1 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
IN THE SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR
EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE & POCSO ACT CASES
AT KAMAREDDY.
Present:- Sri LALSINGH SREENIVASA NAIK, I Additional Sessions Judge, Kamareddy
FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Spl. Court for Expeditious Trail and Disposal of Rape & POCSO Act Cases,
Thursday, 10th day of April, 2025
SESSIONS (POCSO) CASE No. 45 of 2022
1Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Sub- Inspector of Police, PS.Nizamsagar.
2Name of the accusedShaik Shadulla, S/o Kasim, Age: 20 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Burgul village of Nizamsagar Mandal, Kamareddy District.
3Offences chargedCharge-I. Section 7 r/w 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Charge-II. Under Section 354 Charge-III. Under Section 354-B of IPC. After hearing the arguments, and perusal of the evidence of PW.s.1 to 12, the above charge No.I altered as under Section 9 (m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act-2012, and also added the offence under Section 323 of IPC.
4 Crime No. & Name of03 of 2021 of PS., Nizamsagar. Police Station 5Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6Finding of the CourtAccused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-B and 323 of IPC and Section 9(m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused, as such, he is convicted under Section 228(2) of Cr.P.C of the said offences.
2 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 7Sentence or orderi) The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, hence he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of one months. ii) The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354-B of IPC, hence he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of THREE years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. iii) The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, hence he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. iv) The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 9 (m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 hence he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of FIVE years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.
v) That all the above sentences shall run concurrently. vi) The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after a period of appeal. vii) As could seen from the record, the accused has been in jail in this case from 22- 01-2021 to 19-02-2021 the said period shall be 3 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. against the substantial sentence imposed as above. viii)This Court recommends to the District Legal Service Authority, Kamareddy to award a compensation Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim girl from out of the victim compensation fund within the one month from the date of receipt of copy of judgment.
ix) This Court informed to the Convict accused as to right to prefer an appeal against the judgment and sentence of this Court. Further also informed to seek legal aid to prefer appeal if the convict did not have means to engage counsel.
x) The office is directed to send a copy of the judgment to learned District Magistrate, Kamareddy u/s 365 CrPC. xi) Let a copy of the judgment be given to the convict Accused immediately as per the provisions of Section 363(1) Cr.P.C. free of costs.
This case is coming before me on 03.04.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Sheshu, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Anand Reddy, Defence Counsel for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and perusal the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This case arose on the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS.Nizamsagar against the accused for the offences under
Section 354 & 354-B of IPC and Section 7 r/w 8 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred in short as “the POCSO Act”) in a case registered in crime No. 03 of 2021 of
Police Station, PS.Nizamsagar on the report lodged by the complainant/Mother of the victim.
4 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
a) On 17-01-2021, at 16.15 hours, the complainant/who is mother of victim girl lodged a Telugu written petition stating that, on 16.01.2021, complainant/PW.1 went to Agriculture field as usual along with his husband/LW2, at that time her mother-in-law and her two daughter were at home, at about 06.00 pm, complainant/PW.1 along with her husband returned to house, meantime her mother-in-law/PW.2 informed that her two daughters along with their friend were playing in their village, at that time her neighbor
Kashim’s son Shadulla promise to provide Sugarcane pieces and called her daughters and their friend to come to his house, on that her elder daughter/victim went to his house by running, after that her younger daughter and their friend also followed her, after some time they both stood at outside and on observed that the said Shadulla removed the nicker of her elder daughter, gagged the mouth with hands, on seeing this her younger daughter and their friend are crying, on hearing the same her mother-in-law asked loudly what happened?, at that time
Shadulu slapped her elder daughter, locked the house and fled away.
Hence, she requested to take legal action against accused.
b) Basing on the petition of the complainant, LW.19/Sub
Inspector of Police, PS.Nizamsagar registered a case vide Cr.No.
3/2021, U/s 354, 354(b) of IPC Section 7 r/w 8 of POCSO, 2012 and issued First Information Report.
c) During the course of investigation, LW.19/Syed Ahmed examined and recorded the statement of PWs.1 & 2 and LW.2.
Thereafter, he made a requisition to the Duty Lady Medical Officer, 5 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
Government Area Hospital, Banswada to conduct clinical examination of the victim girl, accordingly, PW.11/Dr. Shirisha conducted the clinical examination of the victim girl and collected vaginal swabs, smear and nail clippings and same were forwarded to FSL, Hyderabad for final opinion. On 17-01-2021, at about 17.30 hrs, LW.19/Syed
Ahmed visited the house of the accused and secured PW.6 and
LW.12/M. Ravinder and conducted the CDF and also drawn the rough sketch plan in their presence. On 18-01-2021, LW.19/Syed Ahmed and
PW.8 visited the house of the victim girl and on his instruction, PW.8 examined and recorded the statement of the victim girl under videographed by LW.5/MD. Danish in the presence of LW.10/Smt.K.
Sudharani and collected the CD along with Pen drive from LW.5.
Thereafter, LW.19/Syed Ahmed secured PW.4, PW.5 and LW.8/A.
Kalavathi, LW9/K. Devi and LW10/K. Sudharani and examined and recorded their statements.
d) While the investigation is in progress, on reliable information, on 22.01.2021, at 06.00 hours, LW.19/Syed Ahmed rushed to the Burgul village of Nizamsagar mandal and apprehended the accused and the accused about to confessed the commission of the offence, then LW.19/Syed Ahmed secured two mediators i.e., PW.7 and PW.10 conducted confessional panchanama of the accused in their presence, thereafter, he brought the accused to PS at 08.00 hours and effected his arrest. On 22.01.2021, LW.19/Syed Ahmed filed a requisition before the LW18/JFCM, Bichkunda with a request to record the 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2/victim girl, accordingly,
LW18/JFCM, Bichkunda recorded her statement on 20.02.2021. On 6 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 22.06.2021, LW.19/Syed Ahmed collected the Bonafide certificate of the victim girl from PW.9, as per Bonafide certificate her DOB is 11.03.2014.
e) During the course of investigation, on 23.05.2021,
LW.19/Syed Ahmed collected FSL report from FSL authorities and also collected the final opinion from PW.6. After completion of entire investigation, LW.19/Syed Ahmed filed the charge sheet against accused under section 354, 354(b) of IPC and Section 7 r/w 8 of
POCSO Act, 2012.
3. Originally the charge sheet was submitted before the Court of
I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Upon considering the material on record, the Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,
Nizamabad has taken cognizance for the offence punishable Under
Section 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 354, 354(b) of IPC against the accused and registered the case as SC (POCSO) No. 55 of 2021 and transferred the case to II Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under POCSO Act, Nizamabad and
issued summons to the accused. On appearance of the accused, the case copies were furnished to him in compliance of section 207 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Upon considering the material papers on record and after hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel for the accused, II Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge For Trial of Cases Under POCSO Act, Nizamabad proceeded to
frame the charges against the accused, and accused was examined
Under Section 228 (2) of Cr.P.C., the charges for the offences Under 7 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
Section 354 and 354-B of IPC and Section 7 r/w 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 are framed against Accused, read over and explained to him in the Telugu language, to which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the above offences.
5. At this stage, in view of establishment of the POCSO Court at
Kamareddy, and as per the proceedings of the Special Judge POCSO
Court Nizamabad vide Dis No.488, Dated: 29-04-2022, the case was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as P/SC No. 45 of 2022.
6.It is pertaining to note here that, when the matter was posted for Judgment, at that time, on careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution, it is noticed that the victim girl/PW.3 was below 6 years of age at the time of incident as per the section 9(m) of POCSO Act, who ever committed the sexual assault on a child below 12 years, it comes under aggravated sexual assault, therefore, there is no proper charges framed against the accused. Thereafter, this court directed the Special Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused to assist the Court for framing of the proper charges. After hearing the Special Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused, this court altered the charge No.1 framed by my learned predecessor (Special Judge for Trial of Cases under trial of
POCSO Act cum II Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad) and also added the additional charge.
a) After hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned Defence counsel for the accused, this court proceeded to frame the alteration and adding of the charges against the accused, and accused was examined Under Section 216 (1) of Cr.P.C., the charges 8 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 for the offence Under Section 9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 323 of IPC are framed against Accused, read over and explained to him in the Telugu language, to which, accused pleaded not guilty. The learned Special Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused reported, there is no further evidence on behalf of the prosecution and also accused.
[
7. The prosecution cited 19 witnesses in the charge sheet, out of them, PWs.1 to 12 were examined by the prosecution and got marked
Exs.P1 to P12, the details of which are mentioned at the Appendix of list of witnesses and documents and Material objects.
a) The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lws.2, 8 to 10, 12 and 18.
b) LW2/Father of the victim girl was died, hence, his evidence was closed.
c) LW-19/Syed Ahmed/SIP, PS.Nizamsagar, who conducted entire investigation of this case and laid charge sheet was died, therefore, the prosecution filed a petition U/s.311 of Cr.P.C to summoned next investigation officer to give evidence on behalf of deceased investigation officer and the said petition is allowed vide
Crl.Mp.No.87/2024, Dt.28.10.2024, the SHO of Nizamsagar got
examined as PW.12.
8.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating material evidence appearing against accused in the evidence of prosecution. Accused having understood and denied the same, and he reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
9 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
a) During the course of examination of the accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused submitted that he was falsely implicated in this case and he did not committed any offence against the victim girl, there was a dispute between his father and husband of PW.1 and to avoid for payment of labour amount by husband of the PW.1, the
PW.1 foisted a false case against him.
9. Heard the arguments on both sides.
10.Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, who were examined during the course of trial.
a) The PW.s-1 and 2 deposed that at time of the incident, the
PW.-3/victim girl aged about 6 years and studied UKG at Manjeera
Private school at Mohammad Nagar, and her younger daughter aged about 4 years and also accused house situated back side of the their house. On 16.01.2021, at 10.00 am, PW.1 and her husband/LW-2 went to labour work in their village by leaving PWs.3 and 4 with
PW..2/Mother-in-law in their house. There is a park situated back side of their house and PW.2 temporarily working in the park. After completion of PW.1 and LW.2’s labour work they returned to house at about 06.00 pm, PW.2 informed them that at 12 noon her PW.2 along with PWs.3 and 4 went to the park at the time PWs.3 and 4 along with PW.5 playing in the park, at that time accused called PW.s3 to 5 to his house with a promise that he will provide Sugarcane pieces, on that victim girl/PW.3 went to the house of the accused by running, after some time PWs.4 and 5 followed PW.3, and PW.4 and 5 stood 10 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 in-front of the house of the accused and observed that, accused removed the underwear of the victim girl/PW.3 by gagged the mouth with hands, on seeing the same her PWs.4 and 5 were crying, on hearing the same, PW.2 went to the house of the accused then, PWs.4 and 5 informed to PW.2 that the accused kept the victim girl in his house and also informed the removal of the drawer and closed the mouth of the victim girl, thereafter, accused pushed the victim girl/PW.3 from his house and locked the door and fled away.
a.(i) The defense counsel for accused cross examined PW.1, who admitted that her husband having good acquaintance with the father of the accused, and she do not remember whether SIP of CIP recorded their statement. PWs.1 and 2 denied that LW.2 did not pay the labour work money to the father of the accused, and LW.2 used said amount for his personal necessities, as such, father of the accused demanded
LW.2 to pay his labour amount, to avoid for payment of labour amount PW..1 foisted the false case against the accused.
b) PW.s-3 to 5 deposed that on the date of incident they playing in the park and PW.2 working in the park, meanwhile accused called PWs.3 to 5 to his house with a promise that he will provide Sugarcane pieces, on that PW.3 went to the house of the accused by running after some time PWs.4 and 5 followed her, the accused pulled PW.3 inside of the house and closed mouth of PW.3 and removed underwear of PW.3 then, PW.3 made hues and cries, immediately PWs.4 and 5 went to the house of the accused and PWs.4 and 5 saw PW.3 and informed the same to PW.2, thereafter, PW.2 11 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 went to the house of the accused at that time accused slapped PW.3 and also necked out from the house and he locked the house of the doors and fled away.
b.(i) The defense counsel for accused cross examined PWs.3 and 4, who denied that their father/LW.2 did not pay the labour work money to the father of the accused and their father/LW.2 used the said amount for his personal necessities, as such, father of the accused demanded LW.2 to pay his labour amount, to avoid for payment of labour amount PW.1 and LW.2 foisted the false case against the accused.
b.(ii) The defense counsel for accused cross examined PW.5, who denied that her parents and parents of the PW.s3 and 4 tutor her to deposed the false statement before the police and today also her mother and police tutor her to deposed the evidence before the court on the instigation of the Police.
c) PW.6 deposed that on 17.01.2021, at 17.30 hours, the SI of
Police conducted the CDF along with rough sketch plan in his presence and in the presence of LW-12.
c.(i) The defense counsel for accused cross examined PW.-6, who admitted that the MRO informed them there was a quarrels took place at Factory and requested them to went there.
d) PW.7 deposed that the SI of police called him and requested to enquired the accused person, accordingly, himself and LW.14 enquired the accused and accused voluntarily confessed the commission of the offence, thereafter, SI of Police drafted the confessional statement of the accused in their presence.
12 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 d.(i) The defense counsel for accused cross examined PW.7, who admitted that when they reached the alleged scene of offence, at the time they found 25 persons were present, thereafter, Police conducted the confessional statement of the accused and SIP scribed the confessional statement of the accused.
e) PW.8 deposed that herself and SI of Police went to house of the victim girl at Burgul village, and she examined and record the statement of the victim girl in the presence of parents of the victim girl.
e.(i) The defense counsel for accused cross examined PW.8, who admitted that she was not working under control of SIP,
PS.Nizamsagar at the time of recording the statement of the victim girl and SIP, PS. Nizamsagar recorded her statement in the
PS.Nizamsagar at about 03.00 to 04.00 pm. PW.8 further admitted that she was not stated in her 161 Cr.P.C statement that she recorded the statement of the victim girl in the presence of PW.3 parents.
f) PW..9 deposed that basing on the record she issued Bonafide
Certificate of victim girl who studied UKG for the year, 2020-21, as per the record, the victim girl was born on 11.03.2014.
f.(i) The defense counsel for accused cross examined PW.9, who admitted that she was not received any written requisition from the
SIP, PS.Nizamsagar to issue Bonafide certificate of victim girl and also she do not remember on what time she issued bonafide certificate of victim girl, but may be afternoon hours.
13 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
g) PW.10 deposed that on 16.01.2022, himself and PW.7 enquired the accused and accused voluntarily confessed that PWs.3 to 5 were playing in the park, which is near to house of the accused, and accused went there and promised them he will provided sugarcane, then accused took the victim girl in his house, thereafter, the accused removed underwear of the victim girl, then she made a hues and cries, then accused closed her mouth and PWs.4 and 5 are went there, then the accused slapped the victim girl and sent out side of the house and locked doors of the house and fled away.
g.(i) The defense counsel for accused cross examined PW.10, who admitted that he was not having any prior acquaintance with the police officials, but victim girl and her parents are his relatives and being a relative, himself enquired the accused about the commission of the offence. PW.10 further admitted that after knowing the quarrels, he went to the scene of offence, at the time, he found 15 to 20 persons were present and thereafter, Police conducted the confessional statement of the accused.
h) PW.11 deposed that on 17.01.2021, she commenced the examination of victim girl at 09-00 pm and she examined the victim girl by taking her consent and also her Mother, she noted down the findings of her clinical examination as follows :
1)The victim girl was aged about 6 years and menarche is not attended
2)There was an external injury abration of 2 to 3 cms on right arm.
3)There was no other general injuries on local examination. [ 14 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
As per the FSL final report, no Semen and spermatozoa and blood and foreign material are not detected, and hymen to be intact and penetration has not be done, and rape appears to be not occurred.
h.(i) The defense counsel for accused cross examined PW.11, who admitted that whenever the children playing the games and fell- down on the ground or hard surface, they might have sustained the above said injury as noted No.2.
i) The PW.12/J. Shiva Kumar, who is the SIP of PS.Nizamsagar deposed his evidence nothing but replica of the contents of the charge sheet, and mode of investigation done by LW12/Late Sri Syed
Ahmed/SIP, PS.Nizamsagar.
i.(i) The defense counsel for accused cross examined PW.12, who admitted that LW.19/Sri Late Syed Ahmed has not collected any documentary proof to show that PW.2 working in the Palle Prakruthi
Vanam as a labour and also in Ex.P11/CDF along with rough sketch plan the distance between Grama Palle Prakruthi Vanam and scene of offence is not mentioned. PW.12 further admitted that as per the record, PW.1 not eyewitness of the incident and as per the
Ex.P11/CDF the place of occurrence shown by PW.1.
11. The learned special public prosecutor vehemently contended that the accused committed sexual assault by removing underwear of the victim girl and gagged her mouth with a sexual intention which involves physical contacts without penetration and also accused assault the victim with an intention to outrage her modesty by using the 15 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 criminal force with a promise to give sugarcane pieces. PWs.3 to 5 who are victim, younger sister and friend of victim girl respectively deposed one voice that while they were playing in the park, at the time accused called them to his house by promise to give sugarcane pieces, and accused removed the underwear of the victim girl gagged the mouth with his hands, after hearing the shouting of the PWs.4 and 5, PW.2 came there then accused slapped the victim girl and necked-out from the house and closed the doors of his house and fled away.
a) It is further submitted by the learned special public prosecutor as on date of incident victim girl/PW.3 was a minor and about 6 years and same is proved by examine the PW.1. By examined the PW.9 and got marked Ex.P5, the prosecution successfully proved that the victim girl is a minor.
b) The learned Special Public prosecutor further contended that the prosecution successfully proved guilty of the accused by examine eyewitnesses, panch witness for scene of offence along with CDF and panch witness for confession, Lady Medical Officer/who examine victim girl and WPC/ who record the statement of victim girl. By examining PW.1 to PW.12, the prosecution has successfully proved that accused committed aggravated sexual assault on the victim girl and by using criminal force with an intention to remove underwear of the victim girl. Therefore, he prayed to punish the accused with maximum sentence in according to law.
16 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
12)Per contra, the counsel for accused vehemently contended that the prosecution creates the false story and filed a false case against the accused. The story narrated by the prosecution in the charge sheet is far away from the truth. PWs.1 and 2 are not eyewitnesses of the incident and PW.s3 to 5 are tutor by the PWs.1, 2 and police and they deposed false evidence against accused. Therefore, the evidence of the PWs.3 to 5 discarded from the record and their evidence not play vital role to decide that accused committed the alleged offence against the PW.3/Victim girl. PWs.3 to 5 deposed in their evidence that they made a hues and cries, immediately, PW.2 came to the house of the accused at that time accused slapped PW.3 and also necked out from the house and locked the house doors and fled away, where as PW.2 not deposed above said fact in her evidence, therefore it is clearly established that there is a inconsistency and no collaboration between the evidence of PWs.2 to 5.
i) The counsel for accused further contended that the prosecution has failed to place oral and documentary evidence to show that there was a park called as Grama Palle Prakruthi Vanam and PW.2 working as a labour in the said park and Ex.P11/CDF along with rough sketch plan is very much silent about the distance between
Grama Palle Prakruthi Vanam and the house of the accused where the alleged offence took place. As per the evidence of PW.11, victim girl received abrasion on right arm, as per the evidence of PW.3/victim, accused slapped her, therefore, it is clearly evident that ocular evidence of PW.3 not tallied with Medical evidence. PWs.6, 8 and 10 are planted witnesses of the prosecution and the confession made 17 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
before the police by the accused is not admissible U/s. 25 to 27 of
Indian Evidence Act, in this case, there is no such recovery in pursuance of the confession of the accused, and accused never confessed before PW.7, and Ex.P11 and Ex.P3 are prepared in the police station by LW.19 and PW.6 signed his signature on the CDF under Ex.P2 in the police station. PWs.3 to 5 are tutored by the prosecution, in case, their evidence is taken into consideration, there is a great prejudice and serious injustice would be caused to the accused.
ii) The learned counsel for accused further contended that as per the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl, she playing at one park and her mother working in the said park, it shows that entire case of the prosecution is doubtful and no such incident took place.
Therefore, the prosecution has miserably and utterly failed to prove that the accused removed the underwear of the victim girl/PW.3 and gagged her mouth by using criminal force with an intention to naked her and also with intention to involve physical contact.
iii) The learned counsel for the accused further contended that the prosecution has failed to place chain events connecting the accused and also medical evidence to prove that the accused committed the aggravated sexual assault as alleged in the charge sheet. Moreover, evidence of PWs.1 to 12 did not inspire the confidence of the Court that the accused committed the alleged offence. Thus, in all the angles the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt and the accused destroyed the presumptions in 18 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 favour of the prosecution, as such, the Accused prays the Court to acquit him from all the charges leveled against him.
13. On careful perusal of the contents of the charge sheet and the evidence of PW.1 to 12 and Exhibit P.1 to P.12 and after the hearing the arguments advanced by the both sides, now the points that arose for determination are as follows:-
1.Whether the victim girl within the meaning of under section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act, as on date of commission of offence?
2.Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is credible and reliable to prove the guilt of the accused for committed the aggravated sexual assault on the victim girl and also used the criminal force with an intention to outrage the modesty of victim girl by disrobing her underwear and voluntarily caused hurt to victim girl?
3.Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 354 and 354-B, 323 of IPC and Section 9 (m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 with which the Accused is charged in this case?
4.Whether the compensation can be awarded to victim under Section 33 (8) of POCSO Act r/w Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020 and Section 357 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code and the same is payable to the victim?
5.To what relief ?
14. POINT No. 1:
Whether the victim girl within the meaning of under section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act, as on date of commission of offence?
19 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
a) In this case, the accused herein is charged for the offence under 9 (m) r/w 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences
Act, 2012. In order to attract the provisions of the POCSO Act, it is the first and foremost duty of the prosecution to prove that the victim girl was a child as on the date of commission of the offence as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act. As per the said section, the child means “the person under the age of 18 years is considered to be child”.
b) In order to prove that the victim girl was child, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.9/Principal-cum- correspondent of Manjeera High School issued Bonafide certificate of victim girl under Ex.P5. As per the evidence of PW.9, victim girl was born on 11.03.2014 and she was aged about below 6 years as on the date of incident.
c)On careful the perusal of the evidence of PW.9, and
Ex.P5, this Court do not have any hesitation to hold that the victim girl is a minor and aged about below 6 years as on date of incident.
Admittedly, in this case, the defence failed to establish that
PW.3/victim girl was not a minor and also not below age of 18 years.
d) From the above foregoing discussion and reasons, this
Court arrived at a firm conclusion that the prosecution has proved that the victim girl was aged about below 6 years as on the date of the commission of the offence, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.
20 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
15. POINT Nos. 2 and 3:-
2.Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is credible and reliable to prove the guilt of the accused for committed the aggravated sexual assault on the victim girl and also used the criminal force with an intention to outrage the modesty of victim girl by disrobing her underwear and voluntarily caused hurt to victim girl?
3.Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 354 and 354-B, 323 of IPC and Section 9 (m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 with which the Accused is charged in this case?
16. Before discussing the factual matrix of the case along with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, let us discuss the definitions under Section 7 and 9 POCSO Act, 2012 as under :
( a)Sexual assault is defined under Section 7, which reads, “Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.”
(b) Clause ‘m’ of Section 9 of the POCSO Act, which reads that whoever commits sexual assault on a child below 12 years is said to have committed aggravated sexual assault.
17. On careful perusal of entire material on record and contentions of charge sheet, the first and foremost contentions of the prosecution is that PWs.3 to 5 were playing in the park, accused called them to come his house by making promise to provide sugar cane pieces to them, on that PW.3/Victim girl went to the house of the accused by running and PWs.4 and 5 were followed her, and the accused removed the underwear of the victim by gagged her mouth, on seeing the same PWs.4 and 5 shouted loudly, thereafter accused slapped the victim girl and necked-out from the house.
21 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
18. Now the core question is whether the evidence of the PWs.3 and 5 is sufficient to hold the guilt of the accused? Admittedly, PW.s3 to 5 who are the minors and below the age of 6 to 10 years, categorically and collectively deposed in their evidence that accused induced them by giving sugarcane pieces and that they went at the house of accused, meanwhile accused pulled PW.3 inside of the house and closed her mouth and removed her underwear, thereafter, PWs.4 and 5 made hues and cries, then accused slapped the victim/PW..3 and necked-out from the house and locked the house door and fled away.
19. On careful analysis and appraisal of the prosecution evidence available on record, the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5 collaborated with the evidence of PW.3, and their evidence inspires the confidence of this Court that PWs.4 and 5 are an eye witness when accused pulled PW.3 inside of the house and closed her mouth and removed her underwear, thereafter, PWs.4 and 5 made hues and cries, then accused slapped the victim and necked-out from the house and locked the house door and fled away. Admittedly, accused has failed to place any contra evidence to disprove the version of the prosecution that accused never removed underwear of PW.3 and he never slapped the victim and necked-out from the house and locked the house door and fled away, and also failed to prove above said incident never happened and never existing at any point of time.
20. The learned counsel for the accused tried to impress upon this
Court that the victim girl and PWs.4 & 5 were tutored by their parents and police and also they sang a song with the tune of their 22 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 parents. Further, it is also argued that except the minor victim girls, there is no other eye witness to the incident. Therefore, basing on the testimony of the minor victim girls, the accused cannot be roped in this case and there is a serious prejudice would be caused to the accused.
21. Panchhi & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 2726, Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that the testimony of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. However, it is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. It cannot be held that “the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatized. It is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring.”
22. As per section 118 of the Evidence Act 1872, all persons shall be competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions. It has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh -
Vs- Asharam reported in (2005) 13 SCC 766 that in case of rape the testimony of the prosecutrix alone can form the basis of conviction if it inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.
23.In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ganesan Vs State reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573, it is observed that - If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the 23 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
24. On careful evaluation of evidence of PWs.3 to 5, no doubt, their evidence is fully corroborating with each other that accused removed the underwear of the victim by gagged her mouth, on seeing the same, PWs.4 and 5 shouted loudly, thereafter accused slapped the victim girl and necked-out the victim girl from the house and locked the doors and fled away. Further, the learned counsel for defence did not place any material omissions, contradictions or improvements through the evidence of PWs.3 to 5. The defense, during cross- examination, has failed to discredit the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 on any aspect and has failed to elicit anything material from them so as to show the assertion so made by them is not true or unworthy to be relied upon. Except the bald suggestions made to PWs.3 to 5 which were denied by them, nothing substantial had come on record to disbelieve them on the above said aspect raised by the counsel for defence. Further, it is also important to note here that no motive has been attributed to PWs.3 to 5 for false implication of the accused.
Further, the evidence of PW.3 collaborated with her 164 Cr.P.C statement. Moreover, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 inspires the confidence of this Court that the accused with an intention to commit the sexual assault, he induced the victim girl by promising to give sugarcane pieces and used the criminal force with an intention to disrobing and removed her underwear and gagged her mouth, slapped her and necked-out from the house. Therefore, this court arrived at a 24 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 firm conclusion that, the prosecution successfully proved the ingredients under section 354 and 354-B of IPC and section 9(m) of
POCSO Act.
25. Whether the prosecution proved the scene of offence? By examine PW.6 and Ex.P11, the prosecution successfully proved that,
LW.17 conducted the CDF along with rough sketch plan, where the accused committed the offence.
26. Whether the prosecution proved the confession of the accused?
By examining the PW.7, the prosecution proved that, accused voluntarily confessed the commission of the offence. However, confession of the accused without discovery of fact can't be taken into consideration and as per section 25 of Indian evidence Act, 1872, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in law.
27.Now the core question is whether the accused voluntarily causing hurt to the victim girl? Admittedly, PW.s.3 to 5 deposed that accused slapped the victim girl and necked out from the house. As per the evidence of PW.11/Dr.M.Shirisha, there was an external injury abrasion of 2 x 3 cm on right arm. Therefore, this court without hesitation to arrived at a firm conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved that the accused voluntarily cause hurt to the victim girl, as such, accused committed the offence under Section 323 of IPC.
28.Under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, presumption qua certain offences is in favour of prosecution. Section 29 of the POCSO Act envisages that if a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or 25 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 attempting to commit any offence punishable under Sections 3, 5, 7 & 9 of POCSO 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. Similarly, under Section 30 of POCSO Act, the Special Court has to draw the presumption in favour of prosecution where culpable mental state is required on the part of accused. Thus, Section 30 of
POCSO Act elucidates that whenever a question of culpable mental state on the part of the accused is required to prove the guilt of accused, the Court shall presume the existence of said mental state.
Though accused can take the defense to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to his act, but accused has to prove the said fact beyond reasonable doubt and not by showing its existence by establishing preponderance of probability. In the instant case, accused has neither taken any such defense nor adduced any evidence, thus this Court is bound to draw a presumption that accused had culpable mental state qua his act. Further, the accused utterly and miserably failed to prove his defense by examining any independent witness to prove that LW.2/T.Kashiram who is husband of
PW.1 and son of PW.2 did not pay the labour work money to the father of the accused, and LW2 used said amount for his personal necessities, as such, father of the accused demanded LW2 to pay his labour amount, to avoid for payment of labour amount, PW.1 foisted the false case against the accused.
30. In the instant case, the accused was prosecuted for committing the offence of sexual assault as defined under Section 9(m) of the 26 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
POCSO Act, thus, in terms of Section 29 of POCSO Act, this Court is bound to draw a presumption in favour of the victim that the accused had committed the offence unless contrary is proved by the accused.
In other words, the onus is upon the accused to establish that he had not committed the offence of sexual assault. In other words, he has not rebutted the said presumptions in any manner, either by cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to PW.5 or by adducing defense evidence, and failed to establish that there is a strong motive to involve the accused in this case, as such, this Court has safely drawn the presumption in favour of the victim girl.
Therefore, this Court respectfully disagrees with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for defence on the above said aspects.
31. on careful appraisal and analysis of the evidence of PWs.1 to 12 and Ex.P1 to P12, this Court arrived at an inescapable conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the offence committed by the accused U/s.354, 354-B and 323 of IPC and Section 9 (m) r/w 10 of
POCSO Act, 2012 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, these points are answered accordingly.
32. Point No. 4:
Whether the compensation can be awarded to victim under Section 33 (8) of POCSO Act r/w Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020 and Section 357 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code and the same is payable to the victim?
(a) On careful scrutiny and analysis of entire evidence of the prosecution, admittedly the prosecution has successfully proved that accused committed offence U/s. 354, 354-B and 323 of IPC 27 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 and Section 9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act,
b) Section 33 (8) of the POCSO Act, extracted as under:
Section 33 : Procedure and powers of Special Court.
(8) In appropriate cases, the Special Court may, in addition to the punishment, direct payment of such compensation as may be prescribed to the child for any physical or mental trauma caused to him or for immediate rehabilitation of such child.
c) Sub-Class (3) (I) to (iii) and (v) of Rule 9 of the POCSO
Rules, 2020 is extract as under:
Rule 9 : Compensation :
(i) Type of abuse, gravity of the offence and the severity of the mental or physical harm or injury suffered by the child;
(ii) The expenditure incurred or likely to be incurred on child’s medical treatment for physical or mental health or on both;
(iii) Loss of educational opportunity as a consequence of the offence, including absence from school due to mental trauma, bodily injury, medical treatment, investigation and trial of the offence, or any other reason;
(d)Section 357A of the Code is amended in 2009 Section 357-A (1) (2) and (3) are extracted hereunder: 357A. Victim compensation scheme:- (1) Every State Government in coordination with the Central
Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.
28 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 (2)Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Services Authority, or the State Legal
Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub- section (1).
(3)If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied that the compensation awarded under section 357 Cr.P.C. is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the Victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation.
(e) A bare reading of the above provisions, this Court arrived to a firm conclusion that the State Government shall pay the compensation ordered by the Special Court within the (30) days from the receipt of such order. Admittedly, victim compensation scheme, the Special Court deals with POCSO cases shall only decide the quantum of compensation in terms of Section 33 (8) of the POCSO Act r/w Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules and the compensation shall be fixed and shall forward the copy of the Judgment to DLSA for payment of compensation from out of the victim compensation fund, which is maintained by the State Legal Services Authority.
f) On careful perusal of the entire material on record, there is no dispute that the victim girl/PW.3 was minor and aged about below 6 years at the time the offence committed by the accused. The offence committed by the accused upon the victim girl PW.3 must have caused mental trauma to her, which cannot be compensated in terms 29 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 of money. Further, the accused had committed aggravated sexual assault against the victim girl, therefore, definitely the said acts of the accused had impact on her education and future prospects which are also cannot be compensated in terms of money. Admittedly, the victim girl hails from a poor family and her father/LW.2 was died. It is significant to note here that at the time of giving evidence before this
Court, the victim girl deposed without any fear and embarrassment.
Further, this Court observed that the victim girl gave rational answers to the questions put this Court, and also faced the cross examination and gave correct and proper answered without any hesitation.
Therefore, by considering the social and financial status of victim girl and her mother and also the future prospects, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is an appropriate case to recommend to the
District Legal Service Authority, Kamareddy, to award a compensation
Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim girl.
33.Point No.5 :- To what relief?
IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-B and 323 of IPC and Section 9(m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused, as such, he is convicted under Section 228(2) of Cr.P.C of the said offences.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of the IADJ Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 10th day of April, 2025.
I Additional District and sessions Judge FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Spl. Court for Expeditious Trail and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Kamareddy.
30 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
34) The accused present and he was examined under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. as to the quantum of sentence prescribed for the offences proved against him.
a) On examination, the accused stated that he did not commit any offence and he is having old aged mother and they are depended on his income, except himself, there is nobody to look after their welfare and hence, prayed to take lenient view.
b) Learned Special Public Prosecutor would pray for awarding maximum punishment against the accused as prescribed for the offence proved.
c) The learned counsel for accused would pray for taking lenient view and submitted that the accused is a first time offender and he does not have any criminal antecedents and he is the sole earning member of his family, if the accused is sentenced to longer imprisonment, his family members will be put to starvation. He further submitted that, accused is 22 years old and comes from poor family and he do not know the consequences of the POCSO Act and if he sent to longer punishment, undoubtedly his entire career would be spoil. The counsel for the accused further request the court to invoke the benevolent provisions either Sec.360 of Cr.P.C and also the probation of the offender Act.
d) Admittedly, any act of sexual assault to the child should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault on the child have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no lenient view 31 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 should be shown to the accused, who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act and the IPC. By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, a message must be conveyed to the society at large, if anybody commit any offence under the POCSO Act, he shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them. Therefore, this court cannot invoke the benevolent provisions either Sec.360 of Cr.P.C nor the probation of the offender
Act.
e) This Court having considered the plea of the accused, as there is no previous conviction has been proved against the accused.
In the present case, the accused is found to be of 22 years of age, with no history of previous conviction in any criminal offence. That apart, considering the attending facts and circumstances that has emerged in the evidence, where the possibility of accused indulging on aggravated sexual assault with the minor victim cannot be ruled out, therefore, this Court deems fit to punish the accused with the maximum punishment provided under Section 354, 354-B and 323 IPC and Section 9 (m) r/w Section 10 of the POCSO Act, as this Court is unable to give due weightage to the said mitigating factors as pleaded by him.
O R D E R
The Accused is sentenced as follows:
i) The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 354 of IPC, hence he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- 32 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 (Rupees five hundred only) in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of one months.
ii) The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 354-B of IPC, hence he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of THREE years and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.
iii) The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 323 of IPC, hence he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.
iv) The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 9 (m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 hence he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of FIVE years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.
v) That all the above sentences shall run concurrently.
vi) The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after a period of appeal.
vii) As could seen from the record, the accused has been in jail in this case from 22-01-2021 to 19-02-2021 the said period shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. against the substantial sentence imposed as above.
33 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025 viii)This Court recommends to the District Legal Service
Authority, Kamareddy to award a compensation Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim girl from out of the victim compensation fund within the one month from the date of receipt of copy of judgment.
ix) This Court informed to the Convict accused as to right to prefer an appeal against the judgment and sentence of this Court.
Further also informed to seek legal aid to prefer appeal if the convict did not have means to engage counsel.
x) The office is directed to send a copy of the judgment to learned District Magistrate, Kamareddy u/s 365 CrPC.
xi) Let a copy of the judgment be given to the convict Accused immediately as per the provisions of Section 363(1) Cr.P.C. free of costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of I ADJ Court, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this 10th day of April, 2025.
I Additional District and sessions Judge FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Spl. Court for Expeditious Trail and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Kamareddy.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(Witnesses examined) For the Prosecution:
PW.1 : T. PadmaComplainant & Mother of the victim girl.
PW.2 : T. ShyamalaPaternal Grand Mother of the victim girl.
34 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
PW.3 : Victim girl Daughter of PW.1.
PW.4 : Sister of Victim girlDaughter of PW.1.
PW.5 : Friend of Victim girlFriend of Victim girl.
PW.6 : M. SailuPanch for scene.
PW.7: M. BhoomaiahPanch for confession.
PW.8: G. ParvathiWho recorded the 161 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl.
PW.9: Keerthi RamaWho issued the Bonafide certificate of victim girl.
PW.10: G. JeevanPanch for confession.
PW.11: Dr. M.ShirishaLady Medical Officer.
PW.12: J. Shiva KumarSIP, PS. Nizamsagar
For defence : - NIL - :: Exhibits Marked For the Prosecution ::
Ex.P1 : Complaint.
Ex.P2 : Signature on CDF along with rough sketch plan of PW.-6.
Ex.P3 :Confessional statement of the accused.
Ex.P4 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl.
Ex.P5 : Bonafide certificate of victim girl.
Ex.P6 : Medico Legal examination report of victim girl.
Ex.P7 : TSFSL report.
Ex.P8 : Final opinion.
35 of 35 SC (POCSO) No. 45 of 2022, Dt :10-04-2025
Ex.P9 : FIR.
Ex.P10 : Requisition given by the LW19/Late Syed Ahmed to Duty Lady Medical Officer, Government Area Hospital, Banswada.
Ex.P11 : CDF along with rough sketch plan.
Ex.P12 : U/s. 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl.
Material Objects : NIL
I Additional District and sessions Judge FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track Spl. Court for Expeditious Trail and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Kamareddy.