S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, SPECIAL FAST TRACK SESSIONS
COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRAIL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT
CASES, NALGONDA
Present: Sri. Kulkarni Vishwanath Dilip Rao
Judge, Special Fast Track Sessions
Court for Expeditious Trail & Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases Nalgonda
(Dated this the 30 th day of April, 2026)
…
S.C.POCSO No. 37 of 2019 (In Crime No. 62 of 2018 under section 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 9(n) r/w. 10 of POCSO Act against the accused)
Name of the Complainant:The State of Telangana through the Sub Inspector of police officer, Narkatpally.
Names of the accused :Pallapu Durga Prasad, S/o. Nageshwar Rao, Age: 26 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ. Tractor Driver, R/o. Nehrunagar, Macherla, Guntur Dist. Andhra Pradesh.
Offences Charged with :Under Section 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, section 9(n) r/w. Sec. 10 of Protection of children from Sexual Offence Act-2012.
Crime No. & P.S62/2018, Narkatpally.
Plea of accused :Not guilty
Finding the Court :Found guilty for the offences under section 506 Indian Penal Code and section 9(n) read with section 10 POCSO Act-2012. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found
Page 1 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
guilty for the offences punishable un- der section 506 Indian Penal Code and
Section 9(n) read with section 10 of
POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly the ac- cused is convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the afore said of- fences. The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable un- der section 504 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted U/
Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said of- fence. Considering the facts and cir- cumstances of the case and the na- ture of offence committed and consid- ering the submissions made by the accused, to meet ends of justice, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rig- orous Imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and also to pay fine of
Rs.2000/- (Two thousand only) for the offence under section 506 Indian
Penal Code and in default of payment
Page 2 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The ac- cused further sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment of five (5) years and also to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees TWO Thousand only) which is to be paid to victim girl and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence
U/Sec.9(n) read with section 10 of
POCSO Act, 2012. Both the sen- tences shall run concurrently. Total fine amount of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four
Thousand Only). The remand period undergone by the accused shall be given set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
The accused had been in judicial cus- tody from 28-02-2019 to 25-03-2019 and from 07-03-2026 till date. The ac- cused informed of his right to appeal to the Hon'ble High Court and he is
Page 3 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
also furnished with free copy of this
Judgment. He is also informed that he can take assistance of Legal Services
Authority in case he is not able to en- gage advocate.
Prosecution conducted Sri. V. Ranjith Kumar, Spl. Public by :Prosecutor Name of the counsel for Sri. N. Bheemarjun Reddy, Cheif Legal accused :Aid defence counsel for the accused.
This case is coming before me for the final hearing on 09-04-2026 in the presence of Sri. V. Ranjith Kumar, Special Public prosecutor for the state and Sri. N. Bheemarjun Reddy, Cheif Legal Aid defence counsel
for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till
this day, this Court made the following:
JUDGMENT
1)This case arises from the charge sheet filed by Sub-Inspector of police, Narkatpally in Crime No. 62 of 2018 under section 504, 506 In- dian Penal code and section 9(n) read with section 10 Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act-2012 against the accused.
2) The brief facts of the prosecution’s case are that on 21-04-2018, at 12:00 hours PW2/mother of victim girl/complainant came to the po- lice station and lodged report Ex.P1 stating that twenty years ago her marriage was performed with one Upputhala Guruvulu and she has two daughters. About fifteen years back her husband Guruvulu died in road accident, then she along with her daughters came to her
Page 4 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
parental house at Nagarjuna Sagar and resided there. PW2/com- plainant further stated that about eight years ago she got married with the accused here in i.e. Pallapu Durga Prasad and about one year back she along with the accused and her second daughter/PW1/vic- tim girl migrated to Kondapakonigudem village where they were work- ing at the poultry form of one Valiki Bharath. PW2/complainant fur- ther stated that on 20/04/2018 at about 07:30 hours, her husband
Durga Prasad along with her second daughter/PW1/victim girl aged 14 years left the poultry form on bike to get eggs and when they reached the outskirts of Kondapakagudem village near the railway tracks, her husband the accused stopped the bike with an intention to fulfill his sexual lust with PW1/victim girl. Accused threatened PW1/ victim girl with death and caught hold of her hand, forcibly dragged her into the thorny bushes, slapped her and attempted to remove her pants to commit rape, anyhow her daughter/PW1/victim girl escaped from the clutches of the accused and informed the matter to her.
PW2/complainant also stated that as it was late in the night she could not lodge the report on the same day and lodged it on the next day and requested to initiate action against the accused as per law.
3) Basing upon the police report Ex.P1, PW8/K.Goverdhan, Sub-In- spector of police, Narkatpally police station registered a case in Cr.No.
62 of 2018 under section 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and under sec-
Page 5 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
tion 9(n) read with section 10 Protection of Children from Sexual of- fences Act 2012 against the accused and took up the investigation into the case by sending copies of FIR Ex.P5 to all concerned.
4) During the course of investigation, PW8 examined and recorded the statement of PW2/mother of victim girl in detail in part II Case Diary.
Later he filed a requisition to PW6/L. Vijaya Bai, woman Sub-Inspector of police, DCRB, Nalgonda with a request to record the statement of
PW2/victim girl under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. Accord- ingly PW6 examined and recorded the statement of PW1/victim girl under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which PW1/victim girl disclosed that her step father i.e. the accused caught hold of her hand and dragged her into the thorny bushes and asked her to fulfill his sexual desire, fur- ther accused kissed her on checks and tried to remove her pants, on which she made hues and cries but accused slapped her, abused her and threatened to kill her if she refused to cooperate with him. While the accused attempted to commit rape on her, she escaped from his clutches.
5) Further PW10 examined and recorded the statements of PW4,
LW4/V.Mohan and LW5/A.Manamma who are the circumstantial wit- nesses. Later PW10 visited scene of offence situated near the agricul- tural well of Jangili Venkanna, besides the railways tracks at the out- skirts of Kondapakonigudem village of Narkatpally mandal, observed
Page 6 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P4 in presence of mediators
PW5/K.Swamy and LW8/P.Praveen.
6) Thereafter PW7/D.Vijay Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police, Narkat- pally took up the further investigation into the case after verifying the investigation done by PW8. PW7 filed a requisition with PW3/
P.Sheshu, Head Master, Sri Vemuru Venkateshwara Government High
School, Pailan, Nagarjuna Sagar, Nalgonda requesting him to furnish date of birth certificate of PW1/victim girl and accordingly PW3 fur- nished “study and conduct certificate” i.e. Ex.P2 mentioning the date of birth of PW1/victim girl as 10/05/2005 and according to Ex.P2 the age of PW1/victim girl as on the date of offence was 13 years 9 months and 18 days, further PW7 examined and recorded the statement of
PW3 in detail in part II Case Diary.
7) While the investigation was in progress on 28-02-2019 at 4:00 AM on receipt of credible information regarding the presence of accused at
Macherla, PW7 along with his staff rushed to Macherla, Guntur Dis- trict and apprehended the accused from his house at 06:30 hours and upon inquiry accused voluntarily admitted his guilt. Further PW7 brought the accused to police station, Narkatpally at 11:00 hours on 28-02-2019, issued arrest memo by explaining the grounds of arrest to the accused. Further PW7 served notices under section 50(1)
Page 7 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
Cr.P.C. to the accused and his younger brother Pallepu Shiva by strictly following the guide lines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard. Then the accused was sent to Government Head Quar- ters Hospital, for medical examination. Thereafter accused was pro- duced before the court seeking his judicial remand on the same day.
Upon completion PW7 filed charge sheet against the accused.
8) It is alleged in the charge sheet that the marriage of PW2/com- plainant/mother of victim girl was performed with one Upputhala Gu- ruvulu @ Guruvaiah resident of Macherala town of Guntur District about twenty years ago and they are blessed with two daughters. It is further alleged that about fifteen years back the husband of PW2/ complainant Upputhala Guruvulu @ Guruvaiah died in road accident and after that PW2/complainant along with her two daughters came to her parental home at Nagarjuna Sagar and had been residing there.
At about eight years back PW2/complainant remarried to the accused and about one year back PW2 along with her daughter/PW1/victim girl and the accused migrated to Kondapakonigudem village and started working at the poultry form of one Valiki Bharath. During that time the accused had his eyes on PW2/victim girl and was waiting for a chance. On observing the same PW2/complainant admonished the accused as not to harm PW1/victim girl. On 20-04-2018 at about 07:30 hours in the evening accused told PW2 that he along with PW1
Page 8 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
going to Narkatpally to get eggs and made PW1 board his bike bearing registration No. AP-07-TA-7880 and left the form. On the way when they reached railway tracks besides the agricultural well of Jeniga venkanna, the accused stopped motorcycle and caught hold of the hand of PW1/victim girl, dragged her to thorny bushes and asked her to fulfill his sexual lust, kissed her on cheeks and attempted to remove her pants, on which PW1 made hues and cries but the accused slapped her and threatened to kill her if PW1/victim girl did not coop- erate with him. While the accused was attempting to commit rape on
PW2, she escaped and reached PW3, LW4 and LW5 and informed the same to them. Hence the charge.
9) Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda took cognizance of the offences under section 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and section 9(n) read with section 10, Protection of Children from Sex- ual offences Act-2012 against the accused and after numbering the case as SC (POCSO) No. 37 of 2019 made it over to this Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law.
10) Upon appearance of the accused before this Court, the accused was duly furnished with the copies of case papers and documents in compliance with section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.
11) Further after considering material on record and after hearing learned Special Public prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused
Page 9 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
charges under section 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and section 9(n) read with section 10, Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act- 2012 were framed against the accused. Charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu in compliance with section 228(2)
Criminal Procedure code. Accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
12) To prove its case against the accused, prosecution on its behalf ex- amined witnesses PW1 to PW8 and got marked documents Ex. P.1 to
P.5.
13) Prosecution has given up the evidence of LW4/Vadithya Mohan,
LW5/Apoor Mangamma the circumstantial witnesses and LW8/Pol- goni Praveen one of the mediators and panch witnesses of scene of of- fence panchnama.
14) After the closure of prosecution’s evidence accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by putting to him the in- criminating material found in the testimonies of prosecution’s wit- nesses. Accused denied the same as untrue and false. Accused further stated that PW2/mother of victim girl is not his wife and PW2 filed this false case against him, to avoid repayment of lone of rupees one lakh twenty five thousand which he lent to PW2. Accused reported no de- fense evidence on his behalf.
15) Heard both sides.
Page 10 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
16) The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended in this case, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution supported the case of the prosecution and the evidence of PW1 to PW8 and documents Ex.P1 to
P5 clearly established the guilt of the accused for the offences he is charged with beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned prosecutor also contended that the prosecution through the evidence of PW3 cou- pled with Ex.P2 successfully proved that PW1/victim girl was a minor as on the date of offence. Therefore, prayed the Court to punish the accused in accordance with law.
17) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused contended that there are contradictions, improvements and omissions in the evi- dence of PW1, PW2 and PW4, therefore their evidence cannot be be- lieved and accepted. PW2 is the mother, PW1 is the victim, PW4 is the circumstantial witness and all are interested witnesses, therefore, their evidence cannot be taken into consideration. Learned defense counsel pointed out that there is a delay of one whole day in lodging the police report which clearly shows that PW2 lodged a false report against the accused to settle personal scores and the police report is an afterthought of PW2/mother of victim girl. Learned Chief Legal Aid
Defense Counsel also submitted that the prosecution did not examine
LW4, and LW5 and non examination of LW4 and LW5 is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The learned defense counsel also contended
Page 11 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
that the accused is neither the husband of PW2/mother of victim girl nor the step father of PW1/victim girl and the accused has nothing to do with them. The learned defense counsel further submitted that the accused had lent a sum of rupees one lakh and twenty five thousand to PW2/mother of victim girl and when the accused demanded the re- payment of the loan; to avoid the repayment PW2 foisted this false case against the accused using her daughter/PW1. Learned defense aid counsel further contended that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him beyond all rea- sonable doubt as such, prayed the Court to acquit the accused by ex- tending him the benefit of doubt.
18) Now the point for consideration is:
1. “Whether the prosecution proved that the victim
girl ‘Child’ was minor within the meaning of Section
2(d) of POCSO Act as on the date of offence?”
2. “Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt
of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.504
and 506 of IPC and Section 9(n) r/w.10 of POCSO Act,
2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT 1:
19) The burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the victim girl was child/minor within the meaning of Section 2(d) of POCSO Act,
Page 12 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
2012 at the time of alleged incident. In order to prove the same, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW3 and Ex.P2.
20) PW3/P.SHESHU Head Master, SVAR Government Model High
School where PW1/victim girl undergone her schooling supported the case of prosecution and testified that on the receipt of requisition from Station House Officer, police station, Narkatpally, he after verify- ing the school records issued “Study and Conduct Certificate” i.e.
Ex.P2 pertaining to PW1/victim girl. PW3 further deposed that PW1/ victim girl pursued class VI in his school in the year 2015-2016 and as per admission register her date of birth is 10-05-2005. PW3 also stated that he was examined and his statement was recorded by the police.
21) Learned defense aid counsel appearing on the behalf of the ac- cused cross examined PW3 and in the cross examination PW3 admit- ted that he had not produced original admission register before the court. But PW3 categorically denied the suggestion offered to him by the learned defense counsel suggesting that PW1/victim girl never studied in his school and he issued Ex.P2 on the instruction of police and he is deposing false as untrue and false.
22) Despite cross examining PW3, defense failed to elicit anything sub- stantial and worthwhile in the cross examination of PW3 to show that the testimony of PW3 vague and unbelievable. Throughout the cross
Page 13 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
examination PW3 stood to the statement he made in his chief exami- nation. Moreover the learned defense aid counsel did not even suggest to PW3 that PW1/victim girl was not a minor at the relevant time which goes to show that defense is not disputing the minority of
PW1/victim girl at the time of alleged incident as such the testimony of PW3 coupled with Ex.P2 sufficiently proves that PW1/victim girl was indeed a minor (a child) within the meaning of section 2(d) of Pro- tection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Accordingly the point is answered in the favour of prosecution and against the accused.
POINT 2:
23) Prosecution alleged that on 20.04.2018 at about 07:30 hours, ac- cused threatened PW1/victim girl with death, caught hold of her hand, dragged her into the nearby thorny bushes, assaulted her sex- ually, touched her body and also attempted to commit rape on her by attempting to remove her pants forcibly.
24) Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused for the sec- tions charged against him relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW8 and
Ex.P1 to P5.
25) PW1 is the victim girl, an eye witness against whom the offence had allegedly been committed, PW2 is mother of victim girl a circum- stantial witness, PW3 is the Head Master of the concerned school where PW1 underwent schooling and who issued Ex.P2 (Study and
Page 14 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
Conduct certificate of PW1), PW4/T.Yellaiah is a circumstantial wit- ness, PW5/K.Swamy is one of the mediators and panch witness of scene of offence panchnama, PW6/Vijja Bai is the woman police officer who examined and recorded the statement of PW1/victim girl under section 161 Cr.P.C., PW7/D.Vijay kumar is the second investigating officer who filed charge sheet against the accused and PW8/K. Goverd- han is the first investigation officer who receied the report and issued
FIR.
26) Exhibit P1 is police report, Exhibit P2 is study and conduct certifi- cate pertaining to PW1/victim girl, Exhibit P3 scene of offence panch- nama, Exhibit P4 is rough sketch of scene of offence and Exhibit P5 is
FIR.
27) PW1/VICTIM GIRL an eye witness and against whom the offence had allegedly been committed supported the case of prosecution and testified that in the year 2018, she was 14 years old and she studied up to class VII. PW1 further deposed that she has a sister and after passing of her father Guruvulu, her mother PW2/complainant remar- ried with the accused and after their marriage her sister was staying at the house of her grandmother and she was staying with her mother/PW2 and the accused at Kondapakagudem. PW2 further de- posed that during that period her mother/PW2 and the accused were working in poultry form. PW1 also stated that on 20-04-2018 at about
Page 15 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
7:30 PM her mother/PW2 asked her to purchase eggs, then the ac- cused took her on his motorbike and they proceeded towards Narkat- pally; while on the way to Narkatpally, accused turned the vehicle to- wards railway tracks and after some distance stopped the vehicle and asked her to get down by stating that he had to attend call of nature.
Then the accused dragged her into nearby bushes and as she started raising hues and cries, the accused beat her mercilessly, kissed her, threatened to kill her and attempted to remove her pants. Then she shown her hand on which she received injury with thorn; on that ac- cused left her and she ran away from that place to nearby poultry form where PW4, LW4 and LW5 were present and narrated the inci- dent to them. PW1 further stated that LW5/A.Manamma gave her pant and she wore it, then they took her to her mother, the owner of the poultry form by name Bharath also came there and they all searched for the accused but could not find him as he absconded on his motorcycle. PW1 finally stated that on the next day she along with her mother/PW2 went to police station, Narkatpally where her mother/PW2 filed a police report against the accused and police ex- amined her and recorded her statement.
28) Learned defense aid counsel for the accused cross examined PW1 at length. In the cross examination PW1 stated that she does not re- member at what time they reached the place of offence but added that
Page 16 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
they started from the house at 7:30 PM. Further PW1 categorically de- nied the suggestions offered to her by the learned defense counsel suggesting her that she did not state before the police that she re- ceived injuries with a thorn and LW5/A.Manemma had given her a pant as untrue and false.
29) PW1 also categorically denied the suggestion offered to her by the learned defense counsel suggesting that her mother/PW2 never mar- ried the accused and they are not having any marital relationship as untrue and false. Most importantly PW1 categorically and unequivo- cally denied the suggestion offered to her suggesting that her mother/PW2 was due of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the accused and to evade the repayment of the same, her mother/PW2 filed this false case against the accused and she was deposing false at the instance of her mother/PW2 as untrue and false.
30) PW1 also denied the suggestion offered to her suggesting that the accused never took her to any place on his motorcycle and never com- mitted any offence against her and he never beat her, kissed her, at- tempted to remove her pant and never threatened to kill her and the accused is innocent as untrue and false. Apart from afore mentioned suggestions many other suggestions were made to PW1 by the learned defense aid counsel, which were categorically denied by PW1 as un- true and false.
Page 17 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
31) Despite cross examining PW1 extensively, defense failed elicit any- thing substantial and worthwhile in her cross examination as to ren- der the testimony of PW1 vague, inconsistent, ambiguous and unbe- lievable. Apart from offering suggestions and minor omissions nothing had been elicited in the cross examination of PW1. Even during the cross examination PW1 stood to her statement she made in the chief examination. PW1 entirely supported the case of prosecution and the testimony of PW1 corroborates with the testimony of PW2 as far as the lodging of police report by PW2 against the accused is concerned.
32) PW2/MOTHER OF VICTIM GIRL a circumstantial witness sup- ported the case of prosecution and deposed that Guruvulu was her first husband and she has two daughters. PW2 further deposed that after the death of her first husband at about eight years back, she married the accused and then she along with the accused started working at poultry form of Bharath at Kondapakagudem. PW1 further stated that when she joined the accused with PW1 at Kondapakagu- dem, PW1 was 14 years of age.
33) PW2 further deposed that about 7 years ago during evening hours the accused took PW1 along with him to purchase eggs from the mar- ket and at 8:00 PM some persons came to her house along with PW1 and then PW1 informed her that that the accused took her on his mo- torcycle on railway tracks, dragged her to the nearby bushes, removed
Page 18 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
her pant, beat her and kissed her then she started crying and shout- ing. PW2 further stated that thereafter PW1 by showing injury on her hand ran away from that place and hid in a poultry form and on see- ing PW1, the persons present their provided her a pant and brought
PW1 to her house. PW2 also stated that PW1 informed her that ac- cused threatened to kill her and PW1 was shivering due to fear. Then they searched for the accused till 01:00 AM in the mid night but could not find him as the accused absconded on his motorcycle. PW2 finally deposed that on the next day she took her daughter/PW1 to police sta- tion Narketpally and filed a report Ex.P1 against the accused. PW2 also stated that Police examined her and recorded her statement.
34) Learned chief legal aid defense counsel cross examined PW2 at length. In the cross examination PW1 deposed that one known person scribed Ex.P1 and she went to the police station in the morning hours of 21-04-2018 and filed report before the police. PW2 further deposed that her statement was recorded by the police on the same day. Most importantly PW2 admitted that she did not handover any document in proof of her marriage with the accused. PW2 also admitted that she is 40 years of age and the accused is 26 years of age and the accused is 14 years younger to her. But PW2 categorically and unequivocally de- nied the suggestion offered to her by the learned defense counsel sug-
Page 19 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
gesting that she never married to the accused and the accused is not her husband as untrue and false.
35) PW2 also denied the suggestion offered to her by the learned de- fense counsel suggesting that she and the accused were acquainted as they were working at the poultry form and she borrowed rupees 1,20,000/- from the accused as untrue and false. PW2 also denied that as she did not repay the afore mentioned amount to the accused, a quarrel took place between them and she filed this false complaint against the accused to evade the repayment of Rs.1,20,000/- to the accused as untrue and false. Apart from afore going suggestions, many other suggestions were offered to PW2 by the learned defense counsel, which were categorically denied by PW2 as untrue and false.
PW2 also denied that she did not state before the police that PW1 re- ceived injuries on her person.
36) Despite cross examining PW2 at length defense could not elicit anything substantial and worthwhile in the cross examination of PW2 as to render her testimony vague and unbelievable. The learned de- fense counsel even did not suggest to PW2 that she along with her daughter PW1 never resided with the accused at the poultry form.
PW2 supported the case of prosecution and testimony of PW2 corrobo- rated with the contents of Ex.P1 police report. The testimony of PW1
Page 20 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
also corroborated with testimony of PW8 as far as the lodging to police report against the accused is concerned.
37) PW4/T.YELLAIAH a circumstantial witness supported the case of prosecution and deposed that at about seven years ago the daughter of PW2 that is victim girl/PW1 came to the poultry form of Rudra
Reddy where he was attending his work. PW4 further deposed that the father of the victim girl took her to nearby bushes under the guise of purchasing eggs and the victim came to poultry form and was crying.
Then he called the mother of victim who came their and took the vic- tim along with her. PW4 also stated that he was examined and his statement was recorded by the police.
38) Learned Chief legal aid defense counsel cross examined PW4 and in the cross examination PW4 deposed that he does not remember the date and month of the allege incident. PW4 further stated that he came to know that the name of the father of victim is Durgaprasad and he does not know the name of the victim. PW4 also stated that he stated before the police that the mother of victim took the victim along with her. However PW4 categorically and unequivocally denied the suggestions offered to him by the defense counsel suggesting that the victim girl/PW1 never came to the poultry form and did not state any- thing to him and he is deposing false at the instance of mother of
PW1/victim girl as untrue and false. PW4 also denied the suggestion
Page 21 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
that Durgaprasad is not the father of PW1/victim girl and the accused never took PW1/victim girl to thorny bushes under the pretext of pur- chasing eggs as untrue and false.
39)Despite cross examining PW4 extensively, defense could not able to elicit anything in the cross examination of PW4 to render the testi- mony of PW4 unbelievable and vague. Apart from minor contradictions
PW4 cogently supported the case of prosecution and the testimony of
PW4 corroborated with the testimony of PW1 as far as PW1 approach- ing PW4 at the poultry form after the incident is concerned.
40) PW5/K.SWAMY one of the mediators and panch witnesses of scene of offence panchnama supported the case of prosecution and deposed that about seven years ago police conducted scene of offence panchnama Ex.P3 in his presence and in the presence of LW8/
Praveen at railway track, Kondapaka village. PW5 further deposed that at that time one mother and daughter were present and upon inquiry they informed us that one person attempted to commit rape on victim girl. PW5 further deposed that police also drafted rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P4.
41) Learned defense counsel cross examined PW5 and in cross exami- nation PW5 deposed that he himself went to the scene of offence on seeing the police at scene of offence and at the time of panchnama along with him, LW8/Praveen, victim girl and her mother were
Page 22 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
present. PW5 further stated that panchanama was prepared in the af- ternoon but he cannot remember the date on which panchnama was conducted. PW5 further stated that the writer scribed the panchnama and prepared the rough sketch and the land belonged to Jangili
Venkanna.
42) Learned defense counsel cross examined PW5 and offered various suggestions to PW5. PW5 categorically and unequivocally denied the suggestion offered to him by learned defense counsel suggesting that no panchanam and rough sketch of scene of offence is prepared in his presence and PW1 and her mother were not present as untrue and false. PW5 also denied that PW1 and PW2 did not inform anything re- garding the offence to him and he signed on blank papers at police station as untrue and false. As it can be seen PW5 even during his cross examination remained consistent and supported the case of prosecution. Defense could not elicit anything as to show the testi- mony of PW5 is not trustworthy and believable. The testimony of PW5 corroborated with testimony of PW8 the investigating officer as far as the conduction of scene of offence panchnama and drawing of rough sketch of scene of offence by the police is concerned.
43) PW6/VIJA BAI the woman police officer who examined PW1/vic- tim girl and recorded her statement under section 161 Criminal proce- dure Code supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that on
Page 23 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
21-04-2018 on the instructions of investigation officer, she proceeded to the house of PW1/victim girl and recorded her statement under sec- tion 161 Cr.P.C. in the presence of PW2/mother of victim girl and thereafter she handed over the statement to investigating officer.
Learned defense counsel for the accused cross examined PW6 and of- fered her a suggestion suggesting that victim did not give any state- ment to her and the statement was prepared by her which was cate- gorically denied by PW6 as untrue and false. Defense failed to elicit anything substantial in the cross examination PW6 as to render the testimony of PW6 as unbelievable and untrustworthy. PW6 throughout her examination supported the case of prosecution and the testimony of PW6 corroborated with the testimony of PW8 the investigating offi- cer as far as recording of statement of PW1/victim girl through PW6 under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code is concerned.
44) PW7/D.VIJAY KUMAR the second investigating officer who filed charge sheet against the accused supported the case of prosecution and deposed that on 21-04-2018 PW8 received a complaint from PW2 and registered a case in Cr.No. 62 of 2018 and issued FIR Ex.P5. PW7 further deposed that PW8 also recorded the statements of witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchnama. Thereafter he took up in- vestigation in this case and on 28-02-2019 arrested the accused and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. PW7 further de-
Page 24 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
posed that upon completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.
45) Learned counsel for the accused cross examined PW7 and in the cross examination PW7 admitted that there was a delay of one day in lodging FIR but added that there was no delay as the offence occurred during the early hours and report was filed during morning hours.
PW7 further stated that the distance between the scene of offence in this case and police station is about 3 kilometers. PW7 further de- posed that he did not collect any document to show that PW2 married to the accused. PW7 admitted that as per the investigation PW2 is el- der to the accused and there is a gap of 14 years between them. PW7 admitted that he did not collect the death certificate of first husband of PW2.
46) PW7 categorically and unequivocally denied the suggestion offered by the learned defense counsel suggesting that PW1 did not peruse studies at any school and Ex.P2 is created for the purpose of this case as untrue and false. PW7 also denied the suggestion that PW1 was major and her age was 18 years as on the date of alleged offence as untrue and false. PW7 also denied the suggestion that PW1 did not state to him that the accused beat her and she sustained injuries as untrue and false. PW7 admitted that PW1 did not mention the names of LW4 and LW5 in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Apart
Page 25 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
from the afore mentioned suggestions many other suggestions were offered to PW7 by the learned Chief legal aid defense counsel which were categorically and unequivocally denied by PW7 as untrue and false.
47) Despite cross examining PW7 at length, defense could not be able to point out or elicit anything substantial as to render the testimony of
PW1 untrustworthy and unbelievable. The testimony of PW7 corrobo- rated with the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 as far as the lodging of po- lice report by PW2 and basing upon the report issuance of FIR is con- cerned. Testimony of PW7 corroborated with the testimony of PW3 as far as issuance of Ex.P2 (Study and Conduct Certificate) pertaining to
PW/victim girl is concerned. The testimony of PW7 corroborated with the testimony of PW5 as far as the conduction of scene of offence panchnama by the police is concerned.
48) PW8/K.GOVERDHAN the first investigation officer who issued the
FIR Ex.P5 and undertook the initial investigation of the case sup- ported the case of prosecution and testified that on 21-04-2018 he re- ceived a complaint from PW2 and registered a case in Cr.No. 62 of 2019 for the offences under section 504, 506 of IPC and section 9(l)(m)
(n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act and issued FIR Ex.P5. PW8 fur- ther deposed that he examined and recorded the statements of PW2,
PW4, LW4 and LW5 and got recorded the statement of PW1 through
Page 26 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
PW6. PW8 also deposed that he proceeded to scene of offence and con- ducted scene of offence panchnama in presence of PW5 and LW8. PW8 finally stated that upon his transfer he handed over the CD file to PW7 for further investigation.
49) Learned counsel for the accused cross examined PW8 extensively and in the cross examination PW8 admitted that the distance of scene of offence from police station, Narkatpally is three kilometers. PW8 further deposed that he is the scribe of scene of offence panchnama.
PW8 admitted that he did not collect any document in proof of the marriage of PW2 with the accused. PW8 also admitted that the ac- cused is 14 years younger to Pw2 but categorically denied the sugges- tion offered to him by the learned defense counsel suggesting that the accused is not the husband of PW2 as untrue and false.
50)PW8 further stated that PW1 stated before him that the accused tried to remove his pant but did not state that accused removed the pant. PW8 further denied the suggestion offered by learned defense counsel suggesting that LW5 did not provide any pant to the victim as untrue and false. PW8 also denied the suggestion that PW1 did not state to him that she received injuries and she gone to poultry form and was rescued by the people there as untrue and false. Apart from afore gone suggestion various other suggestions suggesting many
Page 27 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
things were offered by the learned defense counsel to PW8, but PW8 categorically and unequivocally denied them as untrue and false.
51) Through the cross examination of PW8 defense elicited that PW8, during the course of investigation did not collect any proof or docu- ment showing that PW2 is indeed a legally wedded wife of accused.
Apart from eliciting of lack of evidence to prove the alleged marriage between PW2 and accused, defense could not establish anything as to disbelieve the testimony of PW8. Testimony of PW8 corroborated with all other witnesses as far as his role in the investigation is concerned.
52) Now under the light of the above evidence lead by the prosecution,
Court has to decide whether the prosecution could able to establish the foundational facts of the case against the accused and could able to prove guilt of the accused for the offences he is charged with.
53) The accused has been charged with the offences under section 504, 506 Indian Penal code and section 9(n) read with section 10 of protection of Children from Sexual offences Act.
54) Section 503 Indian Penal Code defines criminal intimidation and reads asunder:
“503. Criminal Intimidation:Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with an 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
Page 28 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding this execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation: A threat to injure reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
Illustration
A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house, A is guilty of criminal intimidation.”
55) Section 504 Indian Penal Code provides punishment for inten- tional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace and reads as under:
“504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace:
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, in- tending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with impris- onment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.”
56) Section 506 Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for criminal intimidation and reads as under:
“Section 506: punishment for criminal intimidation: Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Page 29 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc: And if the threat be to cause death, or grievous hurt, or to cause an offence punishable with death, or imprisonment of life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punishable with imprison- ment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine, or with both.”
57) Section 9 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act de- fines aggravated sexual assault and section 9(n) of POCSO Act reads as under:
“9(n) Whoever, being a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care, or having domestic relationship with a parent of the child, or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits sexual assault on such child;”
58) Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act pro- vides punishment for the offence of aggravated sexual assault and reads as under:
“10.Punishment for aggravated sexual assault: Whoever, commits aggra- vated sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
59) The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that in this case, all the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence
Page 30 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
of PW1 to PW8, Ex.P1 to P5 proves and establishes the guilt of the ac- cused beyond all reasonable doubt.
60) Whereas the defense of accused is that, he is not the husband of
PW2/mother of victim girl as alleged and as he demanded PW2 to re- pay lone of Rs.1,25,000/- which was lent by him to PW2/mother of the victim girl, PW2 to avoid the repayment of the loan foisted this false case against the him using her daughter/PW1.
61) From the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW4 it is well established and proved that PW1 is the daughter of PW2 and on 20-04-2018
PW1/victim girl boarded the motorcycle of accused and went along with him to get eggs from the market. Furthermore from the testi- monies of PW1 and PW3 it is established and proved that the accused on 20-04-2018 at 07:30 PM while on the way to Narkatpally along with PW1/victim girl, diverted his motorcycle towards the agricultural well situated near the railway tracks and under the guise of attending nature’s call made PW1/victim girl to get down from his bike, there- after held PW1/victim girl by her hand and dragged her towards the bushes with an intention to commit sexual assault on her. It is also proved that accused kissed PW1/victim girl and attempted to remove her pants under the threat of killing her.
62) From the testimony of PW4 it is proved and established that PW1 after escaping the clutches of the accused, ran towards the poultry
Page 31 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
form of one Rudra Reddy where PW4 was working and upon reaching their PW1 narrated the incident to PW4 who later took PW1/victim girl to her mother/PW2. The evidence of PW2/mother of victim girl reveals that she along with other searched for the accused in the night of 20- 04-2018 but could not trace him and on the next day she lodged a re- port Ex.P1 with the police against the accused. PW2 supported the contents of Ex.P1 the police report.
63) Evidence of PW8 the first investigating officer reveals that on the basis of Ex.P1 lodged by PW2/mother of victim girl he registered a case against the accused and issued FIR Ex.P5. The testimonies of
PW1 to PW4 reveals that after issuing FIR, PW8 undertook the investi- gation into the case and during the course of investigation examined and recorded the statements of PW2, PW3 and PW4 under section 161
Criminal Procedure code. From the testimony of PW5 one of the medi- ator of scene of offence panchnama it is clear that PW8 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchnama Ex.P3 and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P4. The testimonies of PW1 and PW6 corroborated with the testimony of PW7 and proved that upon the instructions of PW8, PW6 examined and recorded the state- ment of PW1/victim girl under section 161 Criminal procedure code.
The testimonies of PW1 to PW6 establish and prove the investigation done by PW7 and PW8 the respective investigating officers in this case
Page 32 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
and subsequent filing of charge sheet against the accused upon com- pletion of investigation.
64) The learned counsel for the accused contended that the testimony of PW1/victim girl is full of contradictions and omissions therefore cannot be believed and acted upon. The learned defense counsel fur- ther contended that PW1/victim girl constantly improved upon her statement and deposed certain things before the Court which were not mentioned in her earlier statements as such the testimony of PW1 is wavering and not worthy of consideration. The learned defense coun- sel pointed out that PW1 did not state regarding sustaining alleged thorn injuries on her hand and regarding giving of pants to her by
LW5 in her statement before the police. Learned counsel submitted that the same amounts more than an omission and must be treated like contradictions which are fatal to the case of prosecution. In this regard upon considering the entire deposition of PW1/victim girl as a whole, it is very clear that, PW1/victim girl remained consistent throughout her testimony and cogently stated the acts committed by the accused against her. Though it is true as pointed by the learned defense counsel, PW1 did not state about the injuries she sustained in her previous statements but in the opinion of this Court that said omission as it does not go to the root cause of the matter cannot be construed as contradiction. Moreover the omission to state the injuries
Page 33 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
in the previous statements does not amount to major contradiction or improvement as such does not affect the reliability of testimony of
PW1/victim girl.
65) The learned defense counsel contended that evidence of PW2/ mother of victim girl coupled with testimonies of PW7 and PW8 clearly established that PW2 is not the wife of the accused and the accused has no relationship with her and the same demolishes the case of prosecution completely. It also proves that the accused had never taken PW1/victim girl anywhere and never committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. In this regard even though it is true that no documentary evidence has been filed by the prosecution to prove that accused is indeed the second husband of PW2 and had marital relationship with her; but the defense counsel by suggesting to PW2 that “she and the accused were acquainted as they were working at the poultry form and she borrowed rupees 1,20,000/- from the accused” ad- mitted that the accused and PW2 were working at the poultry form which further strengthens the case of the prosecution that the ac- cused and PW2 used to reside at the poultry form of one Bharath.
Moreover it was no where denied by the defense by the way of sugges- tion or otherwise that the accused never stayed with PW2 and PW1 which goes to show that accused in fact resided with PW2 at the poul-
Page 34 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
try form which is sufficient to attract the provision of section 9(n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act.
66) Learned defense counsel for the accused further contended that testimony of PW2 is marred with contradictions and omissions as such cannot be accepted. Upon perusal of testimony of PW2 this court indeed came across some minor omissions and contradictions in the testimony of PW2 but in the opinion of this Court those omissions and contradictions are not of a magnitude to prove fatal for the case of prosecution and as to render the testimony of PW2 unbelievable. The testimony of PW2 completely corroborated with the testimony of PW1 and PW4 in the context of vital aspects in the case.
67) The learned counsel for the accused also contended that PW4 be- ing acquainted with PW2, testified on the behest of PW2 as such his testimony shall not be taken into consideration. The contention of learned counsel does not hold good as the defense never denied that
PW4 was not working at the said poultry form situated near the scene of offence on the relevant date.
68) The learned defense counsel further contended that police did not discover and seize the motorcycle allegedly used in the crime and even did not seize the pant of PW1/victim girl which demolishes the case of prosecution. It is true the said vehicle which has been used in the crime has not been recovered and seized by the police but it is well es-
Page 35 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
tablished in law that a deficiency in the investigation by the police shall not be allowed dent the merits of the case if otherwise the evi- dence laid by the prosecution is trustworthy and believable. In the opinion of this Court mere non seizure of vehicle does not affect the merits of the case.
69) The learned counsel for the accused contended that there is a de- lay of one day in lodging police report and the same has not been sat- isfactorily explained by the prosecution which proves fatal to the case of prosecution. It is true that there is a delay of one day in lodging po- lice complaint but the same was properly explained in Ex.P1 itself by stating that as the offence took place late in the evening the police re- port cannot be lodged on the same day but it was lodged in the morn- ing of very next day on 21-04-2018 and under the given circum- stances of the case this court holds that, the explanation put forth by the prosecution pertaining to the delay in lodging FIR is satisfactory.
70)This case completely rests upon the evidence of PW1/victim girl as the other witnesses are circumstantial and heresy witnesses. It is well established in law that in the cases pertaining to sexual offences the
Court can completely rely and act upon the testimony of sole pros- ecutrix if it inspires confidence in the mind of the Court and when it is free from infirmities.
Page 36 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
71) In Phool Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 (1) ALD (Crl.) page 532 (SC)and in Ganeshan Vs State represented by its Inspec- tor of police in Crl.A.No. 680/2020 it was held that:
“The sole testimony of victim/prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused.”
72) In another decision reported in (1996) 2 SCC page 384 between
State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh it was held that:
“It appears that the trial Court searched for contradictions and variations in the statement of the prosecutrix microscopically, so as to disbelieve her ver- sion. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her state- ment, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confi- dence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement be- fore relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion. The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her, but there is no require- ment of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assaults stands almost on par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable.”
Page 37 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
73) In this case the testimony of PW1/victim girl is not only free from infirmities but appears to be cogent which inspires certain confidence in the mind of this Court regarding its truthfulness. As such this
Court has no hesitation to act upon the testimony of PW1/victim girl and to base the conviction of the accused on such testimony.
74) From the evidence lead, the prosecution successfully established the foundational facts of the case against the accused and discharged the initial burden casted upon it.
75) The accused took the defense that he lent rupees one lakh and twenty thousand to PW2/mother of victim girl and when he demanded the repayment of the loan to avoid the repayment PW2 foisted a false case against him using her daughter/PW1. But the accused apart from stating the same in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C.
did not take any further steps to prove the same by leading defense ev- idence or otherwise. No evidence is placed before the Court by the ac- cused to prove that he actually lent the said amount to PW2.
76) Furthermore as the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the foundational facts of the case against the accused; as per the presumption available under section 29 of Protection of children from Sexual offences Act now the onus shifts on the accused to prove that he has not committed the offences he is charged with.
Page 38 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
77) As the presumption under section 29 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is duly applicable to the facts of this case to rebut the same the accused did not lead any rebuttal evidence or did not rebut it through the cross examination of witnesses. Section 29
POCSO Act reads as under:
“Section 29 - Presumption as to certain offences- Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved”.
78) In this case, the accused was charged under Section 9(n) r/w. 10 of POCSO Act, 2012, Section 9 of POCSO Act, 2012 deals with defini- tion of aggravated sexual assault, whereas Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 provides punishment for the offence under Section 9 of POCSO
Act, 2012. According to Section 29 of POCSO Act, 2012 where a per- son is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Spe- cial 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.
79) The presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act, 2012 is a rebut- table presumption. The burden lies on the accused to rebut the pre-
Page 39 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
sumption, but the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Sec- tion 29 of POCSO Act, 2012 and failed to prove contrary. Hence, pre- sumption can be drawn in this case, because there is no contrary plea pleaded and proved by the accused.
80) Moreover the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 30 of POCSO Act, 2012 is also applicable to the facts of present case.
81) Section 30 of POCSO Act, 2012 deals with culpable mental state which reads as follows:
“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 ac- cused, 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”
82) As per Section 30 of POCSO Act, 2012, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence. The presumption of culpable mental state can be drawn if offence is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
Page 40 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
83) Now it has to determined whether prosecution able to prove the in- gredients of section 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 9(n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act against the accused.
84) Through the testimonies of PW1 to PW4 prosecution successfully proved that on 20-04-2018 the accused under the pretext of purchas- ing eggs took PW1/victim girl on his bike and on the way under the pretext of attending nature’s call diverted the bike towards agricultural well near railway tracks, where the accused with sexual intention held the hand of PW1/victim girl, dragged her to nearby bushes, kissed her on checks and attempted to remove her pants by threatening to kill her. As per the evidence lead by the prosecution and through the testi- monies of PW1 to PW4, it is well established and proved that accused threatened PW1/victim girl with death if she refuses to cooperate with him thereby causing alarm to her which goes to prove and satisfy the ingredients of section 506 Indian penal Code.
85) Prosecution through the evidence of PW1 to PW4 also proved that the accused used to reside with PW2 and PW1 at poultry form and had a domestic relationship with PW2/mother of victim girl and on the relevant date as mentioned above sexually assaulted PW1/victim girl therefore established and proved the ingredients of section 9(n) read with section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual offence Act against the accused.
Page 41 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
86) However the prosecution utterly failed to prove the ingredients of section 504 Indian Penal Code against the accused as such accused cannot be held guilty under section 504 of Indian Penal Code.
87) In the view of above discussion and the evidence of prosecutrix/
PW1/victim girl, PW2/mother of victim girl, PW3/Head Master of con- cerned school who issued study and conduct certificate pertaining to victim girl, PW4 a circumstantial witness, PW5 the panch witness,
PW6 the woman police officer who examined and recorded the state- ment of PW1 and the respective investigating officers PW7 and PW8 established that on 20-04-2018 the accused under the pretext of pur- chasing eggs took PW1/victim girl on his bike and on the way under the pretext of attending nature’s call diverted the bike towards agricul- tural well near railway tracks, where the accused with sexual inten- tion held the hand of PW1/victim girl, dragged her to nearby bushes, kissed her on checks and attempted to remove her pants by threaten- ing to kill her and thereby sexually assaulted on PW1/victim girl.
Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused under Section 506 of IPC and Section 9(n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 504 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is found guilty for the offences under Section 506 of IPC and Section 9(n) read
Page 42 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
with section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012. The accused found not guilty for the offence under Section 504 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
88) At this stage, it deems fit and appropriate to consider to the aspect of compensation to be awarded to the victim U/Sec.357-A Cr.P.C and
Sec.33(8) of POCSO Act and Rule 7 of POCSO Rules, 2012 (Rule 9 of
Amended Rules 2020). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) is required to be paid as compensation to the victim girl who is aged about 14 years at the time of incident. The District Legal Services Authority in coordination with other departments shall see that the victim get com- pensation and it is processed and handed over to the victim. Thus a copy of the Judgment is ordered to be sent to Chairman, District Legal
Services Authority, Nalgonda recommending for granting compensa- tion to the victim from Hon’ble State Legal Services Authority.
89) In this case, the accused is found guilty of the offence under Sec- tion 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 9(n) read with section 10 of
POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly the point is answered in the favour of prosecution and against the accused.
90) In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punish- able under section 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 9(n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly the accused is convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused is found not guilty for the
Page 43 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
offence punishable under section 504 of Indian Penal Code and ac- cordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence.
Page 44 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
HEARING ON SENTENCE
91) When questioned the accused regarding quantum of sentence, he represented that he did not commit any offence against the victim girl and he was falsely implicated in this case by PW1/Mother of the vic- tim girl on the issue of repayment of loan amount. The accused fur- ther stated that he has a wife and two tender children to look after as such, pleaded the mercy of the court.
92) Considering the plea of the accused and after balancing the ag- gravating and mitigating circumstances and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that this is not a fit case where a lenient view can be taken against the accused.
93) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the na- ture of offence committed and considering the submissions made by the accused, to meet ends of justice, the accused is sentenced to un- dergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and also to pay fine of Rs.2000/- (Two thousand only) for the offence under section 506 Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
94) The accused further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprison-
ment of five (5) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees
TWO Thousand only) which is to be paid to victim girl and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple Imprisonment for a period of 3
Page 45 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
months for the offence U/Sec.9(n) read with section 10 of POCSO
Act, 2012.
95) Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Total fine amount of
Rs.4000/- (Rupees four Thousand Only). The remand period under- gone by the accused shall be given set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
The accused had been in judicial custody from 28-02-2019 to 25-03- 2019 and from 07-03-2026 till date.
96) Convict is informed of his right to appeal to the Hon'ble High
Court and he is also furnished with free copy of this Judgment. He is also informed that he can take assistance of Legal Services Authority in case he is not able to engage advocate.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Gr-III, corrected and
pronounced in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.
Sd/-
Judge, Special Fast Track Sessions
Court for Expeditious Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases Nalgonda
Page 46 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For Prosecution:- PW1XXXVictim girl
PW2XXXMother of Victim girl
PW3XP. SheshuHead Master, SVAR Govt. Model High school. PW4T. YelliahCircumstantial witness
PW5K. SwamyA panch witness for scene of offence PW6 Vijaya BhaiSI of police.
PW7D. Vijay KumarSI of police
PW8K. GovardhanSI of police
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution
Ex.P1Police report Ex.P2Study and Conduct certificate of PW1/victim girl. Ex.P3Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P5FIR
Sd/-
Judge, Special Fast Track Sessions
Court for Expeditious Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases Nalgonda
Page 47 of 48
S.C.POCSO No.37 of 2019
Dt: 30.04.2026
Page 48 of 48