1 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT
CASES, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT :MEDCHAL
Friday, the 1 st day of May, 2026
Present: K.Venkatesh, Fast Track Special Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.
SPL. Sessions Case No. 225 of 2025
1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla Police Station.
2 Name of the accusedAsgar Ali S/o.Jahur Hashmi, Age 37 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Plot No.318, 1stfloor Gampala Basthi, Subashnagar, IDA Jeedimetla, N/o. Barka Sighanpura, Paigambarpur Buxar District Bihar State.
3 Offences complained ofUnder Section 65(1), 64(2)(f),(m) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
4 Crime No. & Name of the PS 484 of 2025 of P.S.Jeedimetla.
5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6 Finding of the CourtFound guilt 7 Sentence or order In the result, the accused is convicted for the offences under Section 351(2), 65(1), 64(2)(f) and 64(2)(m) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(l) and Section 5(n) read with section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, under Section 258 (2) 2 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakksha Sanhita 2023, and sentenced to undergo;
(a) rigorous imprisonment for TWO years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for SIX months for the offence under Section 351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; and
(b) rigorous imprisonment for TWENTY years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for SIX months for the offence under Section 65(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; and
(c)rigorous imprisonment for TWENTY years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for ONE year for the offence under Section 5
(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
(d) rigorous imprisonment for TWENTY years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for ONE year for the offence under Section 5
(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, no separate punishment is being imposed against the accused for the offence under Section 64(2)(f) and Section 64(2)(m) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The substantial sentences of imprisonment imposed against the accused shall run 3 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) concurrently. The fine amount of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirthy thousands only) imposed against the accused for the offences under Section 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 5(l), Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 shall be paid to the victim girl/Pw.2 to meet medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim girl/Pw.2.
The accused is in jail since 09-05- 2025 to till date i.e., 01.05.2026 shall be set off as per Section 468 Bharatiya Nagarik Surakksha Sanhita against the substantial sentences of imprisonment imposed against him. The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment and the availability of the free legal aid. A free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused as required under Section 404 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
This court recommends to the District Legal Services Authority, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, to award a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the victim/Pw2 from and out of the victim compensation fund within one month from the date of receipt of this copy of this judgment.
This Sessions Case is coming before me on 28.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Prabhakar Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri D.Santosh Rao, learned Legal Aid counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
4 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
J U D G M E N T:: ::
The Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla Police Station, laid a charge sheet in
Crime No. 484 of 2025 of Jeedimetla Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Section 65(1), 64(2)(f), (m) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhitha, 2023 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘BNS’) and Section 5(l) read with section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter will be referred as POCSO Act) against the sole accused.
2.The case of the prosecution, as alleged in the charge sheet in brief are that:- on 06-05-2025 at 1.00 p.m. Pw.1/mother of victim lodged a report before the S.H.O. PS Jeedimetla, wherein she stated that in the year 2019 she along with her family members came to Hyderabad for livelihood and residing at
Subashnagar area and she is doing housekeeping work and her son is also working as labour and her both daughters are staying at house and her husband(accused) is working as labour and he addicted to alcohol and in intoxication state, he used to quarrel with her and beat her and on last Friday in the afternoon hours, she went to the house for having lunch, meantime, her husband also came to the house and at that time her elder daughter(victim), aged 15 years went to terrace to dry the clothes, then the accused said that his elder 5 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) daughter(victim) went to terrace for sighting other boys and had an altercation with Pw.1, then the younger daughter of Pw.1(complainant) informed Pw.1 that earlier her father had sexual intercourse with elder daughter(victim), upon which when the Pw.1 ascertained with her elder daughter, she informed that during
Ramjan festival, her father sent the complainant’s younger daughter to shop and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her, when the complainant questioned her as to why she did not inform, she stated that as her father threatened to ill if she disclose to anyone, when the complainant questioned with her husband, he beat her and said that it was happened mistakenly and saying so he fled away from the house.
3.Basing on the report of Pw.1, Pw.7/G.Mallesh, Inspector of Police has registered a case and investigated into. During the course of investigation,
Pw.7/G.Mallesh, Inspector of Police, P.S. Jeedimetla has examined and recorded the statement of Pw.1. Later he secured the presence of Pw3/younger sister of victim and Lw.4/maternal uncle of the victim and recorded their statements.
Later he got recorded the statement of victim/Pw.2 through Lw.13/Saritha, WSI,
PS Jeedimetla under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Later he visited the scene of offence i.e. rented house of Pw.1, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in 6 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) the presence of two mediators i.e. Pw.5/J.Mallesh Goud and Lw..6/R.Upendra alias Laxmi, later Pw.7 referred the victim girl to Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad for medical examination. On 08-05-2025 the accused was arrested and after interrogation and after preparation of confession panchanama of accused, the accused was arrested and after got conducting potency test of the accused through Lw.11/Dr.Vasanth Naik, Associate Professor, Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad, he was produced before the court for judicial remand. Lw.11 also conducted age determination test of victim and issued certificate that the age of victim is about 14-15 years, later Pw.7 prepared letter of advice and sent the samples to FSL, Hyderabad which was preserved by medical officer/Pw.4, later after got recording the statement of Pw.2/victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., pending FSL report, Pw.7 laid charge sheet against the accused, subsequently he filed FSL report before the court.
4.After filing of the final report by the police, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 65(1), 64(2)(f), (m) and 351(2) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 and Section 5(l) read with section 6 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and numbered as Spl. SC.NO. 225 of 2025 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at 7 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
Malkajgiri and this case was transferred to this court for disposal according to law.
5. On production of the accused from the Central Prison, Cherlapally, copies was furnished to him as required under section 231 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Surakasha Sanhita, 2023(hereinafter will be referred as ‘BNSS’). Upon consideration of material available on record and after hearing both sides, charges have been framed under Section 65(1), 64(2)(f), (m) and 35(2) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 and Section 5(l) and Section 5(n) r/w. Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused, read over and explained to him, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.It is matter of record, at the stage of arguments, this court has noticed that, there is a defect in the charge, hence, charges have been altered under Secction 64(2)(f), Section 64(2)(m), Section 351(2) of BNS and Section 5(l) and Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 in the place of Section 64(2)(f)(m) 35(2) of BNS and Section 5(l)(m) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, the same are read over and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later 8 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) matter is posted for further evidence of both sides, for which, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor and learned legal aid counsel for accused reported no further evidence on the above altered charges, hence the matter is posted for arguments.
7.The prosecution, to bring home the guilt against the accused, examined
PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs. P1 to P7.
8.PW1/Mother of the victim girl. Pw.2 is the victim girl. Pw.3(Lw.3) is the younger sister of Pw.2. Pw.4 Dr.P.Shirisha, Assistant Professor, Gandhi Medical
College, who conducted medical examination of Pw.2/victim and issued medical examination report. Pw.5/J.Mallesh Goud and Pw.6/L.Arun Kumar Goud are the mediators for scene of offence panchanama. Pw.7 G.Mallesh, is the investigating officer. Pw.8/Dr.Vasanth Naik, Associate Professor, Forensic
Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad who conducted potency test of the accused and issued Ex.P5. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by Pw.1. Ex.P2 is the Medical Examination Report of Pw.2 issued by Pw.4. Ex.P3 is the Crime
Details Form. Ex.P4 is the First Information Report. Ex.P5 is the Potency Test
Certificate of accused issued by Pw.8. Ex.P6 is the Age Determination
Certificate of victim/Pw.2 issued by Pw.8. Ex.P7 is the FSL report.
9 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
9.The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of
Lw.4/maternal uncle of victim and circumstantial witness, Lw.5/Katravath
Saroja neighbour of victim, Lw.6/Ramindla Upendra panch for Crime Details
Form, Lw.12/X Metropolitan Magistrate and Lw.13/T.Teja Sri, WPSI of Police
Jeedimetla PS.
10.After closure of prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 351 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakasha Sanhita, 2023 with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. He, however, did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.
11. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the Learned Legal Aid
Counsel for the accused. Perused the entire material on record.
12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has contended that, the accused being the father of victim/Pw.2 committed rape on her twice in the absence of their family members and threatened to kill her if she disclose the same to anyone and that the entire prosecution witnesses supported to the version of 10 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
Pw.2, hence, he prays the court to convict the accused by imposing maximum punishment.
13.Per contra, the learned legal aid counsel for accused has vehemently argued that there were matrimonial disputes between Pw.1 and accused and he was implicated in this case falsely and he is no way concerned with the alleged offences, with which he is charged and he prays the court to acquit the accused for all the charges, by extending benefit of doubt in his
14.Now the following points that arises for determination are:-
1) Whether the victim girl/Pw2 is a minor as per the date of alleged incident as contemplated under section 2 (1) (d) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable under section 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 beyond reasonable doubt?
3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable under section 65(1) of of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 beyond reasonable doubt?
4) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable under section 64(2)(f) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 beyond reasonable doubt?
5) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable under section 64(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 beyond reasonable doubt?
11 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
6) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable under section 5(l) r/w section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act?
7) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable under section 5(n) r/w section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act?
8) To What relief?
15.The specific case of the prosecution is that, the accused being the father of victim/Pw.2 committed rape on her twice in the absence of their family members and threatened to kill her if she disclose the same to anyone. To ascertain that aspect, it is necessary to scrutinize the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
16. Before adverting to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is relevant to mention the provisions of law for the offences punishable under section 65(1), 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m) and 351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(l), 5(n) read with section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter will be referred as POCSO Act).
17.Section 65(1) BNS prescribes the punishment for rape in certain cases, whereas section 63 BNS defines offence of the rape.
12 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
Section. 63 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 reads as:-
Sec. 63. A man is said to commit “rape” if he:
a) Penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person:or
b) Inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person: or
c) Manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person:
d) Applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra or a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under circumstances falling under any of the seven following seven descriptions.
Firstly: Against her will
Secondly: Without her consent
Thirdly: With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly:- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly:- With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome sub-stance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
Sixthly:- With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.
Seventhly: When she is unable to communicate consent.
13 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
Explanation I: For the purpose of this section, "Vagina" shall also include labia majora.
Explanation II: Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form or verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act:
Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.
Exception. 1:A medical procedure or intervention shall not constitute rape.
Exception. 2: Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.
Punishment for rape.
64.(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided in the cases provided for in sub- section(2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever,-
(a) being a police officer, commits rape,_
(i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house; or
(iii) on a woman in such police officer’s custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or 14 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
(b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant’s custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant;
(c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central Government or a State Government commits rape in such area; or
(d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women’s or children’s institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or
(e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or
(g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or
(h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
(i) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or
(j) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or
(k) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or
(l) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or
(m) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman.
Shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extent to imprisonment for life, which shall mean 15 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec.65 (1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita reads as:-
Sec. 65 (1):- Punishment for rape in certain cases: Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim.
Section 351 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 reads as:
Section 351: Criminal intimidation:
(1) Whoever threatens another by any means, with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation:- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 5 (l) read with 6 of POCSO Act reads as:- Section. 5:- Aggravated penetrative sexual assault:
16 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
Section 5(1) of POCSO Act reads as:- (1) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly; or Section 5(n) of POCSO Act reads as:-
Whoever being a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care or having a domestic relationship with a parent of the child or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child.
Section 6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault reads as:-
(1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.
(2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.
POINT No. 1.
18.One of the offences alleged against the accused is under Section 5(l) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. To attract this offence, one of the essentials to be proved is that the victim/PW2 was a ‘child’ as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her. Section 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act defines the ‘child’ as any person below the age of eighteen years. It is now to be 17 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) seen whether the prosecution is able to prove that the victim/PW2 was a ‘child’ as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her.
19.As seen from the charge sheet, the victim (PW2) was aged 14-15 years at the time of occurrence of the incident. Further, Ex.P6 is the age determination certificate of victim/Pw.2 issued by PW8, which indicate that the victim is aged about 14-15 years. That means, as on the date of commission of alleged offence i.e., 25-04-2025, the victim (PW2) was aged about between 14-15 years, which the accused is not disputing. Since the victim/PW2 was below the age of 18 years as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her, she can be held to be a ‘child’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Of fences Act. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.
POINT NOs. 2 to 7.
2) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable under section 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 beyond reasonable doubt?
3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accuse for the charge punishable under section 65(1) of of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 beyond reasonable doubt?
4) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable under section 64(2)(f) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 beyond reasonable doubt?
18 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
5) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable under section 64(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 beyond reasonable doubt?
6) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable under section 5(l) r/w section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act?
7) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable under section 5(n) r/w section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act?
20.For the sake of convenience, brevity and to avoid repetitions of evidence, these points are taken up together for discussion.
21.Pw2, is the victim girl, she testified that, the accused is her father and that in the year 2025, in the month of Ramzan, on 15th Ramzan, the accused came to the house in drunken state of mind, while she along with her younger sister(Lw.3) were in the house, on that day, the accused sent Lw.3 to bring curd and the accused committed rape on her and threatened to kill her if she disclose the same to anyone. Two days after the Ramzan festival, as usual Pw.1 went for work and her younger brother also went for work, then the accused sent Lw.3 to shop and again committed rape on her. On the next day, she informed the same to her mother/Pw.1, when Pw.1 questioned the same to the accused, then the accused beat Pw.1 and fled away and he did not return back to the house for two 19 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) days, then they went to police station, where Pw.1 gave a report to Police, thereafter she was referred to Gandhi Hospital for medical examination, thereafter she was produced before the Magistrate, where her statement was recorded.
22.Pw.1 is the mother of victim and complainant, her testimony is that, on 04-05-2025, as usual she went for her work as maid servant and at afternoon hours, at 1.00 p.m. when she return back to the house to have lunch, and at the same time, the accused said that, the victim while soaking the clothes on the terrace, she is seeing to somebody else, then her younger daughter/Pw.3 informed her that, the victim girl/Pw.2 informed her(Pw.3) on 04-05-2025 that the accused committed rape on the victim girl/Pw.2 on 03-05-2025 at 2.00 p.m.
and previously also he committed rape on the victim on 15th Ramzan of the year 2025. Pw.1 further testified that, when she questioned the victim girl, then the victim also informed the same to her. Then she questioned the accused regarding the same, then the accused beat her and fled away. Thereafter, on 06- 05-2025, she gave a report to police.
23.Pw.3 is the younger sister of victim has testified that, on the starting day of Ramzan eve of the year 2025, the accused sent her to shop to bring curd.
20 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
Upon which she went out side and took curd and returned back to home, by that time, Pw.2 was weeping, then she asked her as to why she was weeping, upon which, Pw.2 did not revel anything, then she(Pw.3) thought that, her father might have beat Pw.2 on the issue of her studies. On the next day i.e., on Friday, while
Pw.2 was drying clothes on the terrace of their building, her father told her to observe Pw.2 as she was falling in love with some other boy. Upon which she told her father that as to why he is suspecting Pw.2. Later Pw.2 had informed her that as to why the accused was suspecting her character and that the accued himself committed rape on her(Pw.2). After arrival of Pw.1, she(Pw.3) revealed about the incident which was committed by accused towards Pw.2. On questioning the accused by Pw.1, the accused fled away. On the same day, Pw.1 went to PS Jeedimetla and lodged a police report. Pw.3 further testified that the accused committed rape on Pw.2/victim twice.
24.The learned legal aid counsel for accused has cross-examined Pw.1.
During cross-examination, she admitted that she cannot read and write in Telugu language and she cannot say what was written in Ex.P1 report. But, she added that, she narrated about the incident in Hindi, the same was reduced into writing in Telugu by the police. The learned legal aid counsel for accused further cross- examined that, as there were disputes between the accused and herself, due to 21 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) which she lodged a false report against the accused as if the accused committed rape on the victim and that the accused did not commit rape on victim, as such she did not inform about the incident on the same day to her and that she is deposing false. But, Pw.1 denied to all suggestions given by the learned legal aid counsel for accused. The learned legal aid counsel also cross-examined Pw.3.
During cross-examination, Pw.3 denied that the accused asked Pw.2 to study well and that to avoid such thing, she told false story to her, as well as, Pw.1 and that the accused did not commit rape on Pw.2 and that she is deposing false at the instance of Pw.1, as there were quarrels between Pw.1 and accused.
25.The learned legal aid counsel also cross-examined Pw.2, during cross- examination, PW2 admitted that there were quarrels between accused and her mother prior to this incident. But, Pw.2 added that as the accused was in habit of play betting, in that regard her mother used to ask the accused not to do betting.
She denied to suggestions put by the learned legal aid counsel for accused that, the accused did not commit rape on her and that there were disputes between her father and mother, as such on the instructions of Pw.1, she is deposing false against the accused. Though the learned legal aid counsel for accused has cross- examined Pws.1 to 3, but nothing contra was elicited from Pws.1 to 3, to dislodge their evidence. Mere admission of Pw.2 with regard to quarrels 22 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) between accused and Pw.1, that itself will not suffice to dislodge the evidence of
Pws. 1 to 3.
26.Pw.5 Sri J.Mallesh Goud is the one of the mediators for scene of offence panchanama, his testimony is that, on 06-05-2025 in the afternoon hours the police, Jeedimetla called him towards Gampabasthi colony road, where the police have conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence. So, the evidence of Pw.5 indicate that after the incident the police have conducted panchanama. Pw.6 Sri L.Arun Kumar Goud, who is the one of mediators for confession panchanama of accused, though he deposed that the accused confessed to have committed this offence, but the police did not recover any material objects basing on the said panchanama. So, the evidence of Pw.6 is no helpful to the case of prosecution.
27.Pw.8 Dr.Vasanth Naik is the Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine,
Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad at the relevant period, has testified that on 08-05-2025 he received requisition from PS Jeedimetla to conduct Potency
Test of the accused on the same day and issued certificate that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual act.
23 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) 28.Pw.4 Dr.P.Shirisha, Assistant Professor, Gandhi Medical College,
Secunderabad, has testified that on 07-05-2025 basing on the requisition by SHO
PS Jeedimetla, she examined the victim girl/Pw.2 and preserved vaginal smears for sending to FSL Hyderabad for medical examination. She further testified that, as per version of Pw.2, she was sexually assaulted two times by her father, once during Ramzan and other during last Friday. She further testified that, on examination she could not find any injuries over the body of Pw.2. Since she has not received FSL report, she has not given any opinion. Pw.4 was cross- examined by the learned legal aid counsel for accused, during cross-examination nothing was elicited to dislodge her evidence, except putting suggestions that she did not examine and did not collect any material from Pw.2.
29.Pw.7 Sri G.Mallesh is the investigating officer has testified that on 06-05- 2025 at about 1.00 p.m. he received a report from Pw.1, basing on the contents of report, he registered a case and investigated into. During course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Pw.1, later he secured the presence of Pw.3/younger daughter of Pw.1 and Lw.4/maternal uncle of the victim and recorded their statements under Section 180 BNSS. Later he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pw.5/J.Mallesh Goud and Lw.6 R.Upendra @ laxmi, later he referred the victim to Gandhi Hospital, 24 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
Secunderabad for medical examination. On 08-05-2025 he apprehended the accused and got conducted potency test of accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand. Pw.7 further testified that Lw.11/Dr.Vasanth Naik conducted age determination test of victim and gave opinion that the age of victim was 14-15 years as on the date of her examination. Later he prepared letter of advice and sent the samples to FSL, Hyderabad which was preserved by medical officer/Pw.4. Later he got recorded the statement of Pw.2 through
Lw.12/X Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal and that, since the FSL report was pending, as such he filed charge sheet against the accused before the court with a request to file FSL report before the court as and when they received. Later he received FSL Report, wherein Sri A.Raja Naik, Assistant Director, Forensic
Science Laboratory, Hyderabad has given opinion that semen and spermatozoa are not detected on item nos. 1 to 7, blood is not detected on item no.7.
30.It is contended by the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused that, the
FSL report under Ex.P7 shows that, semen and spermatozoa are not detected, as such the evidence of Pws. 1 to 4 and 7 is of no significance in the absence of medical evidence regarding the commission of sexual assault on the victim girl/Pw.2.
25 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) 31.Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that, the medical examination of the victim girl/Pw.2 was conducted after lapse of considerable period from the date of commission of rape. So, there is gap of more than four days between committing rape and medical examination of victim girl/Pw.2. As such, there is no possibility to detect the medical evidence of committing rape by the accused towards the victim girl/Pw.2.
32. In Ranjith Hazarika Vs. State of Assam, Crl. Appeal No.190 of 1996
dated 28.02.1996 reported in (1998) 8 SCC 635, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as
follows:- "The mere fact that no injury was found on the private parts of the prosecutrix or her hymen was found to be intact does not belie the statement of the prosecutrix as she nowhere stated that she bled per vagina as a result of the penetration of the penis in her vagina. She was subjected to sexual intercourse in a standing posture and that itself indicates the absence of any injury on her private parts. To constitute the offence of rape, penetration, however slight, is sufficient. The prosecutrix deposed about the performance of sexual intercourse by the appellant and her statement has remained unchallenged in the cross- examination. Neither the non-rupture of the hymen nor the absence of injuries on her private parts, therefore, believes the testimony of the prosecutrix 26 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) particularly when we find that in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, nothing has been brought out to doubt her veracity or to suggest as to why she would falsely implicate the appellant and put her own reputation at stake. The opinion of the doctor that no rape appeared to have been committed was based only on the absence of rupture of the hymen and injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix. This opinion cannot throw out an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecutrix. Besides, the opinion of the doctor appears to be based on "no reasons".
In State of Tamilnadu Vs Raju @ Nehru (2006) 10 SCC 534, wherein it was held that:- "Rape is a crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one." That is the reason why, even the opinion of the doctor that there was no evidence of sexual intercourse or rape is at times held to be not sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of the rape by victim.
In a case of Moti Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1994) SC 1544, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a case under Section 376 of the 27 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
Indian Penal Code referred to the observations made in Rameshwar Vs. The
State of Rajasthan, (1952) AIR 54, (1952) SCR 377., and has observed that "a woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice; that corroboration is not the sine qua for conviction in a rape case; that it is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any evidence including the evidence of a doctor."
In a case of Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs Naval Dubey and Anr. (1992) 3
SCC 204. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after going through the evidence unhesitatingly that the offence committed by the accused was nothing short of rape punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. While arriving at this finding Apex Court extensively referred to medical evidence, which was held to be of an advisory character. It was further held that it is the opinion of an expert and it cannot become opinion of the Court. Hence the medical officer’s conclusion in the case that it was an attempt of rape, given probably on the ground that there was no sign of complete penetration, was held to be not acceptable as to the nature of the offence.
33.In present case on hand, according to the case of the prosecution the accused was committed rape on 03-05-2025, whereas she was examined by the medical officer on 07-05-2025. So, there is a gape of four days to get medical 28 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) examination of victim, as such, there is no chance to find medical evidence to that effect. Therefore in the light of the above decisions and in facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that no such rape was committed by the accused against the victim girl/Pw2. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the accused.
34.So the acts of the accused that were spoken by victim girl/2 along with the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 would attract the offences 65(1), 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m) and 351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(l) and Section 5(n) read with section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with which the accused was charged.
35.The next question to be seen is whether the accused is able to rebut the presumption contained in Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. To decide this question, it is necessary to notice the said Sections and they read as under:
Sec.29: Presumption as to certain offences:- Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.
29 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
Sec.30: Presumption of culpable mental state:- (1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the
Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
Explanation.- In this section, “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
36.From a reading of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, it is obvious that if a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act, the Court shall presume that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved. As per Section 30 of the POCSO Act, in a prosecution for any offence under the Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state and it shall be for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental 30 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) state with respect to the act charged as an offence beyond reasonable doubt and not by mere preponderance of probability.
37.In the instant case, the accused is charged with the offence under Section 5(l) and Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 6 of the said Act. As noticed above, with the evidence of Pw2/victim girl coupled with the evidence of Pws.1 and 3, the prosecution is able to prove that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 5 (l) and Section 5(n) of POCSO Act. This apart, in view of the presumption in section 29 of
POCSO Act, it is presumed that the accused has committed the said offence, unless the contrary is proved and the court shall also presume that the accused has culpable mental state on his part, which he shall disprove beyond reasonable doubt. But, the accused, did not attribute even suggest any motive or grudge to
Pws.1, 3 and Pw.2/victim for filing this case and speaking against him. From the suggestion put to PW1 to 3, the defence of the accused appears to be that there were previous quarrels between Pw.1 and accused, and, therefore, PW1 got foisted this case against him. But, this Court is unable to accept this defence of the accused, as, he did not adduce any evidence in that regard. Further, no woman, because of the quarrels which she had with her husband, would venture to make a false complaint against her husband by putting the respect and 31 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) character of her tender aged and unmarried daughter at a stake. So also, merely because there were some quarrels between her parents, no daughter would make allegations against her father that he committed penetrative sexual assault upon her, unless such thing is happened. It is a well settled law that a woman/victim of sexual assault would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate somebody.
So, the defence of the accused that there were previous quarrels between accused and Pw.1 and, therefore, his wife i.e., PW1, has implicated him in this case cannot be believed. Consequently, it can be said that the accused failed to rebut the presumptions contained in Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.
38.Pw.7 Sri G.Mallesh is the investigating officer, his investigation prove with regard to receiving report from Pw.1, registration of First Information
Report, recording the statements of Pws.1 to 3 and other witnesses, conducting scene of offence panchanama and referring the victim to Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad for medical examination, so also arrest of accused got conducted potency test of accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand.
It is further prove that Lw.11/Dr.Vasanth Naik conducted age determination test of victim and gave opinion that the age of victim was 14-15 years as on the date of her examination, preparation of letter of advice and sent the samples to FSL, 32 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
Hyderabad and got recorded the statement of Pw.2 through Lw.12/X
Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal under Section 183 of BNSS and filing of charge sheet. The accused, except put his suggestions to Pw.7 that he did not visit the scene of offence, did not conduct scene of offence panchanama so also did not examine the witnesses and registration of false case and filed a false charge sheet against the accused and that accused is an innocent and he was falsely implicated, did not elicit anything contra to dislodge his evidence.
39.For the reasons recorded supra, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused being the father of victim/Pw.2 committed rape repeatedly which is punishable under Section 65(1) and 64(2)(f) of BNS, at the time of incident she was aged below 16 years which is punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS and also committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault more than once towards Pw2/victim girl, which is punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and threatened the victim/Pw.2 that if she disclose to anybody about the incident, he would kill her which is punishable under Section 351(2) of BNS. The point
No.s 2 to 7 are, therefore, answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
33 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) 40.Point No.8: To what result?
In view of the findings on point Nos. 2 to 6 the accused is liable to convicted for the offences under Section 65(1), 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m) and 351(2)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(l) and Section 5(n) read with section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with which he is charged, and he is accordingly, convicted for the said offences under
Section 258 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakksha Sanhita 2023.
(Typed by me on my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 1 st day of May, 2026)
Fast Track Special Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Medchal.
41.Heard the accused on quantum of sentence. It is submitted by him that, he did not commit the alleged offence and that he is implicated in this case falsely and that he is in jail for the last about two years and that he has no means to engage an advocate and he is having old age parents, hence, he may let off without imposing any imprisonment. The learned Legal Aid counsel for the accused also requested to show some leniency in imposing the sentence against the accused. But, it is to be noted that the offence alleged and proved against the 34 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) accused is a very cruel and heinous one, as, he raped the victim girl/Pw2 who is his own daughter, who was below 16 years old. So, he does not deserve any leniency in imposing the sentence against him.
42.The punishment prescribed under Section 5(l) , Section 5(n) read with
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, for which the accused is convicted, which is greater in degree to the punishment prescribed under Section 64(2)(f) and
Section 64(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, for which also the accused is convicted. Hence, in view of the principle contained Section 42 of the POCSO
Act, the accused shall be inflicted with the alternative punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 5(l), Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO
Act only and he need not be punished for the offence under Section 64(2)(f) and
Section 64(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023
Re: Compensation to the victim/Pw3:
43.Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act says that in appropriate cases, the
Special Court may, in addition to the punishment, direct payment of such compensation as my be prescribed to the child for any physical or mental trauma caused to him or for immediate rehabilitation of such child, Rule 9(2) of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 says that the Special 35 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
Court may, on its own or on an application filed by or on behalf of the victim, recommend the award of compensation where the accused is convicted, or where the case ends in acquittal or discharge, or the accused is not traced or identified, and the opinion of the Special Court the child has suffered loss or injury as a result of that the offence.
44.The victim girl/Pw2 was below 16 years old at the time of incident and that the act committed upon the victim girl/Pw2 by the accused, who is her own father, must have caused unbearable physical pain and mental trauma to her. The physical and mental agony suffered by victim girl/Pw2 cannot be compensated in terms of money. Further, the mother of the victim girl/Pw2, being the maidservant and it appears that she is not even in a position to provide food, clothing and shelter, etc., to the victim girl/Pw2. So, having regard to the nature of offence committed upon the victim girl/Pw2 and also having regard to the social status and financial condition of her family, this Court considers it appropriate to recommend to the District Legal Services Authority, Medchal-
Malkajgiri District, to award a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to her, which, in the opinion of this Court, would provide some succour to her in times of hardship and distress.
36 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
45. In the result, the accused is convicted for the offences under Section 351(2), 65(1), 64(2)(f) and 64(2)(m) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(l) and Section 5(n) read with section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, under Section 258 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita 2023, and sentenced to undergo;
(a) rigorous imprisonment for TWO years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for SIX months for the offence under Section 351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; and
(b) rigorous imprisonment for TWENTY years and pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for SIX months for the offence under Section 65(1) Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita; and
c)rigorous imprisonment for TWENTY years and pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for ONE year for the offence under Section 5 (l) read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act; and
d)rigorous imprisonment for TWENTY years and pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment 37 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy) for ONE year for the offence under Section 5 (n) read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act.
In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, no separate punishment is being imposed against the accused for the offence under Section 64(2)(f) and Section 64(2)(m) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The substantial sentences of imprisonment imposed against the accused shall run concurrently. The fine amount of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirthy thousands only) imposed against the accused for the offences under Section 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 5(l), Section 5(n) read with
Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 shall be paid to the victim girl/Pw.2 to meet medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim girl/Pw.2.
The accused is in jail since 09-05-2025 to till date i.e., 01.05.2026 shall be set off as per Section 468 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita against the substantial sentences of imprisonment imposed against him.
The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment and the availability of the free legal aid.
A free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused as required under
Section 404 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
38 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
This court recommends to the District Legal Services Authority, Medchal-
Malkajgiri District, to award a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the victim/Pw2 from and out of the victim compensation fund within one month from the date of receipt of this copy of this judgment.
(Typed by me on my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 1 st day of May, 2026).
Fast Track Special Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Medchal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(Witnesses examined)
For the prosecution:
PW1: Mother of the victim PW2: Victim girl. PW3: Younger sister of victim. PW4: Dr. P.Shirisha, who examined the victim. PW.5: Sri J.Mallesh Goud(Panch for Crime Details Form). Pw.6 : Sri L.Arun Kumar Goud(Mediator for confession panchanama) . PW7: Sri G.Mallesh(Investigating Officer). PW8: Dr.Vasanth Naik(conducted age determination of victim and potency test of accused)
For the defence: - NIL - 39 of 39 SPL.S.C.No. 225 of 2025 (Fair Copy)
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the prosecution: Ex.P1: Police Report given by Pw.1//mother of victim. Ex.P2: Medical Examination report of victim girl/Pw.2 given by Pw.4. Ex.P3:Crime Details Form. Ex.P4: First Information Report. Ex.P5: Potency Test certificate of accused issued by Pw.8. Ex.P6: Age Determination certificate of the victim girl/Pw.2 issued by Pw.8 Ex.P7: FSL Report.
For the defence: -NIL-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
Fast Track Special Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Medchal.