recommend awarding an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the victim girl, as final compensation. Therefore, the Secretary, DLSA is hereby directed to take steps to pay the said compensation amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the victim girl at the earliest. Copy of the Judgment is forwarded to The Secretary, Legal
Services Authority, Hyderabad.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 1st day of April, 2026.
SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL
OF CASES UNDER RAPE AND POCSO ACT,
AT HACA BHAVAN, HYDERABAD.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 33
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Complainant/Mother of the Victim.
PW.2 : Victim Girl.
PW.3 :Raziya Begum, Circumstantial Witness.
PW.4 : Sameera Begum, Friend of Pw2/Victim Girl.
PW.5 : Shaik ASameer, Panch for Scene Observation Panchanama.
PW.6 : Syed Haji, Panch for Confessional Statement of A1 and A2.
PW.7 : Dr. R.Sridhara Chary, issued Potency Test Certificates of Accused No.1 and 2.
PW.8 : Dr. A.Viplava, examined victim girl and issued Final Opinion.
PW.9 : M. Sadalaxmi, who recorded the statement of victim girl.
PW.10: K.Govardhan Reddy, S.I of Police, who issued FIR.
PW.11: G.Anil Kumar, SI of Police, who investigated the case.
PW.12: Shaik Jahangir, ACP Falaknuma, Investigating Officer, who filed charge sheet.
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint lodged by PW1.
Ex.P2 : Birth Certificate of victim girl.
Ex.P3 : CDF along with Rough Sketch of the Scene of offence.
Ex.P4 : Confessional statement of Accused No.1 and 2.
Ex.P5 : Scene of offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch.
Ex.P6 : Potency Test Certificate of Accused No.1.
Ex.P7 : Potency Test Certificate of Accused No.2.
Ex.P8 : Preliminary Examination Report.
Ex.P9 : The FSL Report.
Ex.P10: The Final Opinion Report, dated 29.06.2022.
Ex.P11: FIR.
Ex.P12: CDF Panchanama, dated 31.05.2022.
Ex.P13: The Section alteration Memo.
SC PCS.No.260/2022 34
Ex.P14: The Rough Sketch of the scene of offence, dated 03.06.2022.
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:
NIL
SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS
TRIAL OF CASES UNDER RAPE AND POCSO ACT,
AT HACA BHAVAN, HYDERABAD.
Copy submitted to :
The Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad.