1 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021
IN THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND
DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, AT MANCHERIAL
PRESENT:- SRI K.PRABHAKARA RAO,
Principal Sessions Judge, Mancherial
FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track special court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial
FRIDAY THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023
SC (POCSO) No. 56 of 2021
Name of the Complainant State represented by Circle Inspector of Police, Srirampur
Name of the Accused Kamera Raghuvaran @ Raghu, S/o.Rajam, age 24 years, Occ:Lorry Driver, R/o.H.No.4-92/1, Dubbepalli village, Ramaraopet, Mandal Jaipur
Offence under section 363, 366(A), 376(1) IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act
Plea of the accused Not Guilty
Finding Guilty
Sentence or Order The accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 363, 366(A) and 376 (1) IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act and accordingly he is convicted for the same under section 235(2) CrPC.
Name of the counsel for Sri Surender Upadhyay, prosecution Additional Public Prosecutor
Name of the counsel for Defence Sri N.Rajeshwar Rao
This case coming before me on 31.07.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Surender Upadhyay, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N.Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate for accused and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
2 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021
J U D G M E N T
The Circle Inspector of Police, Srirampur filed charge-sheet against accused for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366(A), 376 (1)
IPC and section 3 r/w.4 of POCSO Act in Cr.No.27 of 2021 of PS Jaipur.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
2. On 09.02.2021 at about 2.30 pm the defacto-complainant (PW1), who is sister of victim lodged a report before the Police Station, Jaipur alleging that on 08.02.2021 in the night hours at about 11.40 pm, her younger sister/victim was found missing from bed, her mother woke-up her, then they searched about the issuing in and around the house, also caused enquiries with their relatives, but in vain. The defacto-complainant suspected the accused might have eloped her sister.
3. Basing on the report (Ex.P1) lodged by PW1, Sub-Inspector of
Police (PW9) registered a case in Cr.No.27 of 2021 for the offence under section 363 IPC, examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW2,
LW3 and LW4, visited the scene of offence and prepared crime details form and drawn roughs ketch in the presence of panch witnesses i.e, PW6 and PW7. While things stood thus, on 13.02.2021 at 4.00 pm, the victim girl came to Police Station, on that the statement of the victim girl got recorded through Woman Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (WASI-33) of
Bheemaram Police Station, basing on which, section of law was altered from section 363 IPC to sections 363, 366(A), 376(1) IPC and section 3 r/w.4 of POCSO Act and the victim was subjected to medical examination 3 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021 through Lady Medical officer (PW7), who examined the victim girl and preserved the material objects from the victim and forwarded to Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and subsequently the
Inspector of Police (PW11) took-up further investigation in this case.
Later, PW11 obtained bonafide certificate of the minor victim girl from
PW4/Special Officer of KGVB School where the victim girl studied where the date of birth of the victim is shown as 30.08.2006.
4. On 15.02.2021 at 11.00 hrs, PW11 apprehended and brought the accused to the Police Station and effected his arrest and the accused was subjected to potency test through PW9/Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Community Health Center, Chennur and later produced the accused
before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur for judicial
custody. After collecting the documents and after completion of entire investigation, PW11 filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366(A), 376(1) IPC and section 3 r/w.4 of
POCSO Act.
5. The cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned I Additional
Sessions Judge (Designated under POCSO Act), Adilabad for the offence
punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(1) IPC and section 3 r/w.4 of
POCSO Act against the accused and made over to this Court for disposal according to law as per the proceedings of the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Adilabad vide Proc.No.819/2022/Admn dated
04.03.2022.
4 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021
6. The accused engaged the Advocate to defend his case. On appearance of accused before this court and on considering the entire material available on record, charges for the offence under sections 363, 366(A), 376(1) IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act were framed against the accused. The contents of the same were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charges.
7. To prove its case, the prosecution examined (12) witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P11.
8. After completion of the examination of the witnesses, accused was examined under section 313 CrPC upon the incriminating circumstances that are appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
The same are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he has denied and did not choose to produce any defence evidence on his behalf.
9. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. The learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments in support of the case of the accused.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that in order to prove the case of the prosecution, PW1 to PW12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 are marked. He further argued that PW1 is the elder sister of the victim girl, who lodged Ex.P1 report clearly deposed in her evidence supporting the 5 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021 case of the prosecution. PW2 is the mother of the victim girl, she also clearly deposed about the offence. PW3 is the victim girl in this case, she also categorically deposed how the accused deceived her under the guise of love and promise to marry and taken her from the lawful guardianship of her parents and her evidence clearly reveals that when she was stayed with the accused, there was sexual intercourse between them and nothing was elicited in her cross-examination. He further argued that PW4 is a
Special Officer of KGVB School at where the victim girl prosecuted studies and she issued Ex.P2 bonafide certificate of the victim showing the date of birth of the victim as 30.08.2006, as such the prosecution proved that as on the date of offence, the victim girl was minor. He further argued that
PW5 and PW6 are the mediators for observation of scene of offence, though they have not supported the prosecution, their evidence is not much relevant and it will not affect the case of the prosecution.
11. He further argued that PW7 is the Lady Medical Officer at
Government Hospital, Mancherial, who examined the victim girl and prepared Ex.P5 primary examination report, after receiving Ex.P6 Forensic
Science Laboratory report, she issued Ex.P7 final opinion report and the prosecution proved that the victim was exposed to sexual intercourse. He further argued that PW8 is the Woman Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of the victim girl as per the instructions of
Sub-Inspector of Police. PW9 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government
Hospital, Chennur, who examined the accused and issued certificate 6 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021 stating that there is nothing to suggest that accused is not capable of performing sexual act and accordingly issued Ex.P8 certificate.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor further argued that PW10 is the then
Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaipur, who received Ex.P1 from PW1 and issued
Ex.P9 First Information Report, conducted investigation, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of mediators and got prepared
Exs.P10 and P!1, later further investigation was taken-up by PW11 and
PW12.
13. PW11 and PW12 clearly deposed in their evidence regarding their investigation and filing of charge-sheet.
14. The learned Public Prosecutor finally submitted that with the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution it was clinchingly proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the victim girl was minor, she was lured by the accused with his deceitful words and false promise of marriage and parted the victim girl from her lawful guardian, had sexual intercourse with her, as such the accused has committed the offence punishable under sections 363, 366(A), 376 (1) IPC and section 3 r/w.4 of
POCSO Act, for which the accused is liable for conviction.
7 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021
15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the bonafide certificate submitted by the prosecution is not sufficient to believe the age of the victim girl, the prosecution did not place nay material before the Court to prove the age of the victim girl, as such the provisions of POCSO Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
16. He further argued that there are several contradictions in the evidence of PW2 and PW3 regarding the admission of PW3/victim girl in the school. He further argued that as per the evidence of PW3, she studied in KGVB School from VIII class to X class at Krishna colony,
Naspur, but PW4 who is In-charge of KGVB School deposed in her cross- examination that PW3 victim girl admitted in their school in VII class, as such Ex.P2 bonafide certificate is not a genuine document, hence it cannot be considered in respect of the age of the victim girl.
17. He further argued that when PW3 victim girl gave statement before the learned Magistrate under section 164 CrPC, she did not state that she was having sexual relationship with the accused and she further stated that she voluntarily left her house on the date of the incident, but for the first time she stated before the trial Court that she was having sexual contacts with the accused which is nothing but improvement.
8 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021
18. He further argued that as per the version of the prosecution, the age of the victim girl was (17) years. He further submitted that as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in between JINISH
LAL DAYAL vs. STATE OF BIHAR reported in 1981 SC Page 39, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India observed that when the girl is below (16) years old, her consent is immaterial, here the victim girl was (17) years old as per section 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC statement before the trial Court, hence the offence under section 376(1) IPC is not applicable. As such in the instant case as PW3/victim girl has voluntarily left her house, the offence under section 366(A) IPC is not attracted to the facts of the present case.
19. He further argued that in view of deliberate improvements in the prosecution witnesses, the accused is entitled for acquittal and in support of his contention, he relied on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1988 (SC) 1759 and Page 2879 in a case between RAM SINGH vs. STATE and JAGNARAIN vs. STATE. He further argued relied on the Judgment reported in Criminal Law Journal 1969
Page 1310 Between SHAMSUNDER KAR vs. STATE, wherein it was held that when the victim girl is below (16) years old, the victim accompanied the accused voluntarily, no offence was made out under section 366(A) and 376 IPC.
9 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021
20. He further argued that the Investigating Officer failed to examine the R.T.C. (Road Transport Corporation) bus conductor in which bus the
PW3/victim girl travelled and also failed to examine the Priest, who performed their marriage and also did not examine the Managers of the lodges where the victim and accused stayed, as such the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
21. He further argued that as per the established law of Medical
Jurisprudence, if the age of the victim is shown as 16 or 17 years old at the time of alleged offence, two years either side is to be taken into consideration and which is favourable to the accused that is to be considered, thus the age of the victim is to be considered as 17+=19 years old, thus she was minor and the alleged offence were not proved against the accused as such the accused is entitled for acquittal for the alleged charges.
22. Now, this Court will scrutinize the oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution whether it is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged charges.
23. Now, the points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the prosecution proved that PW3/victim girl was aged below (18) yeas as on the date of offence?
(2) Whether the prosecution proved that the accused kidnapped the victim girl (PW3) from her lawful guardian and committed offence punishable under section 363 of IPC?
10 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021 (3) Whether the prosecution proved that the accused had sexual intercourse with PW3/victim girl knowing that she was minor girl and committed the offence punishable under section 376(1) IPC?
(4) Whether the prosecution proved that the accused tied the nuptial thread in the neck of the victim girl and performed sexual intercourse with her under the guise of marriage though she was minor and he committed the offence punishable under section 366(A) IPC (5) Whether the prosecution proved that the accused kidnapped the minor girl, took her to Hyderabad, Yadadri lodge and tied nuptial thread in her neck and having sexual intercourse with her knowing that she was minor and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under section 4 of POCSO Act?
POINT No.1:-
24. In this case PW1 is the elder sister of the victim, set the law into motion by lodging Ex.P1 report in Police Station. Basing on it, the Police investigated the case, during the course of investigation, they have collected Ex.P2 bonafide certificate of the victim girl from PW4/S.Mounika who is Special officer of KGVB School, CCC Naspur. As per the evidence of
PW4, on the requisition of Police, Naspur, she issued Ex.P2 bonafide certificate of the victim, as per Ex.P2, the date of birth of the victim is 30.08.2023. The cross-examination of PW4 reveals that she is the head of the above said school, the victim was joined in the school in the VII class, the admission date was not mentioned in Ex.P2. PW4 further deposed that when the student joined in their school, the previous school transfer certificate is to be obtained and submit them along-with application form. The victim also handed over the earlier school transfer certificate. She further deposed that in Ex.P2 bonafide certificate, 11 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021 particulars of earlier school are not mentioned. PW4 further deposed that she do not know who accompanied the victim girl at the time of admission. PW4 further deposed that as on the date of issuing of Ex.P2, the victim girl was studying X class. She denied the suggestion that at the request of Police, she issued Ex.P2 bonafide certificate.
25. In the cross-examination, PW3/victim girl stated that she studied I
Class to VII class at Ramaraopet government Primary School at Jaipur.
Her parents joined her in the said school for the first time and her father put his signature in the admission form, later she studied in Kasthurba
School from VIII to X Class at Krishna colony, Naspur and her date of birth was mentioned in Secondary School Certificate (SSC) memo. She further stated in her cross-examination that her date of birth is 04.07.2006 and further deposed that she stated before the learned
Magistrate that her age was (16) years and as per SSC memo her age
was (17) years.
26. When compared the evidence of PW3 with the evidence of PW4 coupled with Ex.P2, there was slight difference with regard to the date of birth of the victim. As per the victim, her date of birth is 04.07.2006 and as per the bonafide certificate, her date of birth is shown as 30.08.2006.
Whatever it may be, even both date of births are considered as true, still the PW3 was minor as on the date of offence i.e, 08.02.2021.
Sometimes, date or births may be noted in school registers in order to suit the students to attend the X class examinations. Generally, the school 12 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021 people put the age at higher side, but not lower side to attend SSC examinations. In the instant case if the date of birth of pW3 is 04.07.2006 as deposed by PW3/victim girl or 30.08.2006 as per Ex.P2 bonafide certificate, PW3/victim girl is a minor as on the date of offence.
27. By accepting the Ex.P2 bonafide certificate, the prosecution discharged the initial burden of proving that PW3/victim girl was minor as on the date of offence. Since the offence under section POCSO Act the
Court invoke presumption against accused under section 30 of POCSO Act and accused to rebut the case of the prosecution. In the instant case, the accused did not place any material before the Court to rebut the contention of the prosecution that the victim girl was minor. The
Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for accused referred in his arguments are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as under
Ex.P2 it was clearly established the age of the victim girl below (18) years. The above Judgments relied upon by the counsel for the accused are applicable when there was uncertainty in respect of the age of the victim and it was assessed on medical examination. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution proved that PW3/victim girl is a minor as on the date of offence. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.
13 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021
POINT No.2 to 5:-
28. Since, the point Nos.2 to 5 are interconnected, they are answered together.
29. PW1 deposed that on 08.02.2021 her sister i.e, PW3 went away from the house by that time, PW3 was completed her X Class, she was aged of (16) years, they made phone calls to their relatives and came to know that her sister has not come to their houses, later when they searched in neighbouring houses, but in vain, hence on next day she lodged Ex.P1 report in the Police Station suspecting the involvement of the accused. Later on 13.02.2021 her sister/PW3 victim girl came to the
Police Station and finally her sister informed her that accused threatened her and took her to Bellampalli and got into marriage with her and they stayed together at Bellampalli. In her cross-examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that accused is a handsome, so they intended to perform the marriage of the victim with him, so that a false complaint was lodged against him.
30. PW2 is the mother of the victim girl deposed in her chief examination that about one year back in the night hours, she along-with her daughter slept in the house on 08.02.2021 at about 11.00 pm to 12.00 midnight, she woke-up for attending natures call, then she observed that her younger daughter i.e, victim girl was not in the house, then she woke-up her other two daughters and informed the same Later they have searched for the victim girl and made phone calls to the 14 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021 relatives, but in vain. They kept quiet till morning hours, later they came to know that now and then the accused was coming to their house, as such on suspicion they lodged report. Later, after some days the accused left her daughter in the bus-stand and the victim came to Police Station and informed that the accused physically used her, the accused had taken her to Mancherial, from there to Bellampalli and he got into marriage with her at one Bugga temple and taken her to Hyderabad and kept her in a room and participated in sexual intercourse with her for two days on the assumption of wife. In the cross-examination, PW2 deposed that she has not seen the photos of the marriage and she came to know through her daughter/victim about the said marriage.
31. PW3 is the victim girl, who deposed that PW1 is her sister, PW2 is her mother and in the year 2021, she was studying X class, accused was residing in front of her house, since one year, the accused following her and expressing his love and promised to marry her, firstly she refused the proposal of the accused, in view of repeated following by the accused, the accused convinced her that her family members would not accept their marriage and he was get into marriage and asked her to come with him.
Believing his words, on 02.08.2021, the accused asked her to come along-with him for which she accepted and on that day in the midnight at 12.00 hours, she came out of the house, the accused was waiting for her near to one shop, she went there, later the accused taken her to bus- stand by walk, thereafter, in an auto they came to Mancherial and in the 15 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021 morning hours, the accused had taken her to Bellampalli Shivalayam temple and got into married, thereafter they went to Hyderabad and took a room in Yadadri lodge stating that both are wife and husband and they have stayed in the said lodge for four days, during the said period the accused had sexual intercourse with her, later they came to know that her mother lodged Police report, hence came back to their village, the accused went to Jaipur and she went to Police Station at where she has given her statement and she also given her statement before the learned
Magistrate.
32. In her cross-examination PW3/victim deposed that she voluntarily left her house on the date of the incident and she did not give any complaint to the Police at Mancherial bus-stand, Bellampalli or at
Hyderabad and she did not make hues and cries when she was moving to the above said places. In her cross-examination she further admitted that she voluntarily left the house though her mother and sister were in the house and nobody forcibly taken her from her house. She denied the suggestion that she did not go along-with the accused to Mancherial,
Bellampalli or Hyderabad or she did not get into marriage with the accused.
33. PW7 Dr.A.Jyothi, who examined the victim girl and issued Ex.P7 final opinion and during her examination, she found vaginal introits admits two fingers easily, hymen was not intact. As per the evidence of
PW9 coupled with Ex.P8 potency certificate there was nothing to suggest 16 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021 that the accused is not capable of performing sexual act. As such considering the evidence of PW7, the Medical Officer who treated the victim and PW9 who examined the accused and issued potency certificate, the prosecution proved that the accused had sexual intercourse with PW3 who is a minor.
34. Merely non stating in her statement under section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate about her sexual intercourse and stating the same for the first time by the victim girl before the Court does not amounts to deliberate improvement.
35. PW3/victim girl clearly deposed that the accused tied nuptial thread in her neck in Bugga Shivalyam temple. No material is placed to disbelieve the version of PW3. Merely non-examination of Priest of
Shivalayam and lodge Manager at Hyderabad does not weaken the case of the prosecution. It is settled principle of law that laches on the part of investigation do not take away the entire case of prosecution, on the other hand the offence against accused was established vide Judgments (1) C.MUNIAPPAN AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU (2010) 9 SCC 567 and (2) STATE OF TAMILNADU BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs.
N.SURESH RANJAN AND OTHERS (2014) 11 SCC 709.
36. PW10, PW11 and PW12 are the Investigating officers in this case, who deposed about their investigation, arrest of the accused and filing of charge-sheet against the accused for the alleged charges.
17 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021
37. On over all scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution successfully proved that the accused kidnapped the
PW3/victim girl, later married her by tying nuptial thread in her neck, thereafter had sexual intercourse with her at Hyderabad, thus he committed the offence punishable under sections 363, 366(A) and 376(1)
IPC. Since the PW3/victim girl is a minor the acts of the accused against
PW3 would attract the contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the
POCSO Act. Accordingly, point No.2 to 5 are answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
38. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 363, 366(A) and 376 (1) IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act and accordingly he is convicted for the same under section 235(2) CrPC.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and after
corrections, pronounced by me in the open court on this 4 th day of August 2023.
Sd/-
Principal Sessions Judge
Mancherial FAC:Spl.Judge (POCSO) Court Mancherial
39. Section 42 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 as amended by the Act No.22 of 2018 with effect from 21.04.2018 reads as follows:- 18 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021
42. Alternate Punishment:“Where an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under sections 166A, 354A, 354B, 354C, 3540, 370, 370A, 375, 376, 376A, 376C, 3760, 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree.”
40. In the instant case, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366(A) and 376(1) of IPC along-with section 4 of the POCSO Act 2012. In view of the above said section 42 of the POCO Act, the highest punishment is provided to section 4 of the
POCSO Act. Hence, this Court is inclined to punish the accused and impose sentence for the offence punishable under section 4 of the POCSO
Act instead of section 376(1) of IPC. In the instant case, the victim girl was aged about (16) years, hence the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 4(1) of the POCSO Act 2012.
The accused is called present. He submitted that he is not having any previous criminal antecedents and requested the Court to take lenient view. Having considered the submissions made by the accused, this Court is inclined to sentence the accused as follows:- (1). The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 363 of IPC and convicted for the same under section 235(2) CrPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of THREE
MONTHS.
19 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021 (2). The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 366(A) of IPC and convicted for the same under section 235(2) CrPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of FIVE YEARS and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of THREE
MONTHS.
(3). The accused is also found guilty for the offence punishable under section 4(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and convicted for the same under section 235(2) CrPC r/w.section 42 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of TEN YEARS and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of THREE MONTHS.
The total fine amount is Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only).
All the three offences shall run concurrently. The remand period of the accused is given set-off under section 428 of CrPC. The non-valuable unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. The accused is appraised about his right of appeal before the
Hon’ble High Court and he is further informed that he will be provided
Legal Aid counsel if required. Free copy of this Judgment is supplied to the accused under acknowledgment.
20 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021
As the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 4(1) of the POCSO Act 2012 for committing penetration sexual assault on the victim girl, this court is of the opinion that the victim girl has to be compensated for her sufferance both physically and mentally.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to award compensation amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the victim girl. The Secretary,
District Legal Services Authority, Mancherial is hereby directed to take steps to pay the above said compensation amount to the victim girl at the earliest. Mark the copy of this Judgment to the Secretary, District Legal
Services Authority, Mancherial for taking steps in paying the compensation to the victim girl.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and after
corrections, pronounced by me in the open court on this 4 TH day of August 2023
Sd/-
Principal Sessions Judge
Mancherial FAC:Spl.Judge (POCSO) Court Mancherial Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined
For prosecution: For Defence –None-
PW1:Defacto-complaiant and sister of victim PW2:Mother of victim PW3:Victim PW4:S.Mounika (Officer of KGBV School) PW5:Prabhakar Goud (Panch for CDF) PW6:Jadi Vinay (panch for CDF) PW7: Dr.A.Jyothi (Lady Medical Officer) 21 of 21 SC (POCSO) No.56 of 2021
PW8:D.Shakunthjala (recorded statement of victim) PW9:Dr.Varun Kumar (CAS examined the accused0 PW10:K.Ramakrishna (1st Investigating Officer) PW11:P.Gangaraja Goud (2nd Investigating Officer) PW12:B.Koteshwar (Investigating Officer
EXHBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: For Defence NIL
Ex.P1:Report of PW1 dated 09.02.2021 Ex.P2:Bonafide certificate of victim issued by PW4 Ex.P3:Signature of PW5 on Crime Details Form dated 09.02.2021 Ex.P4:Signature of PW6 on Crime Details Form dated 09.02.2021 Ex.P5:Primary Examination Report of PW7 dated 13.02.2021 Ex.P6:Forensic Science Laboratory Report dated 08.03.2021 Ex.P7:Final Opinion issued by PW7 Ex.P8:Potency certificate of accused issued by PW9 Ex.P9:First Information Report dated 09.02.2021 Ex.P10:Crime Details Form dated 09.02.2021 Ex.P11:Rough sketch of scene of offence dated 09.02.2021
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
NIL
Sd/-
Principal Sessions Judge
Mancherial FAC:Spl.Judge (POCSO) Court Mancherial