Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 1 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS COURT FOR FAST TRACKING THE
CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN I Cum X ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE, HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Sri.Dr.G.V.Mahesh Nath,
Addl. Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC-Cum-Addl. Family Court-cum- XXIII Addl. Chief Judge-Cum- IX Addl Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
FAC X ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
HYDERABAD.
Dated this the 31st day of December 2025
SESSIONS CASE No.673 /2024
Crime Number and Police Crime No.365/2021 of Police Station StationGolconda, Hyderabad.
Name and description of the A2 Smt Fatima Begum @ Fathima Bee W/o – Mohd Zainuddin accused persons Aged – 57 Yrs., Occ- Household R/o – H.No.9-4-131/1/B/148, Nadeem Colony Tolichowki, Hyderabad
A3 Smt Asma Begum W/o–Naushad N.V. Aged – 32 Yrs., Occ- Housewife R/o – H.No.9-4-131/1/B/148, Nadeem Colony Tolichowki, Hyderabad Presently residing at Pillar No.202, Attapur, Rajendranagar,K.V.Ranga Reddy
A4 Smt Saba Begum @ Saba Sultana @ Saba W/o - Mohd Sultan Aged – 36 Yrs., Occ- Household R/o – H.No.20-07-543, Mr John Road, Masjid Gande Mirza, Doodbowli, Lane Opposite to Hussainialam Police Station ,Hyderabad
Name and description of the The State represented by Sub-Inspector of complainantpolice of PS. Golconda, Hyderabad
Prosecution conducted bySmt.M.Rajani, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 2 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
Defence conducted bySri Mahmood Khan,Counsel for the A2 to A4
Offences chargedU/sec. 370 and 370A of IPC against A2 U/sec.376(2)(n) r/w 109 of IPC against A2 to A4
Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.
Finding of the CourtFound guilty
RESULTIn the result, Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are found guilty of the offences alleged against them and are convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C as detailed below: Accused No.2 (Fathima Begum) is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) read with 109, 374, 312, 370, and 370A IPC committed against the victim.
Accused No.3 (Asma Begum) and Accused No.4 (Saba Begum) are convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) read with 109 IPC committed against the victim.
Heard on the question of sentence as mandated under Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the following sentence is imposed:
Accused No.2 – Fathima Begum
1. For the offence under Section 376(2)
(n) read with Section 109 IPC: The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.
2. For the offence under Section 370 IPC (Trafficking):
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 3 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
3. For the offence under Section 370-A IPC (Exploitation of a trafficked person): The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence under Section 374 IPC (Unlawful compulsory labour): The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month. For the offence under Section 312 IPC (Causing miscarriage without consent): The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months. Accused No.3 – Asma Begum For the offence under Section 376(2)
(n) read with Section 109 IPC: The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. Accused No.4 – Saba Begum For the offence under Section 376(2)
(n) read with Section 109 IPC: The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. All the substantive sentences imposed on Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 shall run concurrently.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 4 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
The accused shall be entitled to set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period already undergone in custody, if any. Considering the financial incapacity of the accused, this Court is of the view that imposition of fine for the purpose of awarding compensation to the victim would not serve the ends of justice. In view of the physical injury, mental agony, and trauma suffered by PW–1, this Court deems it appropriate to invoke the provisions of Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nampally, Hyderabad, is hereby directed to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law and grant adequate and reasonable compensation to PW–1 under the Victim Compensation Scheme so as to effectively redress the injury, suffering, and trauma endured by her. The Office is directed to forthwith address a letter to the Secretary, DLSA, Nampally, Hyderabad, enclosing a copy of this judgment, for necessary action.. The accused are informed of their right to appeal. Copies of this judgment shall be furnished to the accused free of cost.
:: J U D G M E N T:
This Session Case arise out of Crime No.365/2021 at the Golconda Police
Station, which was initially registered under Section 376(2)(n) along with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (referred to as IPC hereafter). Later, additional sections were added, including Sections 370, 370A, 374, and 312 of the IPC.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 5 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
2The prosecution claims that PW1 was subjected to repeated sexual assault, trafficking, exploitation, forced labor, and was caused to have a miscarriage, all allegedly perpetrated by Accused no.1 Mohammed Imran, who is currently absconding. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are said to have actively abetted, assisted, and facilitated these actions. Since A1 has fled, the case against him has been separated, and the trial is now proceeding against A2, A3, and A4.
Brief Facts of the Case:
3(a)The victim’s parents left for work abroad in 2016, leaving her in the care of her grandparents. Following her mother’s instructions, the victim went to see A2
Fathima in Tolichowki to get her passport processed. A2 helped her obtain the passport and then took her to Qatar without her parents knowing. There, she was forced to work as a maid, and A2 pocketed her salary, which is a clear case of trafficking and exploitation. A2 even tricked the victim into filing a false harassment complaint against her own parents.
(b)In 2017, A2 brought the victim back to Qatar and continued to exploit her labor. Fast forward to 2020, during the pandemic, A1, A2’s son, returned to India with the victim. A2 then arranged for the victim to marry an older man named
Junaid, taking Rs.2,00,000 in the process. When the victim became pregnant, A2 gave her pills to induce a miscarriage.
(c)Accused no.1, whose wife was overseas, repeatedly sexually assaulted the victim at A2’s home. When she confided in A2, along with A3 and A4 (A2’s daughters), they not only encouraged A1’s actions but also threatened her with dire
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 6 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
consequences if she didn’t comply. After enduring this repeated sexual exploitation, the victim found herself pregnant again. A2, A3, and A4 pressured her to terminate the pregnancy, and A3 and A4 even resorted to physical violence when she resisted.
(d)After enduring relentless physical and emotional abuse, the victim managed to escape to her parents’ home on November 19, 2021, and filed a complaint on
December 29, 2021.
Investigation:
4(a)Based on the report lodged by the victim, a case registered under Crime No.
365/2021 for offenses including Section 376(2)(n) and 109 of the IPC, with additional charges of Sections 374, 312, 370, and 370A IPC later included. The victim's comprehensive statement was taken at the Bharosa Centre, and a medical examination confirmed she was 27 weeks pregnant. Witnesses LW2, LW4, LW5, and
LW3 were all examined, and the evidence supported claims of trafficking, exploitation, and assaults. A4 was arrested on March 3, 2022, and both her confession and mobile phone were seized. A3 was taken into custody on March 5, 2022, where her confession and mobile phone were also collected, and she revealed the location of the house key used in the crime. The police obtained custody of A3, recorded further confessions, and visited the crime scene.
(b)The investigation shows that A1 was responsible for repeated sexual assault under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. A2 was involved in abetting rape, trafficking, exploitation, forced labor, and causing a miscarriage, as outlined in Sections 376(2)
(n) r/w 109, 374, 312, 370, and 370A IPC. Both A3 and A4 played roles in facilitating the sexual assault and harassment, as per Sections 376(2)(n) r/w 109 IPC.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 7 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
A report has been filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (referred to as Cr.P.C).
5The learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance of the offence under Sections 376(2)(n) r/w 109, 374, 312, 370, 370A IPC against A2 and under Sections 376(2)(n) r/w 109 IPC against A3 & A4. The committal court furnished copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and committed the case to the Court of Sessions under PRC No.307/2023. The case was made over to this
Court for disposal.
6Upon perusal of the material and on hearing both sides, this Court framed charges against A2–A4 for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) r/w 109, 374, 312, 370, 370A IPC against A2 and under Sections 376(2)(n) r/w 109 IPC against A3 & A4 Section 376(2)(n) r/w 109 IPC – abetment of repeated rape Section 370 IPC – trafficking Section 370A IPC – exploitation of a trafficked person Section 374 IPC – unlawful compulsory labour Section 312 IPC – causing miscarriage without consent
The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7The prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw99, marking exhibits P-1 to P-7 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.3. Here’s a breakdown of each witness's role: PW1 is the victim. PW2 is the landlord where accused individuals 2 to 4 lived as tenants, which is also the scene of the crime. PW3 is a female police officer who took the
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 8 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
statement from the victim, PW1. PW4 is the doctor who examined the victim and provided a report under Exhibit P2 confirming her pregnancy. PW5 is another female police personnel who accompanied the victim to the hospital and the Bharosa Centre.
PW6 and PW7 are the panch witnesses involved in the confession and seizure proceedings of accused individuals 3 and 4. Through their testimonies, portions of the confession panchanama were marked, leading to the recovery of material objects
M.O.1 and M.O.2, which are marked as Exhibits P3 and P4. PW8 is the police officer who arrested accused individuals 3 and 4 based on the instructions of the investigating officer. Finally, PW9 is the investigating officer.
8After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaning the incriminating circumstances that appeared against them in the prosecution evidence. Accused denied prosecution evidence as false and reported no defence evidence.
9Heard both sides. Perused the record. Now the points for determination:
1. Whether PW1 was trafficked to Qatar and exploited for labour by A2, thereby attracting Sections 370 and 374 IPC?
2. Whether A2 caused miscarriage of PW1 without her consent, amounting to offence under Section 312 IPC?
3. Whether A2 exploited PW1, a trafficked person, thereby committing offence punishable under Section 370-A IPC?
4. Whether A2, A3 and A4 abetted repeated rape committed by A1 on PW1, constituting offence under Section 376(2)(n) r/w 109 IPC?
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 9 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
5. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A2–A4 on the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” principle?
6. To what result?
Point no.1 to 5:
10(a) The victim is examined as PW-1. The entire prosecution case substantially rests upon her testimony. Therefore, her evidence requires careful scrutiny, keeping in view the settled principles under Sections 118, 134 and 155 of the Evidence
Act,1872.
(b)PW-1, in her chief examination, narrated the material particulars. It is her evidence that her parents went abroad. She and her younger sister stayed with their grandmother. On her mother’s instructions she went to A2’s house. A2, A3 and A4 procured her passport and sent her to Qatar. She was made to work as maid for years. A2 collected her salary and restricted her communication with her parents.
(c)After return to India, A2–A4 performed her marriage with an elderly man
Junaid for Rs.2,00,000/-, forcibly, against her will. She conceived and the pregnancy was terminated by A2 through tablets. During her stay in A2’s house, A1 sexually exploited her repeatedly with the knowledge, instigation and coercion of A2–A4. She again became pregnant through A1, and when she refused abortion, A2–A4 beat and threatened her with death. Unable to bear torture, she left their house and lodged
Ex.P1 report. She delivered a daughter, who is 4½ years old, born through A1.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 10 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
(d)The version of PW-1 as deposed in her examination in chief is consistent with the contents of the FIR, her statement before police, and the statements recorded at the Bharosa Centre. Her testimony establishes elements of repeated rape (376(2)(n)), abetment (109), trafficking (370), exploitation (370-A), unlawful compulsory labour (374) and causing miscarriage (312 IPC).
(e)In the cross examination, the defence attempted to discredit PW-1 by suggesting she voluntarily stayed with A2–A4. She had filed earlier complaints against her mother and resided in rescue home. She allegedly married another person (Sameer) and later married one Arshad. She signed an MoU (Ex.D-1) for compromise.
(f)It is admitted that Pw1 is illiterate. She stayed in rescue home for long. She had marital issues in the past. She signed Ex.D-1 (MoU) at the request of accused for withdrawal of FIR. She currently remarried. These admission are not material contradictions.
(g)The circumstances which have been elicited in the cross examination of Pw1 do not relate to the core allegations of sexual assault and trafficking. Pw1’s personal marital history or illiteracy does not erode the credibility of the allegations of exploitation, rape or forced labour.
11 The defence could not extract any contradiction relating to procurement of passport by A2. Pw1 being taken to Qatar twice. Pw1 working as maid servant and
A2 taking her salary. Pw1 forced marriage with Junaid for rupees 2 lakhs. Pregnancy by A1 and its termination by A2. Repeated sexual assault by A1. Coercion by A2–A4
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 11 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
to have sexual relations with A1. Physical abuse and threats when she refused abortion. Birth of a child to A1. None of these core accusations were shaken in cross-examination. Pw1’s testimony on material particulars remained firm, consistent and coherent.
12There appear no suggestion of motive strong enough to falsely implicate A1–
A4. The only suggestion is that she intends to join her mother and therefore filed a false complaint.
13However PW-1 clearly stated she filed report under Ex.P1 after unbearable torture and when she was six months pregnant. Her mother had not taken her back earlier. There was no reason for her to falsely implicate A1–A4 for serious offences.
The MoU (Ex.D1) actually corroborates coercion, showing that accused tried to force her to withdraw FIR. Thus, the defence version is improbable.
14Minor discrepancies about addresses, duration of stay in rescue home, details of marriages etc., are natural and expected from an illiterate and emotionally traumatised victim. Courts have repeatedly held that minor inconsistencies due to lapse of time do not affect credibility, especially in sexual offences.
15The Hon’ble Supreme court State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh ((1996) 2 SCC 384, established that a rape victim's sole, cogent testimony suffices for conviction if reliable, without mandatory corroboration. Courts must avoid stigmatizing victims' character or past relations, as the accused—not the victim—is on trial.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 12 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
16The case in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 establishes the "sterling witness" doctrine. A prosecutrix's uncorroborated testimony can sustain conviction only if it is of impeccable quality, unassailable, and acceptable at face value without hesitation. Courts must scrutinize for inherent contradictions, improbabilities, or motives to falsely implicate, distinguishing it from the broader reliability standard in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384. This ruling balances victim protection with accused rights, mandating higher evidentiary thresholds for sole-witness reliance, influencing subsequent judgments on witness credibility.
17The legal principles in cited case-laws show that the testimony of a rape survivor, if trustworthy and free from material improvements, can be the sole basis for conviction.
18In the current case, the evidence of Pw1 scrunitized with cross-examination show that Pw1 evidence fall within category of sterling witness as it is of impeccable quality and inspires the confidence of court in believing her evidence. There appears no inherent contradiction, improbablities or motive to falselfy implicate the accused.
Evidence of Landlord evidence:
19(a) The prosecution examined the landlord-witness (relative of LW4 Syed
Kaleemuddin) as Pw2 to prove the surrounding circumstances in which PW1 was residing with Accused Nos. 2 to 4, and the subsequent events after the offence came to light.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 13 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
(b)Pw2 has clearly stated that A2 to A4 were his tenants in the Nadeem Colony premises. PW1 was residing in the same house along with A2 to A4. He personally saw PW1 visiting the kirana shop and residing with the accused.
(c)The evidence of Pw2 directly supports PW1’s version that she was kept in the house of A2 to A4, and that she lived under their custody/control. Thus, her place of stay and her proximity to the accused is established.
(d)It is the evidence of Pw2 that he received a call from LW4 informing that police had come for inquiries. He later came to know about the rape by A1 and pregnancy of PW1. This is a natural, spontaneous sequence of events, which supports
PW1’s version that the matter came to light only when she escaped from the house and lodged the report. The police visited the locality after the report. This strengthens the chain of circumstances regarding how the crime surfaced.
(e)Pw2 testified that A1 is the son of A2. After the incident came to light, accused “put lock to the house and left.” This corroborates PW1’s evidence that after she became pregnant, accused persons attempted to distance themselves from the premises. A1 frequently stayed in and visited the house where PW1 was living.
The locking of the house and leaving is conduct relevant under Sec. 8 of Indian
Evidence Act,1872 showing consciousness of guilt.
(f)Despite lengthy cross-examination, Pw2 remained firm that A2 to A4 were tenants. He consistently stated PW1 resided with them. He denied being a fabricated or planted witness. He admitted natural limitations (did not know detailed family
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 14 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
affairs or frequent visits of A1), which enhances his credibility.
(g)Importantly, Pw2 admitted that Accused No.1 used to visit the kirana shop to purchase snacks for kids. This confirms A1’s presence in India during the period
PW1 was living with A2–A4, which supports PW1’s version that A1 repeatedly came to the house and committed sexual assault.
(h)Pw2 had no dispute with tenants, had cordial relations with his uncle LW4, had no personal enmity with A1 to A4 and was called by the police and gave evidence only after the matter surfaced. This absence of motive enhances the independent and neutral character of his testimony.
Evidence of Bharosa Centre personnel:
20(a) Pw3 deposed that on 30-12-2021 she received requisition to record the statement of PW1 and that she duly examined and recorded her detailed statement.
PW1 had narrated the sexual assault, trafficking, harassment and pregnancy before
Pw3 at the first available opportunity, giving her version the status of res gestae.
(b)The fact that the statement was recorded at Bharosa Centre lends credibility, as the Centre is a specialised body trained to deal with vulnerable victims. This corroborates PW1’s testimony regarding her earliest report, the circumstances of her escape, and the immediate steps taken by police.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 15 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
Evidence of Medical Officer:
21(a) The female Medical Officer of Nilourfer Hospital is examined as Pw4. She deposed that on 08-01-2022, on requisition from SHO, she examined PW1 and found her carrying 8 months’ pregnancy, and that the medico-legal report was issued which is marked as Ex.P2.
(b)It is the evidence of PW1 that she became pregnant due to repeated sexual assaults by A1. The medical officer/Pw4 confirms the existence of pregnancy, the approximate gestational age, and the timing, which matches PW1’s version of events.
(c)Pw4 evidence is independent, scientific and free from tutoring, thereby supporting PW1’s claim of prolonged sexual exploitation.
Escort Home Guard evidence:
22(a) The escort home guard is examined as Pw5. It is her evidence that on 30-12- 2021 she escorted PW1 first to Bharosa Centre and thereafter to Niloufer Hospital, as per instructions.
(b)PW1 stated that after she escaped from the accused’s house, she was taken to
Bharosa Centre and hospital for examination. The escort witness/Pw5 confirms PW1’s movements, showing the continuity, consistency and promptness in reporting sexual assault. This lends assurance that the victim was produced before proper authorities without delay.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 16 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
Panch witnesses evidence:
23(a) The Panch witnesses to confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused no.3 and 4 are examined as Pw6 and Pw7.
(b)Pw6 deposed that A4 was apprehended, her confession-cum-seizure panchanama was conducted (marked portion in confession-cum-seizure panchanama leading to leading to recovery of mobile phone is makred as Ex.P3.), and mobile phone seized is marked as MO1.
(c)Pw7 deposed that on 13-03-2022, in his presence, the police visited the scene at Nadeem Colony, the key was produced, the room was opened, and the scene of offence panchanama (CDF) was conducted. He stated that A3 was apprehended and key to the locked room (scene of office place) was seized pursuant to her disclosure .
The marked portion in confession-cum-seizure panchanama leading to recovery of
Key, is marked as Ex.P7. Key is marked as MO.2. The mobile of A3 is marked as
MO3 and portion in confession-cum seizure leading to recovery of MO3 is marked as Ex.P7 through Pw9.
(d)PW1 deposed that she resided in that house with A2–A4 and that A1 used to visit there and commit sexual assault. The recovery of the key (MO2), opening of the specific room, and preparation of CDF corroborates PW1’s place of residence, the location where the assaults occurred, and the fact that the premises belonged to A2–
A4. This provides physical and situational corroboration for PW1’s version.
(e)PW1 repeatedly testified that A2–A4 actively abetted the sexual exploitation committed by A1. A2–A4 used mobile phones to stay in contact with A1, to control
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 17 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
and threaten her, and to coordinate the acts. The recovery of mobile phones from
A3 & A4 under panchanama lends corroboration to PW1’s narrative about the involvement of A3 & A4.
(f)The fact that both accused were apprehended from their respective residences confirms PW1’s identification of the accused places of residence.
Evidence of Investigating Officer:
24(a) The women police officer who apprehended A3 and A4 is examined as Pw8. It is her evidence that as per the instruction of her superior officer, she apprehended
A4 on 03-03-2022 and A3 on 5-03-2022 from their house.
(b)The Investigating Office examined as Pw9 deposed that he received FIR and
CD file on 29-12-2021 along with FIR marked Ex.P5. He sent PW1 to Bharosa and
Niloufer for recording statement and medical exam. He recorded statements of LW3,
LW4, PW2. Based on PW1’s detailed statement, he added serious sections:374 (forced labour), 312 (causing miscarriage), 370 & 370A (trafficking & exploitation) and submitted section alteratio memo marked as Ex.P7. He supervised the arrests of A3 & A4, recovery of mobiles and key, and preparation of CDF. On his transfer he handed over case diary.
(c)The Investigating Officer’s testimony is the central bridge linking PW1’s testimony to the documentary and procedural steps. He initiated additions of sections solely on the basis of PW1’s consistent and detailed narration which proves her credibility. Arrests of A3 & A4 and recoveries of mobile phones supports PW1’s
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 18 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
allegation that accused women facilitated and abetted A1. Scene of offence visit and recovery of key confirms PW1’s statement about the house where she was kept and assaulted. No delay or discrepancy in procedural steps as such no ground for fabrication. All these actions of Investigating Officer are consistent with PW1’s allegations, thereby reinforcing her testimony.
Conclusion:
25(a) On a cumulative and careful appreciation of the entire oral, documentary and material evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing unmistakably to the guilt of Accused Nos.2 to 4.
(b)The testimony of PW-1, the victim, stands at the core of the prosecution case.
Her evidence is natural, cogent, consistent and inspires the full confidence of the
Court. Despite searching cross-examination, no material contradiction, embellishment or improbability touching the substratum of the prosecution case could be elicited.
Her narration of trafficking, forced labour, repeated sexual exploitation by A1, and the active instigation, facilitation and coercion by A2 to A4 remained unwavering throughout.
(c)The evidence of PW-1 is substantially corroborated by independent and official witnesses. PW-2, the landlord, establishes the residence and control of A2 to A4 over the premises where PW-1 was kept and assaulted, and his testimony also reflects the conduct of the accused in locking the house and fleeing after the crime came to light, a circumstance relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The prompt recording of PW-1’s statement at the Bharosa Centre by PW-3, the escort evidence of
PW-5, and the medical evidence of PW-4 confirming advanced pregnancy, lend strong assurance to the truthfulness of PW-1’s version and demonstrate the
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 19 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
immediacy and continuity of her complaint.
(d)The recoveries effected pursuant to the disclosures of A3 and A4, proved through PW-6 and PW-7, including the seizure of mobile phones and the recovery of the key to the locked premises, provide further circumstantial corroboration to PW- 1’s account regarding the place of occurrence and the role played by the accused women in facilitating and abetting the crimes. The investigation conducted by PW-9 is shown to be fair, consistent and in direct response to the victim’s disclosures, with no delay, manipulation or motive for false implication being demonstrated.
(e)The defence has failed to probabilise any alternate version or establish any motive for PW-1 to falsely implicate the accused in such grave offences. The suggestions regarding her personal history, prior shelter home stay, or alleged compromise are wholly irrelevant to the core allegations and, if anything, reinforce the vulnerability and coercion faced by the victim. Minor discrepancies, if any, are natural given the trauma suffered by PW-1 and do not affect the prosecution case in offences of this nature.
(f)Applying the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh ((1996) 2 SCC 384, and Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v.
State (NCT of Delhi)( 2012) 8 SCC 21, this Court holds that PW-1 is a sterling witness and her testimony, amply corroborated by medical, circumstantial and official evidence, is sufficient to sustain conviction. The prosecution has clearly proved that A2 trafficked PW-1, subjected her to forced labour, caused miscarriage without consent, and, along with A3 and A4, intentionally aided, instigated and facilitated the repeated rape committed by A1, besides exploiting PW-1 as a trafficked person.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 20 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
(g)Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has proved its case against Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 on the principle of “beyond all reasonable doubt” princple. Accused No.2 – Fathima Begum, Accused No.3 – Asma
Begum, and Accused No.4 – Saba Begum are therefore held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) r/w 109, 374, 312, 370, 370A IPC against A2 and under Sections 376(2)(n) r/w 109 IPC against A3 & A4. Accordingly, point no.1 to 5 are answered in favour of prosecution.
Point no.6:
26In the result, Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are found guilty of the offences alleged against them and are convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C as detailed below:
Accused No.2 (Fathima Begum) is convicted for offences punishable under
Sections 376(2)(n) read with 109, 374, 312, 370, and 370A IPC committed against the victim.
Accused No.3 (Asma Begum) and Accused No.4 (Saba Begum) are convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) read with 109 IPC committed against the victim.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 31st day of December 2025.
Addl. Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC-Cum-Addl. Family Court-cum- XXIII Addl. Chief Judge-Cum- IX Addl Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. FAC X Addl. Sessions Judge Hyderabad.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 21 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
Hearing on Sentence
27(a)After pronouncement of conviction, the accused were heard on the question of sentence as mandated under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
(b)Accused No.2 submitted that she is a widow, earning her livelihood by working as a housemaid. It is further submitted that she is an elderly woman and is presently burdened with the responsibility of maintaining and supporting her two married daughters, who have taken shelter with her after the present case.
(c)Accused Nos.3 and 4 submitted that they are married persons having dependent children to maintain. It is further submitted that, consequent to the present incident, their in-laws’ families have deserted them, leaving them solely responsible for the care and welfare of their children.
.
28Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused, has no prior criminal antecedents, is the sole breadwinner of their family, has dependent family members including children/husband, and that they have expressed remorse for the incident. It was further contended that the accused be shown leniency and awarded the minimum sentence prescribed by law, enabling scope for reformation.
29Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed any lenient view and submitted that the offences proved against the accused are of the gravest kind, involving repeated sexual assault upon a vulnerable woman, coupled with trafficking, exploitation, unlawful compulsory labour and forcible termination of pregnancy. It was argued that the crime was not an isolated act but a sustained course of exploitation, committed with abuse of trust and dominance, leaving permanent physical and psychological scars on the victim. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case squarely falls within the category warranting deterrent and exemplary punishment, and that misplaced sympathy would erode public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 22 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
Consideration by the Court
30(a)This court considered the rival submissions, the nature and gravity of the offences, the manner in which they were committed, the role of the accused, the degree of culpability, the impact of the crime on the victim, and the broader societal implications.
(b)The evidence on record establishes that the accused did not merely commit abetment of sexual offence, but was part of a systematic exploitation of the victim—who was young, illiterate, dependent and completely under the control of the accused persons. The offences involve repeated rape by accused no.1, abetment of sexual offence by accused no.2 to 4, human trafficking, forced labour, and causing miscarriage without consent, reflecting extreme moral depravity and a total disregard for the bodily autonomy and dignity of the victim.
(c)The mitigating factors urged by the defence—such as absence of prior criminal record, family responsibilities, or claimed remorse—cannot outweigh the enormity of the crime. The
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000) 7 SCC 740 has categorically held that in cases of sexual violence, courts must not be swayed by misplaced sympathy or irrelevant mitigating circumstances, and that such offences strike at the core of human dignity, requiring stern punishment to serve the ends of justice.
31This Court is of the considered view that the present case is not one where reformation can be prioritised at the cost of justice to the victim and deterrence to society. The sentencing policy must reflect proportionality, denunciation of the crime, and protection of vulnerable sections of society. Any undue leniency would amount to a betrayal of the victim’s suffering and would send a wrong signal to society at large.
32The Court is of the considered view that while the mitigating circumstances deserve consideration, they cannot outweigh the seriousness of the offences proved. However, they can be taken into account to impose sentences closer to the minimum prescribed, wherever discretion is available.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 23 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
Accordingly, the following sentence is imposed:
Accused No.2 – Fathima Begum
1. For the offence under Section 376(2)(n) read with Section 109 IPC:
The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of
Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.
2. For the offence under Section 370 IPC (Trafficking):
The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
3. For the offence under Section 370-A IPC (Exploitation of a trafficked person):
The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
1. For the offence under Section 374 IPC (Unlawful compulsory labour):
The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month.
2. For the offence under Section 312 IPC (Causing miscarriage without consent):
The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months.
Accused No.3 – Asma Begum
For the offence under Section 376(2)(n) read with Section 109 IPC: The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
Accused No.4 – Saba Begum
For the offence under Section 376(2)(n) read with Section 109 IPC: The accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 24 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
All the substantive sentences imposed on Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 shall run concurrently.
The accused shall be entitled to set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period already undergone in custody, if any.
Considering the financial incapacity of the accused, this Court is of the view that imposition of fine for the purpose of awarding compensation to the victim would not serve the ends of justice.
In view of the physical injury, mental agony, and trauma suffered by PW–1, this Court deems it appropriate to invoke the provisions of Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nampally, Hyderabad, is hereby directed to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law and grant adequate and reasonable compensation to PW–1 under the Victim Compensation Scheme so as to effectively redress the injury, suffering, and trauma endured by her.
The Office is directed to forthwith address a letter to the Secretary, DLSA, Nampally,
Hyderabad, enclosing a copy of this judgment, for necessary action.
.
The accused are informed of their right to appeal. Copies of this judgment shall be furnished to the accused free of cost.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 31st day of December 2025.
Addl. Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC-Cum-Addl. Family Court-cum- XXIII Addl. Chief Judge-Cum- IX Addl Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. FAC X Addl. Sessions Judge Hyderabad.
Judgment in SC No. 673/2024 25 / 25 Dt : 31-12-2025.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE
PW1: Smt Asma Begum, Complainant/Victim -Nil- PW2: Sri Syed Naseer Uddin, Step Father of PW1 PW3: Smt Sada Laxmi, SI recorded the statement of Pw1 PW4: Dr Tabitha, examined PW1 and confirmed her pregnancy PW5: Smt A.Leelavathi, WHG Escorted PW1 to Bharosa Center & Hospital PW6: Sri Abdul Fahad,Panch for Confession cum seizure panchanama of A4 PW7: Sri Mobin Bin Mohsin,Panch for further Confession cum seizure panchanama of A3 and Scene of offence Panchanama and Seizure PW8: Srilatha,SI, Assisted IO in apprehending A3 & A4 PW9: Sri K.Chandra Shekar, IO, arrested A3 & A4
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Medico Legal Examination Report of PW1 Ex.P3: Marked portion in Confession Seizure panchanama of A4 Ex.P4: Scene of offence Panchanama Ex.P5: First Information Report Ex.P6: Alteration Memo Ex.P7: Marked portion in Confession Seizure panchanama of A3
FOR DEFENCE
Ex.D1 : Memorandum of Understanding
MOs MARKED
MO-1: Mobile phone of A4 MO-2: Key MO-3: Mobile phone of A3
Addl. Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC-Cum-Addl. Family Court-cum- XXIII Addl. Chief Judge-Cum- IX Addl Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. FAC X Addl. Sessions Judge Hyderabad.