Fair 1 SC (P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
IN THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND
DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, AT MANCHERIAL
Present: Sri Lalsingh Sreenivasa Naik, I Additional Sessions Judge, Mancherial FAC: Special Judge, Fast Track special court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial
MONDAY THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2026
SC (POCSO) NO.63 OF 2021 1Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bellampalli 2Name of the accusedBanda Sri Krishna S/o Laxminarayana, 44 years, Vvshya, Kirana Shop, R/o H.No.13- 4-21, Babu camp, Bellampalli 3Offences chargedunder Section 376(1) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act 4Cr.No.and name of PSFIR No.170 of 2020 of PS Bellampalli-I Town 5Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6Finding of the CourtFound guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376(1) of IPC as well as offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act 7Sentence or OrderThe Accused is sentenced as follows:
i)The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, hence he is sentenced to undergo RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 20 YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall
Fair 2 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 further undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. ii)That the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- imposed against the accused shall be paid to the victim girl/PW2 to meet rehabilitation of the victim girl/PW2. iii)MO1 to MO5 and unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after a period of appeal. iv)As could seen from the record, the accused has been in jail in this case from 22.10.2020 to 14.12.2020, the said period shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. against the substantial sentence imposed as above.
v)This Court recommended to the the District Legal Service Authority, Mancherial to award a compensation Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim girl from and out of the victim compensation fund within the one month from the date of receipt of copy of Judgment. vi)This Court informed to the Convict 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. vii)The office is directed to send a copy of the Judgment to learned District
Magistrate, Mancherial u/s 365 CrPC.
viii)Let a copy of the Judgment be given to the convict Accused immediately as per the provisions of Section 363(1) CrPC free of costs.
This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 30.04.2026 in the presence of Sri A. Rambhao, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri D. Manohar Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and
Fair 3 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1)This case arose on the charge sheet filed by the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Bellampalli against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act in a case registered in Cr.No.170 of 2020 of Police Station, Bellampalli-I town on the report lodged by the complainant/PW1.
2)The brief facts of case of the prosecution are as follows:
a)PW1/mother of victim lodged a report with the Police, Bellampalli-I town by stating that she perform inter-caste marriage and blessed a female child/victim, her husband is working as Revenue Inspector at Mallapur mandal of Jagityal district, yesterday she along with her daughter came to her parent's home, today i.e., in the afternoon of 21.10.2020 at about 3.30 pm, her daughter went to the house of accused to play with his children, after some time, her daughter rushed to home and found some apprehension, when she asked her daughter as what happened, as to why came to home by running, her daughter informed her stating that, her daughter went to the house of accused to play, there the accused took her daughter into a room, removed zip and put his penis into her daughter's mouth, when her daughter feel some smell and afraid with that act, as such, she rushed to home. Hence, she requested to take legal action.
b)Basing on the said report, PW13/SI of police registered a case in
Cr.No.170 of 2020 under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and issued FIR. On receipt of information, PW14 took up investigation, verified the facts, examined and recorded the statement of PW1, LW2/sister of PW1, he summoned PW11, later he along with PW11and PW12 proceeded to the house
Fair 4 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 of PW1, got recorded the statement of PW2/victim girl with the help of PW11 under videography by PW12, he secured LW8/locality of PW1 and PW5, seized wearing dress i.e., grown and cut drawer of victim child, he examined and recorded the statement of LW4/mother of PW1, he collected birth certificate of victim from PW1 and her date of birth is 15.12.2013, PW14 produced the victim
before the Government Community Health center, Bellampalli, accordingly, PW9
examined the victim girl, furnished preliminary examination report and reserved her opinion awaiting FSL analysis report, he examined and recorded the statements of PW11 and PW12, on 22.10.2020 at about 6.30 am, PW14 visited the scene of offence i.e., house of accused, secured LW8 and PW5, observed the scene, got photographed the scene, drawn rough sketch of the scene and conducted CDF in their presence.
c)During the course of investigation, PW14 apprehended the accused at his house, on interrogated, the accused is in a mood of confession, PW14 secured PW6 and PW7, recorded his confession statement and confessed that he committed sexual assault on the victim child, on 21.10.2020, while she is playing in his home, he brought the accused to PS, effected the arrest of accused, and sent him to Government Community Health Center, Bellampalli for potency examination and report, accordingly, PW10 conducted potency test of accused and issued report, on 23.10.2020 PW14 secured LW5 to LW7, examined and recorded their statements, he collected birth certificate of victim child from
PW8, he forwarded the seized material objects i.e., clothes of victim and accused to RFSL, Karimnagar for examination and report, accordingly, RFSL
Karimnagar examined the material objects and furnished report stating that items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are examined and semen and spermatozoa are not detected in items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and after receiving RFSL report, PW9 furnished final opinion that ‘according to FSL report, no spermatozoa detected, there may be sexual canter occur, but according to medical examination, no
Fair 5 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 external and internal injuries’. The statement of victim child was recorded by the LW17/Md. Shareena, JFCM, Asifabad and completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
3)The offence was taken cognizance by the Special Judge for Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act–Cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO
Act against the accused and it was numbered as SC (POCSO) No.63 of 2021.
4)In view of establishment of the new Judicial Districts and as per the proceedings of the ROC No.346/E-I/2021, Dated 31.05.2022 of the Hon’ble High
Court for the State of Telanganga at Hyderabad and communication vide
Dis.No. 669/2022 dated 22.02.2022 of the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions
Judge, Adilabad, the case was transferred to this Court for disposal according to
law.
5) Upon considering the material papers on record and after hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned Defence Counsel for the accused, my learned predecessor had framed the charges against the accused under
Section 376(1) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language. To which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the above offence.
6)The prosecution has cited 19 witnesses in the charge sheet, out of them,
PW1 to PW14 were examined by the prosecution and got marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P19 and MO1 to MO5 are marked, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of list of witnesses, documents and material objects.
a)It is significant to note here that the 161 CrPC statement of PW3 marked as Ex.P2 and my learned predecessor signed on the said document, but
Fair 6 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 the same is not reflected in the cross-examination done by the Special Public
Prosecutor, however, the said document mentioned in list of documents in the appendix as Ex.P2.
7)The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW2,
LW4. On careful perusal of entire docket proceedings, my learned predecessor nowhere mentioned in the docket order that the evidence of LW5, LW8 and
LW17 are given up or closed.
8)The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused has understood and denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf, and reported that he did not committed any kind of offence against the victim girl as stated by the victim girl in her statement which is recorded by PW11 and videographed by PW12, the mother of victim girl basing on her own interpretation, assumptions and presumptions, she filed false case and he was falsely implicated in this case.
9)The arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned
Defence Counsel were heard and also filed their respective written arguments.
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)PW1/mother of victim deposed that PW2 is age of 9 years and born on 15.12.2013, she has been residing at Karimnagar along with her family, her parent's village is Bellampally, on 20.10.2020 she came to her parents house along with her child to Dasara festival, on 21.10.2020 her child/PW2, after having lunch, her daughter went to the house of accused to play with the
Fair 7 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 children of the accused, and the accused house is situated after two houses of her parent's house, and the accused gave his mobile phone to his daughters and asked them to watch it, later, the accused took her daughter to another room of his house, later he asked her child to close her eyes, later, he opened his pant zip and kept his penis in the mouth of her child, due to bad smell, her child opened the eyes, and by weeping, in hurry, burry manner, she came to their house, and PW2 narrated the incident to her mother, but her mother was not able to understanding the incident, when she enquired with PW2, she discloses that the accused had taken to her to one room, and in her language, she explained that uncle isssshhh (private part) "naa notilo pettadu, ameki smell vachi kallu therichi chusi bayamtho vachesindi. PW1 further deposed that she went to the house of accused and questioned his activity, on that he said he had not done anything and her daughter telling lies and he argued with her, and the actual incident was happened in between 02:00 pm to 03:00 pm, and she questioned the accused at about 03:30 pm, and this quarrel and discussion continued upto 07.00 pm, however, she went to police station at about 08:00 pm and lodged report.
a-1)In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that in the house of accused at first hall, later TV room, Bed room and Kitchen are there, and there are no two bedrooms in the house of accused and the accused is neighbour, so they used to talk with the accused, rarely she went to the house of accused and on that day, herself and son of her sister also came to the house of accused for questioning him and in the locality of their house at Bellampally, it is a small lane and there may be twelve families and her sister is residing with her mother at Bellampally. Pw1 further deposed that her sister and mother are not having disputes with the accused, and they used to speak with accused, as he is neighbour. PW1 further admitted that her child used a word as issshh “kept her mouth’ and she stated with the words disclosed by her, she understand it is
Fair 8 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 the private part of the accused and she stated before police at first PW2 inform the matter to her mother, but her mother was unable to understand, and there was no such galata, but as a mother, she reacted and abused the accused, and the neighbours also came at the time of this arguments, this arguments might have taken up to two hours, however, they asked her to enter into compromise with the accused, but she is not willing for it and earlier also whenever they come to Bellampally, her daughter was playing with the children of accused and her daughter not sustaining any injury and on the same day of complaint, the child was taken hospital and on the same day, the accused was caught hold by the police. PW1 further admitted that she do not know when the police arrested the accused and the police came to the house of accused, but she cannot say the exact time and at first, the police came to their house and enquired with them, the police has taken photo with her and PW2, later, they went to the house of accused and the police has not enquired with the accused in her presence, and at about 11.00 am, the police came to their house and she along with her sister and one Rajitha, her neighbour went to Police Station and LW8 and LW9 are known to her and LW8/Devi Saritha is not her relative, but she know her since long time. PW1 further admitted that in the complaint, she got it mentioned what she understood from the explanation of PW2 about the incident and either in complaint or in Section 161 Cr.PC statement, she got not mentioned that before 03.30 pm this incident was happened and in the complaint, she got not mentioned that the accused had given cell phone to
PW2, later, he took PW2 to another room and there are no doors to the bed room of accused, and PW2 was taken to Magistrate in the month of March for giving statement, at present she do not remember the date and she know one
Madhukar, he is not her relative and she got face acquaintance with him on that day only and her mother is aware of LW5 to LW7, but they are not that much close just to known to one another. PW1 further admitted that the lady
Fair 9 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 constable recorded the statement of PW2 and the accused is having small kirana shop, she do not know whether the accused used to give small amounts to needy people.
a-2)PW1 further admitted that as per the video clipping, PW2 not stated that the accused open his pant zip and kept his penis in the mouth of
PW2 and she added that isshh meaning the accused inserted his penis or private part in the mouth of PW2, as she has not stated before the police in her Section 161 Cr.PC statement that as their language of herself and PW2 isshh meaning is urinary part and they have not made any attempt to show the photo of male organ or any other attempt to confirm the word isshh nothing, but a male organ and according to the video clipping i.e., Ex.A18-A, PW2 stated through her mouth, thereafter, gesture, and PW2 not shown mouth as a gesture to show that the accused inserted his penis in the mouth of PW2 as per the video clipping and she added that the word "aa anumani isshh pettindu" is nothing but to open the mouth and insert the penis in the mouth of PW2. PW1 further admitted that she do not know in Telangana dialect the word isshh mean bad smell or anything is bad smell and she added that she teach PW2 that since her childhood whenever PW2 attend urinary she called as a isshh and also whenever
PW2 used to attend the natural call it is called as a puff and she has not stated in her Section 161 Cr.PC statement and also Section 164 Cr.PC statement that "she teach PW2 that since her childhood whenever PW2 attend urinary, she called as a isshh and also whenever PW2 used to attend the natural call, it is called as a puff" including her chief examination, dated 16.02.2023.
b)PW2/victim girl deposed that she has been residing at Karimnagar along with her parents, at Bellampally, her grandmother is residing, in the house of her grandmother, her grandmother and elder sister of PW1 and son of her senior mother (cousin) is residing, during holidays, she and PW1 used to go to her grandmother's house, when she was studying second class, there was
Fair 10 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 holidays of ten days, so she along with PW1 went to Bellampally, her father has not come with them, at that time, she went to her friend's house by name
Lasya and Sharvani and she played with them for 10 to 15 minutes, thereafter, the accused came there and given phone to her friends and asked them to watch cell phone and she was taken to another room and the accused asked her to close her eyes and the accused said he will give surprise to her and the accused asked her to bend down to some extent and opened his pant zip, he kept his private part (the witness saying "issssshhh" notlo pettdadu) in her mouth, and she got some bad smell and opened her eyes, later, she ran away from there and went to her grandmother's house and narrated the incident to her grandmother, but she was not able to understand, then PW1 called and asked her what was happened, and she narrated the incident to PW1, and PW1 went to the house of accused and questioned him, he said just now he is coming after bath, then PW1 said she will go to Police Station, and PW1 went to Police Station and one women police officer enquired with her and she has given statement, and at one time, she was taken to Court and she has given same statement before Magistrate.
b-1)In the cross-examination, PW2 admitted that Lasya is her age group, Sharvani is younger than her, and the children of accused were in one room and she was in another room and she cannot say the distance in between two rooms and the doors were not closed by the accused, she added the room was in dark, the lights were put off and she think there may be four rooms in the house of accused and there were no doors to the room, to which room, she was taken and there are no doors in between the rooms where Lasya and
Sharvani sat and where she was taken, when PW1 questioned the accused, there was galata at the time PW1, her brother and his friends were present and there is no TV in the house of accused and in the hall, there was TV at first, but later it was not there and the accused had taken to third room, at first TV
Fair 11 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 room is there, later another room after that one more room in which room she was taken, when she enters into the house of accused at first TV room, later one room, thereafter third room to which room she was taken. PW2 denied that she has not stated before the Magistrate that the accused kept his private part in her mouth.
c)PW3 deposed that about 2 years back, when she was in the house, she heard the sounds of galata and she came outside, the public gathered, there was galata in between the family of PW1 and accused and she know to the extent of galata and she do not know what was the reason for galata.
c-1)In the cross-examination by the Special Public Prosecutor, PW3 admitted that she belong to Vaishya community, the accused also belongs to
Vaishya community, and the house of accused is situated on the right side of her house, they are residing in the same lane, so they used to speak with the accused family, in the house of accused, the accused, his wife, two children and mother of accused was residing, the mother of accused is no more, and PW2 used to play with the children of accused, whenever PW1 comes to Bellampally, as on the date of lodging report, PW2 played with children of accused and the galata took place on the reason that on that day the accused misbehaved with
PW2 and she stated the same before the police.
c-2)In the cross examination by counsel for accused, PW3 admitted that on the same day night hours police came, and on the same day, the police recorded her statement and she stated before the police, when she was inside of house on hearing galata, she came out side and she cannot say the date of galata and she has good talks with the family of PW1, and before galata, she was inside of house, so she did not see whether PW2 was playing with children of accused and she know PW1 having acquaintance with her and she do not know why the galata took place.
Fair 12 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
d)PW4 deposed that about 2 or 3 years back, she went to shop, while returning back, she came to know that there was galata, she came to know that the accused kept his penis in the mouth of PW2, and PW2 informed the matter to PW1, when she reached her house, this galata was completed, when the others are discussing the matter, she came to know of it.
d-1) In the cross-examination by counsel for accused, PW4 admitted that she was not present at the time, when the incident was happened and she was not in the house till 07:30 pm and nobody directly inform the matter to her, at the time of discussion among the public, she heard and she do not remember whether she stated before the police that the public gathered and there was discussion, PW1 was crying etc., and she cannot say the exact date of offence, but it was before Dasara festival, when she came to Bellampally on holidays and their colony people including the mother of PW1 are having cordial relations.
e)PW5 deposed that about 2 or 3 years back, when he return back from his work at about 08:00 pm, he found the gathering of public and police adjacent to his house, he went there, the same day, the clothes of PW2 were seized, the next day, the police had written the contents of panchanama and the police read over the contents of panchanama and obtained his signatures on the panchanama and he can identify the clothes seized in his presence. MO1 is the frock of PW2; MO2 is the drawer of PW2, and the next day also they have written something and they obtained his signatures and the next day they have written about galata and the signature on CDF confronted to him and he identified his signature; he has not stated the contents of panchanama, so the signature is marked as Ex.P4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor declared the witness as hostile.
e-1)In the cross examination by the Special Public Prosecutor, PW5 admitted that the police noted the boundaries, prepared the rough sketch and he know the contents of panchanama.
Fair 13 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 e-2)In the cross examination by the counsel for accused, PW5 admitted that his house is not adjacent to the house of accused and the house of
Vishwanatham is adjacent to the house of accused and the house of
Vishwanatham is facing towards Eastern side and he put his signature on the incident, that the accused misbehaved with PW2, except this, he do not know anything and the house of accused is in the corner, and he is not able to say the correct direction.
f)PW6 deposed that about 2 or 3 years back, he and LW11/Shaik
Sadiq went to Police Station as there was galata in the shop of LW11, at that time, the accused who is standing before the Court, was in the Police Station, on enquiry, he said due to money disputes, he was falsely implicated in the case, the police obtained their signatures on white papers, he do not know what was written by the police in the panchanama.
f-1)In the cross examination by the Special Public Prosecutor, PW6 denied that on 22.10.2020 at about 8.40 hours, the police conducted panchanama, at that time, the accused was in the custody of police, on their enquiry, he confessed that he misbehaved with the minor girl and also the clothes seized by the police in his presence.
g)PW7 deposed that he do not know anything about this case, no panchanama was conducted in his presence, nothing was seized in his presence, the panchanama confronted to him, he admitted his signatures and stated when he went to Police Station for lodging report, the police obtained his signatures.
g-1)In the cross examination by the Special Public Prosecutor, PW7 denied that on 22.10.2020 at about 8.40 hours, the police conducted panchanama, at that time, the accused was in the custody of police, on their enquiry, he confessed that he misbehaved with the minor girl and also the clothes seized by the police in his presence.
Fair 14 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
h)PW8 deposed that on 22.04.2021, she issued date of birth certificate of PW2 and as per this certificate, the date of registration is 17.12.2013 and the date of birth of PW2 is 15.12.2013, the place of birth is Sri
Satyasai Hospital, Indranagar, Mancherial and the date of issue is 12.02.2014.
h-1)In the cross-examination, PW8 admitted that she has not issued birth certificate a fresh, and it was previously issued and she attested the same and she worked as Municipal Commissioner for period of 22 months and they used to receive information about the birth of a child from hospital as well as the parents of the child and in their record, it has been mentioned the child was born on 15.12.2013, and basing on On-line report, she mentioned the name of PW2, she cannot say whether any statement was given by parents stating that they kept the name of Aaradhya to PW2, and in the year, 2013, they might have given application manually by mentioning the name of PW2 and she did not handover the said application to the police, after certifying the municipal record she issued birth certificate.
i)PW9 deposed that on 21.10.2020 she examined the victim with the consent of mother of PW2, and PW2 has given the history, she has mentioned the same in the column history given by PW2, on general examination, she found external genatalea is not developed, pubic hair not developed. Hymen intact. The samples are not taken. There is no external and internal injuries all over body. Vulva healthy. The clothes of accused sent to FSL. After receiving
FSL report, she has given final opinion, basing on FSL report that "according to
FSL report, no spermatozoa detected, there may be sexual contact occurred, but according to medical examination, no external and internal injuries.
i-1)In the cross examination, PW9 admitted that she examined the mouth of PW2, but the oral swabs are not collected from mouth, and as per report, it cannot be said there was sexual contact or not and further she said
Fair 15 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 there may be sexual contact, so, it is not sure whether there was sexual contact or not.
j)PW10 deposed that on 22.10.2020, he examined the accused and found the accused genital organs are normal development, there is no evidence of diseased of test of epidemics, the accused gives definite history expose, there is no evidence of organic disease of nervous system, there are well marked secondary sex characters, from all or some of the afore mentioned objective science it can be concluded that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sex act. In the cross-examination, PW10 denied that he has not examined at the instance of police, he issued potency certificate.
k)PW11 deposed that on 21.10.2020 when she was working in
Madharam Police Station, ACP Rahaman instructed her to record the statement of PW2 victim as the case is pertaining to the matter of POCSO Act, on the same day, she along with PW12 went to the house of PW2, at that time, PW2,
PW1 and grandmother were present, she took PW2 and PW1 to separate room, she recorded the statement of PW2, at that time, PW12 videographed the statement in the Tab, later, she handed over 161 CrPC statement and CD to
ACP.
k-1)In the cross-examination, PW11 admitted that in 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2, victim has not stated that the accused removed his pant, and as per statement, it is not specifically mentioned after opening eyes what she has seen, and in the 161Cr.PC statement of victim, the particular part of organ is not mentioned, and at about 08:30 pm or 08:40 pm, she recorded the statement of PW2. PW11 further admitted that the victim girl not stated in her
Section 161 Cr.PC statement that the word open the zip and not gesture her mouth as per the video clipping and added that when the victim is speaking through her mouth, there is no necessity to express everything by gesture and as per the video clipping, accused not told PW2 to close the eyes to give
Fair 16 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 surprise and added that the victim stated that "kallu musi aa anumani". PW11 further admitted that PW2 not stated that the accused himself took her in the room and added that victim stated as follows "aa room loki poyi krindhiki vanchi, kallu musi aa anumani isshh pettindu mukkuku anti smell chusi apudu vuriki vachi ammammaku rendu sarlu cheppina arthamkaaledu appudu amma ku cheppina" and PW2 not stated in her statement while she recording her statement the word penis or private part and added that isshh means penis or private part and as per the video clipping i.e., Ex.P18-A PW2 not stated that the accused open his pant zip and kept his private part in the mouth of PW2 and added that victim stated "aa anumani isshh pettindu" means he kept his penis or private part in the mouth of PW2. The learned counsel for the accused played the video clipping, and asked the witness whether PW2 has shown gesture through her middle finger at the place of mouth or nose. Witness answered that PW2 shown her middle finger at the place on nose. Witness adds that the word "aa anumani isshh pettindu "is nothing but to open the mouth and insert the penis in the mouth of PW2, and they have not made any attempt to show the photo of male organ or any other attempt to confirm the word isshh nothing but a male organ.
l)PW12 deposed that on 21.10.2020 she along with PW11 went to the house of PW2, PW11 recoded the statement of PW2, at that time, she videographed the statement with the help of Tab belongs to Police Station and she handed over the tab to SIP, and SIP might have handed CD to ACP.
l-1)PW12 further deposed that on 21.10.2020, PW11 recorded the statement of PW2, and at that time, she videographed the statement of PW2 through the tab, belongs to the police station, thereafter, she got download the videography statement of PW2 into DVD as well as in Pen-drive and handover the same to Sub-Inspector of Police i.e., PW11 along with 65-B certificate.
Fair 17 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
Ex.P17 is DVD. Ex.P18 is Pen drive. Ex.P18-A is the video clipping of the victim duration of 2.06 minutes - MP4. Ex.P19 is 65-B certificate.
l-2)In the cross examination, PW12 admitted that at about 08:30 pm the statement was recorded, the Tab belongs to Police Station so it is not in her custody for 24 hours. PW11 has given Tab to her. The house belongs to grandmother of PW2. ACP has given directions to her to videographed the statement. PW12 admitted that the victim not stated that himself took her in the rom and she added that the victim stated as follows “aa roomloki poyi krindhinki vanchi, kallu musi aa anumani isshh pettindu mukkuku anti smell chusi apudi vuriki vachi ammammaku rendu sarlu cheppina arthamkaaledu appudu amma ku cheppina”. PW12 admitted that the victim not stated in her statement while she recording to video-graph her that the word penis or private part and she added that isshh means penis or private part. PW12 further admitted that as per the video clinching i.e., Ex.P18-A victim girl not stated that the accused open his pant zip and kept his private part in the mouth of the victim and she added that the victim stated “aa anumani isshh pettindu” means he kept his penis or private part in the mouth of the victim. The learned counsel for the accused played the video clipping, and asked the witness whether the victim girl as shown gesture through her middle finger at the place of mouth or nose, witness answered that victim girl shown her middle finger at the place on nose, she added that the word “aa anumani isshh penttinu” is nothing but to open the mouth and insert the penis in the mouth of victim.
PW12 further admitted that they have not made any attempt to show the photo of male organ or any other attempt to confirm the word isshh nothing but a male organ and she has not stated in Ex.P19 that the video clipping i.e.,
Ex.P18-A is a genuine video clipping and also without editing.
Fair 18 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
m)PW13 and PW14 who are the investigating officers deposed in their examination in chief nothing but replica of the contents of the charge sheet and also mode of investigation done by them.
m-1)In the cross-examination, PW13 admitted that as per the contents of Ex.P1, PW1 enquired PW2 about the incident, he dispatched the FIR to the
JFCM Bellampalli on 22.10.2020 and in column 12 of PW14/FIR it was typed as due to fear PW2 came to her house by running and informed the same to her.
PW13 admitted that in Ex.P1, PW1 stated that PW2 perceived the smell when the accused put his male organ in the mouth of PW2 and she did not state in
Ex.P1 about the taste and sense perceived by PW2, and he has not referred PW2 for medical examination.
m-2)In the cross-examination, PW14 admitted that Ex.P9/birth certificate is the attested copy, the date of application on 13.02.2014. PW8 not specifically stated that she verified the Register of Births of Mancherial Municipality while attesting Ex.P9 and by making an application before authorized Mee-Seva center one can get number of copies of Birth Certificate, and he did not examined T.
Venkanna the then, Commissioner of Mancherial Municipality who issued Ex.P9.
There are five doors to the scene of offence house and he has not observed whether there was any TV in the house of the accused and there was sufficient sun light into the scene of offence room, and in Ex.P1, PW1 mentioned that on her questioning PW2 revealed the offence to her and in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC Pw1 stated that firstly PW2 stated something to her maternal grandmother, after that PW2 informed the incident to PW1 and in her statement, PW1 stated that basing on the words of PW2, she understood the incident, and in her 161 CrPC statement PW2 not specifically stated that the accused inserted her male organ into PW2's her mouth, and in her statement recorded Under Sec.164 CrPC PW2 referred the male part i.e, Anus of the accused, and he has not taken any steps to establish that the word Ishsh stated
Fair 19 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 by PW2 is related to Penis. He has not specifically asked the medical officer who examined PW2 to collect oral swabs of PW2, and the medical officer did not collect the oral swabs of PW2. The accused not stated specifically that MO3 to MO5 are the clothes wore by him at the time of offence, and on the same day of the offence, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and the statement of PW2 recorded by the woman police officer on the same day. As per the endorsement in Ex.P14 FIR it was received by the JFCM, Bellampalli on 22.10.2020 at 1.30 pm along with Ex.P1. The statement of PW2 was not sent to the JFCM, Bellampalli after completion of the recording of the statement. He did not file CD where under the statement was recorded by the woman police officer, and he did not examine the father of PW2 and children of the accused, and in Ex.P1, PW1 not specifically stated that the children of the accused sat in another room by seeing mobile phone.
11) The learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the accused committed grave and heinous crime against the minor victim girl by penetrative sexual assault by inserting his penis in the mouth of the minor victim girl, and as on the date of the heinous crime, PW2/victim girl was a minor, aged about 6 years. Further, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9/date of birth certificate victim girl discloses that the victim girl born on 15.12.2013. Apart from that the physical features of the victim girl shows that she is small kid age of 6 years.
The evidence of PW1, PW2, PW8, PW11 to PW13 along with Ex.P8 to Ex.P10, the prosecution has successfully proved that the victim girl/PW2 was a minor as on the date of the incident and her date of birth is 15.12.2013. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused committed heinous crime against PW2/victim girl, who was a minor aged about 6 years 10 months, as on date of commission of offence, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the
POCSO Act.
Fair 20 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
a)The learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that the evidence of PW2 play the crucial role to ascertain the accused committed the
Penetrative Sexual Assault against her. Further, the victim girl aged about 6 years 10 months at the time of incident, and she answered all the rational questions put forth by PW11 as well as the learned Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Asifabad while recording her under Section 161 Cr.P.C statement and also under section 164 Cr.P.C statement respectively, and she categorically deposed while she was playing along with children of the accused, he had given his mobile phone to his daughters, asked them to watch the cell phone, and the accused was taken PW2 to another room and asked to close her eyes, bend down some extent and inserted his private part into her mouth, and she felt bad smell on her nose and afraid to the act of the accused and victim girl escaped from there by ran way and explained about the incident to her grandmother, but she cannot understood the victim, meanwhile, PW1 observed and asked the victim what happened, then the victim explained about the sexual penetrative act committed by the accused. Apart from that, the minor victim girl without any fear and embarrassment, categorically deposed in her evidence that the accused inserted his penis/isshh into her mouth and she identified the accused person who is standing in the dock, the word ‘isshh’ is nothing but penis or male organ. Further, DVD and Pen drive and Ex.P18-A crystal clearly proved that the victim categorically stated about the act of the accused without any fear. Thus, the evidence of victim girl is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused person.
b)The learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that the evidence of PW1 is collaborated with the evidence of PW2, apart from their evidence, the evidence of PW11 and PW12 collaborated their evidence. PW1,
PW2, PW11, PW12 lengthily cross-examined, but nothing was elicited in their cross-examination that the accused never inserted his penis in the mouth of
Fair 21 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
PW2/victim girl. Further, PW1, PW11 and PW12 categorically explanation that ‘aa anumani isshh pettinudu’ means the accused kept his penis or private part in the mouth of the victim.
c) The learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that PW14 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama, drawn rough sketch in the presence of PW5 and LW8/D. Rajitha. By examining PW5, the prosecution has proved the scene of offence under Ex.P5/Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch. Further, PW14 apprehend the accused, during the interrogation, when the accused is about to confess the offence, he secured the presence of PW6 and PW7 and and on their enquiry, the accused confessed the commission of offence, as such, PW14 recorded the confessional statement of the accused and that the same has been proved by examining PW6 and PW7, however,PW6 and PW7 did not support the prosecution case, but their evidence cannot be discarded as they were gain over by the accused. Moreover, the accused not denied the alleged incident happened in his house.
d) The learned learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that by examining PW9/Lady Medical Officer, the prosecution has proved that the victim girl, aged about 6 years and she noted the history given by the victim that the victim went to play her friends house, and her friends dad inserted his penis into her mouth, as such, it is clear that the accused committed the offence by penetrating his penis to the mouth of the minor victim girl, therefore, no external injuries or internal injuries were found on private part of victim girl, and not collecting oral swabs from the mouth of
PW2/victim girl by PW9 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, the evidence of PW2/victim crystal clearly established that the accused committed the heinous crime and her statement was found to be consistent and conviction based on the sole testimony of victim. PW14 admitted that he has not made any
Fair 22 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 attempt to establish that the word ‘isshh’ as a penis, but the said word always understood by the victim girl being a mother of victim girl, there is no need to establish the minor discrepancies found in the 164 CrPC statement of victim girl,
PW3 and PW4 are the same caste of the accused along with neighbours did not support the case of prosecution, however, they admitted that there was a galata took place in between the accused and PW1.
e)The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that by examining
PW1 to PW14, the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl who was aged of 6 years 10 months. Therefore, he prayed to punish the accused with maximum sentence in according to law.
12)Per contra, the learned counsel for the defence vehemently contended that the prosecution has 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. There are no eye witness to the alleged incident, and all the prosecution of side evidence are hearsay evidence. PW1 who is king pin of the prosecution story and she developed the story on her own assumptions and lodged a false complaint by stating that the accused placed his penis in the month of victim girl. Further, PW2 is the victim girl unable to give any answer because she is age about 6 years and she was tutored by PW1 and also the prosecution agency. The accused never inserted his penis in the mouth of victim girl, and her evidence cannot be take into consideration. Moreover, the prosecution has not examined the daughters of the accused to prove that the accused took the victim girl to another room and inserted penis in the mouth of victim girl, and the version of victim is not credible and she stated that ‘isshh’ touched on her nose and bad smell, but she did not stated that in her 161 CrPC
Fair 23 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 statement recorded by PW11 that the accused inserted his penis in the mouth of victim girl. Further, the victim statement recorded by the JFCM, Asifabad, in her statement she stated that the accused inserted isshh, and JFCM clearly recorded that the victim referring to the male part anus of the accused, there is a contradictory statement deposed by the victim in her 161 CrPC statement and also statement of 164 Cr.PC and also before the Court. It is further contended that in absence of any eye witness and direct evidence produced by the prosecution, in case the evidence of the victim girl is taken into consideration, great harm and serious injustice would be caused to the accused.
a) The learned counsel for the defence further contended that PW1 and
PW2 could not stated exact scene of offence and there are two different versions. As per the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the scene of offence is dark room, whereas PW14 deposed that there was a sufficient sunlight into the scene of offence room, therefore, it is clear that there is a inconsistency in the evidence of PW2 and PW14 and the victim girl deposed the evidence on the tutoring of PW1, and the entire prosecution version basing on assumptions and presumptions, there is no concrete and circumstantial and direct evidence placed by the prosecution. As per the version of PW1, she understood that the accused kept his private part into the mouth of victim girl and she understood the same basing on the gesture made by the victim girl called it as ‘isshh’, but nowhere she stated that the word ‘isshh’ referred by the penis and she admitted in her cross-examination that in the video clinching in Ex.P18-A, that the victim has not stated that the accused open his pant zip and kept his penis into the mouth of the child which is contrary to the statement of the victim and her statement was read with in consonance with the evidence of PW11 and PW14, they have made many any attempt to ascertain the word is the victim referred by the victim referred as ‘penis’ and the accused falsely implicated basing on theier
Fair 24 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 assumptions. PW11 and PW12 also admitted in their cross-examination that the victim not stated that the accused open his zip pant and kept his penis in the mouth of victim girl, as such, it cannot be considered for the reason that PW1,
PW11 and PW14 categorically admitted that they have not made any attempt to ascertain the word isshh stated by the victim refers as a private part and PW11 and PW12 admitted in their cross-examination that the victim through her gesture was showing nose but not mouth, therefore, it is clear that there is no alleged penetration took place in the mouth of victim as alleged by PW1 and
PW2. Further, PW1, PW11, PW12 and PW14 have not made any attempt to establish the fact that by showing any object or organ or photograph to the victim girl to ascertaining the fact that the word refers as isshh is male organ or penis. Moreover, PW3 and PW4 not supported the case of prosecution and PW5 panch witness for CDF, PW6 and PW7 panch witness for confession of the accused are not supported the case of prosecution. Non-examination of the daughters of the accused is a fatal to the case of prosecution. The accused never took the victim girl and he never committed any offence against the victim girl.
If, really the accused person placed his penis in mouth of victim girl, there is every chance to inflicting injury in the mouth of the victim girl and semen also appear her mouth, Admittedly, PW9 doctor stated that there is no external or internal injuries are found all over the body and also admitted in her cross- examination that she cannot say there are sexual contact or not as per the report and she is not sure whether there was sexual contact or not. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably and utterly failed to prove that the accused put his penis in the mouth of victim girl.
b) 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 grave offence as alleged
Fair 25 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 in the charge sheet. Moreover, the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW11 to PW14 did not inspire the confidence of the Court that the accused committed the alleged offence. Further, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused inserted his penis or anus, and two different versions came into the light, as such, the evidence of PW2 cannot be taken into consideration. Further, as per the evidence of PW1, there was no doors in between the room to which PW2 was taken by the accused and to the room in which the children of the accused were playing and it is highly improbable for the accused committed such act in the presence of his own daughters, at least, he could have closed the doors,
PW2 not stated that the distance between the first bed room and scene of offence, as per the prosecution witnesses could understanding that the word isshh is penis through gesture of PW2. As per the section 26(4) of the POCSO
Act, whenever possible the statement of child should be recorded audio and video mode and 161 statement of victim was recorded in both mode and victim explained everything through her gesture, but initially, DVD and Pen drive not filed, subsequently, to cover up the latches, the prosecution has placed DVD and
Pen drive, and the statement of the victim was recorded, but not dispatched the
Court along with statement, and documents which are not dispatched to the
Court within the time and with hold with the police for long period of time and filed a charge sheet. As per the complaint given to the police by PW1 and also her 161 statement, the incident happened about 15 minutes of 3.30 pm, but she stated before the Court it was happened to 2.00 pm to 3.00 pm, therefore, there is a variation and ambiguity found the in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the date of birth certificate placed by the prosecution through Mee-seva and as per
Ex.P9, the name of girl is mentioned as Gadi Aradhya instead of child of PW1, therefore, it create a serious doubt on the authority of the said certificate issued by PW8 and it normal course the date of birth certificate would contains the details of the parents only not name of the child and the same is admitted by
Fair 26 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
PW8. As per the evidence of PW14, he admitted that the victim girl not specifically stated that the accused kept his penis into her mouth. The accused person not committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, due to misunderstanding, PW1 filed a false case and the accused is having wife, and two daughters who are aged about below 10 years, if the accused convicted basing on the assumptions and presumptions through the evidence of PW1 and
PW2, there is a great hardship and serious injustice would be caused to the accused and the entire family of accused would be ruined. The mother and sister of PW1 taken the amount from the accused, as such, there was a qaurrel and disputes took place between them, by taking advantage of the victim girl,
PW1 filed a false case against the accused. 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 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 14 and Exhibit P-1 to P-19 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 penetrative of sexual assault on the victim girl?
3)Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 with which the Accused is charged in this case under Section 9 (m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act, 2012?
4)Whether the compensation can be awarded to victim under Section
Fair 27 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 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 Nos. 1:
Whether the victim girl within the meaning of under section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act, as on date of commission of offence?
a) In this case, the accused herein is charged for the offence under
Section 6 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 PW1/mother of the victim, and PW2/victim girl, and also the evidence of PW8, PW9, PW11, PW12 along with Ex.P8 and Ex.P9/date of birth certificate of victim girl, Ex.P10/medico legal examination report. As per the prosecution case, the victim girl was a child and her date of birth is 15.12.2013, and the victim girl is aged about 6 years 10 months as on the date of incident.
c)On careful the perusal of the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW8, PW9,
PW11 and PW12 and video clipping/Ex.P18A, this Court do not have any hesitation to hold that the victim girl is a minor and aged about 6 years 10 months as on date of incident. Apart from that the physical appearance of the victim girl appears in the video clipping and photos that she is below the age of 7 years and also at the age of 9 years as on date of giving of her evidence
Fair 28 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
before this Court. Admittedly, in this case, the defence failed to establish that
PW2/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 an firm conclusion that the prosecution has proved that the victim girl was a child, as she was aged of 6 years 10 months 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.
15) POINT No. 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 penetrative of sexual assault on the victim girl?
3)Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 with which the Accused is charged in this case under Section 9 (m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act, 2012?
a) The learned counsel for the accused tried to impress upon this Court that the prosecution has successfully failed to prove the alleged scene of offence and confession of the accused i.e., PW5 to PW7 did not support the case of the prosecution, as such, the prosecution declared them as hostile.
b) No doubt, in this case, it is admitted fact that the prosecution declared PW5 to PW7 as hostile witnesses. In this aspect, this Court relied a decision in State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani & Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 291) as follows, “The fact that the witness was declared hostile at the instance of the public prosecutor and he was allowed to cross-examine the witness furnishes no justification for rejecting en-bloc the evidence of the witness. However, the
Court has to be very careful, as prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times, has no regard for the truth, his/their evidence have to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to it. The Court should be slow to act on the
Fair 29 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 testimony of such a witness; normally, it should look for corroboration to his/their testimony”.
c) Further in Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors. v. State of U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450, observed as under: "It is well settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution choose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof."
d) Now the core question is whether the prosecution proved that PW14 conducted CDF and drawn rough sketch plan where the accused committed the offence? Admittedly, PW5 declared by prosecution as hostile, however, in his cross-examination, he admitted that the police conducted CDF and drawn rough sketch plan, therefore, it is crystal clearly established that PW14 conducted CDF and drawn rough sketch plan in the presence of PW5. Further, PW5 identified his signature on CDF. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proved that
PW14 conducted CDF and drawn rough sketch plan where the accused committed the offence.
e) Now the core question is whether the prosecution proved the confession of the accused? To prove the confession the accused, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW6 and PW7 who said to be panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama of accused. Admittedly, PW6 and PW7 did not support the case of the prosecution. However, the 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 in presence of police officer is inadmissible in law. It is significant to note here that in this case, the accused not committed the sexual intercourse with the victim girl, but he alleged that
Fair 30 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 he committed penetrative sexual assault into the mouth of the victim girl, therefore, the seizure of clothes of the accused and victim i.e., MO1 to MO5 and the relevant portion of the confession statement of the accused/Ex.P15 not play the vital role why because he was mainly alleged by the prosecution that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault in the mouth of the victim girl. Therefore, non supporting the case of the prosecution by PW6 and PW7 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
f) On careful scrutiny, marshaling and appreciation of the evidence of
PW6 and PW7, and also the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision, this Court arrived at a safe conclusion that PW6 and PW7 gain over by the accused and they did support the case of the prosecution, as such, non supporting the case of the prosecution by PW5 to PW7 is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
16) The learned counsel for defence vehemently contended that the victim girl did not receive any external or internal injuries on any where of her body and also on her mouth and also not found semen in the mouth of the victim, and
PW9 categorically admitted in her cross-examination that she cannot said that there was sexual contact or not and she is not sure whether there was sexual contact or not, and no oral swabs are not collected from mouth of the victim girl, therefore, it is clear that there is no medical evidence to show that the accused alleged to have been committed penetrative sexual assault and alleged to be inserted his penis in the mouth of the victim girl.
a)Now the core question is whether prosecution has proved that the accused had not committed the offence of penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl though medical evidence ?
b) On careful analysis and appreciation of evidence of PW9/doctor, no doubt PW9 who examined the victim girl has given final opinion basing on FSL
Fair 31 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 report that no spermatozoa detected, there may be sexual contact occurred, but according to medical examination, no external and internal injuries over body of the victim, and as per report, it cannot be said there was sexual contact or not, and she said there may be sexual contact, so, it is not sure whether there was sexual contact or not. On proper analysis of the evidence of PW9, it is crystal clearly evident that the victim girl did not sustain internal or external injury on her body, and it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused penetrated his penis, due to which the victim sustain injuries and felt pain and also irritation in her mouth and there is a swelling around the mouth. Therefore, this Court arrived at a firm conclusion that PW9/doctor not sure that the accused had committed the penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl by putting his penis in the mouth of the victim girl, but her evidence inspire the confidence of this Court that the accused involves physical contact, However, as per the Section 3 (a) of POCSO Act, a person is said to commit penetrative sexual assault into the mouth of a child or make the child to do so with him or any other person, therefore, there is no necessity to receive any external or internal injuries over the body of the victim. Mere penetrative sexual assault is sufficient to hold the guilt of the accused. Not collect oral swab from the mouth of the victim girl by the doctor is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
17) Now the debatable question is, whether the accused committed the aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl or aggravated sexual assault on the victim girl who is aged about 6 years as defined under Section 5(m) or 9(m) of POCSO Act?
18)Before discussing the factual matrix of the case along with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, let us discuss the definitions under Section 3, 5, 7 and 9 POCSO Act, 2012 as under:
Fair 32 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
(i) Penetrative sexual assault is defined under Section 3, which reads, “a person is said to commit penetrative sexual assault if he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child do so.”
(ii) Clause ‘m’ of Section 5 of the POCSO Act, which reads that whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below 12 years is said to have committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
(iii)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.”
(iv) Clause ‘m’ of Section 9 of the POCSO Act, which reads that whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below 12 years is said to have committed aggravated sexual assault.
19)It is well cardinal principal of Law that every accused is presumed as innocent until his/their guilty is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the burden heavily lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused without any shadow of doubt that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl.
20)On careful perusal of entire contents of complaint, charge sheet, 161 CrPC statement of PW1 and PW2 and the contents of charge sheet ad also evidence of
PW1 to PW14, the following admitted facts borne on record.
i)There is no dispute that PW1 lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 by stating that on 21.10.2020 at about 3.30 pm, the victim girl went to the house of accused for playing with the children of the accused, after some time, her
Fair 33 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 daughter rushed to home and found some apprehension, when she asked her daughter as what happened, as to why came to home by running, her daughter informed her stating that, her daughter went to the house of accused to play, there, the accused took her daughter into a room, removed zip and put his penis into her daughter's mouth, when her daughter feel some smell and afraid with that act, as such, she rushed to home.
ii)It is also admitted fact that the grandmother of victim girl is residing at Bellampalli, and PW1 & PW2 are residing at Karimnagar, they came to the house of mother of PW1 for celebrating Dasara festival. It is also admitted fact that there are two houses in between the house of the accused and mother of PW1 and the same is proved through PW5 and Ex.P5, on the said aspect, the accused neither denied nor disputed.
iii)There is no dispute that PW1 stated in her 161 CrPC statement that ‘her daughter went to the house of accused to play with his children, after a while, her daughter came running and whispered something in her mother’s ear, what her daughter said, her mother did not understand and called her and her sister and said, ‘listen to what the child is saying, then she and her sister asked their child what happened, and child said when she went to the house of accused to play with her friends, their friends dad would give his phone to their friends, and she would also be watching, then the accused would take her to the room and make her bend down, close her eyes and say, ‘aah, anumani isshh penttindu, basing on her daughter’s word, they understood that when the child went to the house of accused to play with the children of the accused, and the accused would take her daughter to the room, and tell her daughter to bend down, close her eyes, and open the mouth, he open the pant zip and he put his penis in the mouth of her daughter, and her daughter would get scared running the home after smelling the smell’.
Fair 34 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 iv)There is no dispute that PW2 stated in her 161 CrPC statement that ‘she went to the house of accused to play with the children of the accused namely Lasya and Shravani, and her friend dad gave his cell phone to her friends, she also watching the cell phone, then took her in the room, bend down, closed her eyes, aah, anumani isshh pettindu and she would get scared running the home after smelling the smell, then she narrated the incident to her grandmother, but she could not understand, then she told her mother twice’.
v)There is no dispute that the prosecution mainly alleged in the charge sheet in last para that on 20.10.2020 at about 2.00 pm, the victim girl went to the house of accused for playing with the daughters of the accused, while the victim is playing in the house premises of the accused, at about 3.30 pm, the accused is alone in the house gave his phone to the children and while the children watching the cell phone, the accused took the victim girl to another room with an evil intention, and asked her to close the eyes, and open the mouth, when the victim girl open the mouth, the accused removed his pant zip, inserted his penis in her mouth with an intent to fulfill his sexual desire, when the victim child feel some bad smell and afraid the act of the accused, escaped from the clutches of the accused and ran away from the house of accused to her grandmother’s house, initially, she tried to explain about the incident tom her grandmother, but due to old age, her grandmother could not understand the words of the victim girl, meanwhile, PW1 observed and asked the victim girl about what happened, on that the victim girl explained about the sexual assault committed by the accused.
vi)There is no dispute that PW1 deposed in her evidence that the accused gave his mobile phone to his daughters and asked them to watch it, later, the accused took her daughter to another room of his house, later he asked her child to close her eyes, later, he opened his pant zip and kept his penis in the mouth of her child, due to bad smell, her child opened the eyes,
Fair 35 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 and by weeping, in hurry, burry manner, she came to their house, and PW2 narrated the incident to her mother, but her mother was not able to understanding the incident, when she enquired with PW2, she discloses the accused had taken to her to one room, and in her language, she explained that uncle isssshhh (private part) "naa notilo pettadu, ameki smell vachi kallu therichi chusi bayamtho vachesindi.
vii)There is no dispute that PW2 deposed in her evidence that the accused gave a phone to his daughters and asked them to watch cell phone, and the accused took her to another room, and asked her to close the eyes, he said he will give surprise to her, and asked her to bend down to some extent, he opened his pant zip and kept his private part (isshh notilo pettindu) in her mouth, and she got some bad smell, opened the eyes, later, she ran away from there, and went to her grandmother’s house and narrated the incident to her, but her grandmother unable to understand, then she narrated the incident to her mother.
viii)There is no dispute that, PW1 is the mother of PW2/victim. It is also undisputed fact that, except victim girl/PW2, there are no eyewitness of the incident, when the accused took her to another room and inserted his penis in her mouth. There is no dispute that the alleged incident happened in the house of the accused, and the same is not disputed and denied by the accused and he failed to prove that on the date of incident, he was not in the house.
ix)It is also admitted fact that the prosecution has not examined the daughters of the accused to prove that the accused took the victim girl in another room and committed sexual penetrative assault. It is also undisputed fact that PW3 turned hostile, but she admitted that on the date of lodging report, the victim girl played with the children of the accused and galata took place on the reason that the accused misbehaved with the victim girl. It is also admitted fact that PW3 and PW4 are hearsay evidence, and as per the evidence
Fair 36 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 of PW4, there was a galata took place between the family of PW1 and the accused, and as per the evidence of PW4, she came to know that there was a galata that the accused kept his penis in the mouth of victim girl, when she reached her house, the galata was completed and others discussed the matter.
x)It is also admitted fact that DVD and Pen drive are not marked through PW12 initially, at the time of arguments, by recalling the evidence of
PW12, DVD and Pen drive along with 65B certificate marked through her by prosecution, and subsequently, PW1, PW11 and PW12 cross-examined by the accused on the aspect of video clipping. There is no dispute that while watching
Ex.P18A video clipping, the victim girl stated in her statement recorded by
PW11 and videographed by PW12 that she went to the house of Krishna uncle/accused at about 2.00 pm, Krishna uncle/the accused daughters namely
Lasya and Shravani are her friends, their dad/accused gave his cell phone to her friends, she also watching the cell phone, meanwhile, the accused took her in that room, bend down, closes her eyes and open aah anumani, and isshh pettindu, by catching the smell on the nose, she ran away and told her grandmother about the incident, but she did not understand, later, she told her mother about the incident.
xi) There is no dispute that the victim statement recorded by the
JFCM, Asifabad on 05.03.2021, victim girl stated that she went to the house of
Lashya and Shravani for playing, then their dad/Krishna uncle/accused gave his cell phone to them, at about 2.00 pm, thereafter, Krishna uncle took her to another room, bend down, closes her eyes and open the mouth, aah anumani, and Krishna uncle isshh pettindu, by catching the smell on the nose, and she opened the eyes and ran away, the learned JFCM, Asifabad mentioned that the victim showing by doing action also and referring to the male part anus of the accused.
Fair 37 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 xii)There is no dispute that PW1, PW11 and PW12 admitted in the cross examination that as per the video clipping, the victim not stated that the accused opened the pant zip and kept his penis in her mouth and also the accused not told the victim to close the eyes to give surprise and the accused himself took her in the room and also the word penis or private part. Further, they admitted that the victim not shown her mouth as a gesture to show that the accused inserted his penis in the mouth of the victim girl and the victim girl shown her middle finger on place of the nose and they have not made any attempt to show that the photos of male organ or any other attempt to confirm the word isshh nothing but a male organ.
xiii)It is also admitted fact that PW14 admitted in his cross-examination that he has not taken any steps to establish that the word isshh stated by the victim girl is related to penis, and the victim girl not stated in her statement that the accused inserted his male organ into the mouth of victim girl.
21)Now the question is whether the word isshh means as a male organ/penis?
a)The learned counsel for the accused contended that as per
Telangana dialect, the word isshh means bad smell or anything bad smell, and as per the video clipping/Ex.P18, the victim girl nowhere stated that the accused open the pant zip and inserted penis in the mouth of the victim girl, and the victim girl not shown the mouth as a gesture and she shown the nose as a gesture, the victim girl was tutored by her mother and also investigating agency, she sang a song with the tune of PW1. Further, it is also argued that except the victim girl, there are no other eye witness to the incident, and PW1 did not stated that in her 161 CrPC statement and also in her evidence that she teach her child, whenever her child attend the urinary, she called as isshh and
Fair 38 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 whenever, her child attend the nature calls, it is called as puff and PW1 improved new version and falsely given the explanation that isshh is urinary part. Therefore, basing on the sole testimony of the minor victim girl, the accused cannot be roped in this case and the evidence of victim girl cannot be taken into consideration as there is a serious injustice caused to the accused and his entire family ruined.
b)The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that as per the
Telangana dialect, isshh generally means passing of urine part, and passing of pooped part, said meaning called depending upon the parents of the child, PW1 explained that she teach her child since her childhood whenever her child attend the urinary, she called as a isshh, whenever, the child attend the nature calls, it is a puff.
c)On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1, PW11 and PW12, admittedly, at the time of recording 161 CrPC statement of PW1, and also in her chief examination, she did not stated or deposed that she used to teach her daughter whenever her daughter attend urinary, she called as isshh, however,
PW1, PW11 and PW12 clarified in their cross-examination after watching of the video clipping that the isshh means urinary part. Generally, the isshh word might have used by the parents of the child who below the age of 10 years, for passing of urination or passing of stool or pooped, but there is no specific word for passing of the urinary or stool or pooped, it is depending upon the each parents to teach their children. PW1 being a mother of victim girl given a clarification that she teach her child since her childhood, whenever her daughter attend the urinary, she called as isshh. Not stated and deposed by PW1 before the police and her chief-examination of the above said aspect is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, this Court arrived at a firm conclusion that the word isshh is nothing but urinary part or anus part.
Fair 39 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
22)Now the core question is whether the victim evidence is sufficient to hold the guilt of the accused?
a) In respect of a child witness in the case of State of U.P. -Vs Ashok
Dixit reported in 2000 (3) SCC 70, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "Law is well settled that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated carefully as a child may be swayed by what others tell him and as an easy prey to tutoring.
Wisdom requires that evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on (see Panchhi v. State of U.P.). However, it is a question of fact in each case, and there 'is no universal rule that the evidence of a child witness., even if it cannot be dislodged on the test of facts and probabilities of a particular case can never be sufficient for convicting an accused without corroboration."
b) 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 (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. It is also well-settled principle of law that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliable on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. Even minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case”.
c) In a case Krishna Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130, it is observed and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:- “No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an
Fair 40 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient and provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality”.
d) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "State of Rajasthan Vs.
Smt. Kalki & Anr." reported at (1981) 2 SCC 752, in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful the witnesses may be and these discrepancies are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like.
e)At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the provision contained in Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act which expressly provides that no particular number of witness shall in any case be required for proving any fact. In the matter titled as "Sheelam Remesh & Anr. Vs. State of A.P." it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court as under "Courts are concerned with the quality and not quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on a sole evidence of a witness, if it inspire confidence".
f) On careful analysis and marshaling of evidence of PW2/victim girl, no doubt, PW2 was aged about 6 years at the time of the incident and also aged about 9 years at the time of deposing evidence before the Court. Admittedly, the victim girl is a prime witness, and her evidence plays the vital role for determining whether the accused committed the penetrative sexual assault on her. On careful watching the video clipping of the victim statement which was recorded by PW11 and videographed by PW12 on 21.10.2020 at the house of mother of PW1 and the same is reproduced in Telugu language for better appreciation as follows that "నేను మధ్యా�హ్నం�� సుమారు 2 గం�టలకు కృ�ష్ణ� అం�కుల్ఇం�టికి వెళ్ళా�ను, కృ�ష్ణ� అం�కుల్ కూతుళ్ళై� న లాస్య�, శర్వా&ణి నా స్నే�హితులు, వాళ్ళ� నాన� తన సెల్ ఫోన్2నునా స్నే�హితులకు ఇంచ్చా4రు, నేను కూడా ఆ సెల్ ఫోన్2 చూ8సుకు�టున� అంప్పు;డు ఆ రూ8మ్ లో వెళ్లిA, కి�దకి వం�చి, కృళ్ళు�మ8సి ఆ అంనుమాని, ఇంష్ష్I పెటిK�డు, ముకుMకు అం�టి వాస్యన చూ8సి, వూరికి వంచి4 మా
Fair 41 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 అంమPమP చెవిలో చెప్పా;ను, కానీ ఆమెకు అంరూW� కాలేదు. ఆ తర్వా&త, జరిగిన విష్ణయం� మా మమ్మీP కీ రెం�డుసారుచెప్పా;ను . Above Telugu translation as translated in English "I went to” the house of Krishna uncle at about 2.00 pm, Krishna uncle daughters namely
Lasya and Sharvani are my friends, their dad gave his cell phone to my friends,
I have also watching the cell phone, then go that room, bend down, closes her eyes and aah anumani, isshh pettindu, by catching the smell on the nose, I ran away told my grandmother in her ears, but my grandmother did not understand, later, I told my mummy about the incident two times". Further, section 164 CrPC statement of victim girl was recorded on 05.03.2021, and she stated that the Krishna uncle took her to another room, bend down, closed her eyes and open the mouth, aah anumani, and Krishna uncle isshh pettindu (the victim referring anus of the accused), by catching the smell on the nose, and she opened the eyes and ran away. Admittedly, PW1 stated in her statement and also video clipping ah anumani isshh pettindu, whereas she stated before the JFCM that the accused isshh pettindu by referring anus of the accused and she deposed in her evidence that the accused was taken her to another room, asked to close her eyes, and the accused said he will give surprise and asked her to bend down for some extent, he opened his pant zip and kept his private part in her mouth, witness saying ‘isshh notilo pettindu’. On proper appraisal of 161 CrPC statement of victim girl and also video clipping along with 164
CrPC statement and her deposition, there is a inconsistency with regard to the particular organ part of the accused, however, as per the Section 3(a) of POCSO
Act, a person is said to penetrative his penis to any extent of vagina or mouth or urethra or anus of the child or make the child to do so with him or any other person, therefore, there is no necessity to receive any external or internal injuries over the body of the victim, the said section described that mere penetrative sexual assault is sufficient to hold the guilt of the accused.
Admittedly, PW2 is the victim girl was aged about 6 years at the time of
Fair 42 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 incident and it is highly impossible that the child would expressed and informed the particular word i.e., urinary or anus part, but she can learnt from her parents, whenever she attend the natural calls or urinary by using some words, in this case, the victim girl categorically and collectively without any embarrassment deposed that the accused took her in the room, bend down, closed her eyes, aah anumani, isshh pettindu by catching the smell on the nose, she ran away i.e.,, “ ఆ గందిలోకి పోయి కి�దకి వం�చి, కృళ్ళు� మ8సి ఆ అంనుమాని, ఇంష్ష్I పెటిK�డు ముకుMకు అం�టి వాస్యన చూ8సి, వూరికి వంచి4". Further, the victim girl deposed in her evidence that the accused open the pant zip and inserted his penis in her mouth, but the same is not reflected in her 161 CrPC statement and 164 CrPC statement and Ex.P18A/video clipping, but it cannot be solid ground to reject the entire evidence of PW2. Further, the victim girl stated in her 164 CrPC statement that she referring male part anus of the accused, basing on that it cannot said that the accused not committed penetrative sexual assault. Basing on the minor discrepancies found in the evidence of PW2, it should cannot ground totally discarded her evidence. More particularly, the evidence of PW2 inspired the confidence of this Court that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on her.
g)On proper analysis and appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution, admittedly, the learned counsel for defence during cross-examination of PW1, PW2, PW11 and PW12 failed to discredit their evidence on any aspect and failed to elicit anything material omissions, contradictions or improvements 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 PW1, PW2, PW11 and PW12 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
Fair 43 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 no motive has been attributed to PW1, PW2, PW11 and PW12 for false implication of the accused.
h) 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 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.
i) 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, the accused has neither taken any such defense nor adduced any evidence about culpable mental state qua thus this Court is bound to draw a presumption that accused had culpable mental state qua his act. Further, the accused has utterly and miserably failed to prove his defence by examining any independent witness to prove that on the date of incident, he was not in the house and he is in his shop and he never committed any such kind of offence. Moreover, the accused did not examine any independent witness to prove that the mother and sister of PW1 taken the hand loan, due to which, there are quarrel between them, as such,
PW1 filed a false case. Further, this Court arrived at a firm conclusion that the defence set up by the accused is totally unbelievable and not trustworthy.
Moreover, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, but he did not
Fair 44 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 offer any tangible explanation how he falsely implicating in this case, and he did not place any evidence to show that as on date of alleged offence he was not in his house. All relevant questions had been put to the accused under
Section 313Cr.P.C., but he could not explain their whereabouts at the time of occurrence of the incident. It is pertinent to note here that there is no enmity with PW1 and the accused. Further, PW1 searching lengthily cross-examined by the accused nothing was elicited from her mouth to create a shadow of doubt that there was a enmity between the accused with the mother and sister of
PW1. It is significant to note here that PW1 and PW2 residing at Karimnagar and they occasionally came to the house of mother of PW1 for celebrating the festivals, therefore, if the accused not committed any such offence, they should not have deposed the false evidence against the accused.
j) 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 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."
k)In Manoj Kumar, V/s. The State of Uttharakand (2019) 5 SCC page
No.667, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “In the absence of any existing enmity between the accused and witnesses, there exists no ground to question the veracity of the witness or to rise a ground of false implication.
l) In the instant case, the accused was prosecuted for committing the offence of penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 6 of the 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 penetrative sexual assault. In other words, he has not rebutted the said presumptions in any
Fair 45 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 manner, either by cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses i.e., PW.1 to
PW.14 or by adducing defence evidence, and failed to establish that there is a strong motive to involve the accused in this case. Further, this Court has safely drawn the presumption in favour of the victim girl. Moreover, the evidence of
PW1 to PW5, PW8 to PW14 inspires the confidence of this Court that the accused committed grave offence and their evidence is credible, reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, this Court arrived to a firm conclusion that there is substantial material evidence found against the accused and the prosecution has successfully proved by way of cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl who is aged about 6 years. Therefore, this Court respectfully disagree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for defence on all the aspects, and the accused committed the offence under Section 5(m) read with 6 of
POCSO Act, but not under Section 9(m) read with 10 of POCSO Act.
m) On careful analysis and appraisal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 14 and Exs.P1 to P19 and MO1 to MO5, this Court has arrived at an inescapable conclusion that the prosecution has successfully placed the chain events about the series of acts of the accused while committing the offence against the minor victim girl, therefore, the prosecution has clinchingly proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl who is aged about 6 years 10 months, as such, he committed the offence under
Section 376(1) of IPC as well as offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Hence these points are answered accordingly.
23) 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?
Fair 46 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
a)On careful scrutiny and analysis of entire evidence of the prosecution, admittedly the prosecution has successfully proved that in both the offences i.e., an offence punishable under Sections 376(1) of IPC as well as offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. As per the Section 33 (8) of the
POCSO Act, 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 :
(3) Where the Special Court, under sub-section (8) of section 33 of the Act read with sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) makes a direction for the award of compensation to the victim, it shall take into account all relevant factors relating to the loss or injury caused to the victim, including the following:- (I) Type of abuse, gravity of the offence and the severity of the mental or physical harm or injury suffered by the child; The expenditure incurred or likely to be incurred on child’s 12. medicaltreatment for physical or mental health or on both; Loss of educational opportunity as a consequence of the 13. 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 357 A 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.
Fair 47 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 -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). -If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied that the compensation awarded under section 357 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.
b)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.
c)On careful perusal of the entire material on record, there is no dispute that the victim girl/PW2 was minor and aged about 6 years at the time the offence committed by the accused. The offence committed by the accused upon the victim girl/PW2 must have caused mental trauma to her, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Admittedly, the father of victim working as
Government employee as Revenue Inspector, however, the compensation is awarded basing on the mental trauma and rehabilitation, rather than the financial status of the victim father and irrespective of income of the parents.
Further, the accused had committed penetration of sexual assault against the victim girl, therefore, definitely the said acts of the accused had impact on her education and future prospects which is also cannot be compensated in terms of
Fair 48 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 money, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is an appropriate case to recommend to the District Legal Service Authority, Mancherial, to award a compensation Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim girl. The point is answered accordingly.
24) Point No.5: To What relief?
From the above foregoing discussion and also by answering the Point
Nos.1 to 4, it is, therefore, the prosecution has successfully proved the offence punishable under Sections 376(1) of IPC as well as offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the accused. The points are answered accordingly.
25)IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376(1) of IPC as well as offence under Section 6 of the POCSO
Act, as such, he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. of the said offences.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, and after correction pronounced by me in open Court this the 4th day of May, 2026.
FAC:Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial
26)The accused is called 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 committed any kind of offence against the victim girl, and he is having two daughters and same age group of victim and how he committed such a offence against the victim girl, and due to financial transaction between him and mother and sister of PW1 there was a quarrels and disputes took place, and the mother of the
Fair 49 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 victim due to misunderstanding on her own interpretation and assumptions and presumption and also instigation of her mother and sister, she lodged a false complaint against him, he is having wife and two daughters and they are depending upon his income, except himself there is nobody to look after their welfare and their life would be ruined, hence, he pray the Court to take lenient view.
b)The learned Special Public Prosecutor would pray for awarding maximum punishment against the accused as he committed penetrative sexual assault against the victim girl who is minor aged about 6 years at the time of incident, as prescribed for the offences proved against the accused.
c)The learned defense counsel 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.
d)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 50 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 penetrative sexual assault with the minor victim cannot be ruled out, 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 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 penetrative 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
Fair 50 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 shall be shown to him, as such, this Court is unable to give due weightage to the said mitigating factors as pleaded by him and also cannot invoke benevolent provisions of either section 360 of Cr.P.C or the provisions of offender acts.
e)A comparative reading of the Section 376(1) of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act would reveals that the person who commit the offence under
Section 376(1) of IPC, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine and the punishment under Section 6 of
POCSO Act would reveals that the maximum sentence is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine or with death.
f)In view of Section 42 of POCSO Act, which provides that, where an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under POCSO Act and also under any other law for the the time being in force, then notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable for punishment, only for such law or under
POCSO Act, whichever greater in degree. Further, this Court arrived to a firm conclusion that the punishment prescribed for the offences under section 376(1) of IPC is lesser than punishment prescribed under Section 6 of POCSO Act, then bring the special Act, it would be appropriate that the accused is punishable under the provisions of POCSO Act. Therefore, this Court arrived at a firm conclusion that the accused is to be sentenced for the offence punishable under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 only, and no separate sentence is awarded for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC.
g)Considering the facts of the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a case for awarding maximum punishment for death and also life imprisonment till remaining period of his natural life. However, the
Fair 51 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 accused sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 20 years as provided by law will meet the ends of justice.
O R D E R
The Accused is sentenced as follows:
i)The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, hence he is sentenced to undergo RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT
FOR 20 YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.
ii)That the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- imposed against the accused shall be paid to the victim girl/PW2 to meet rehabilitation of the victim girl/PW2.
iii)MO1 to MO5 and unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after a period of appeal.
iv)As could seen from the record, the accused has been in jail in this case from 22.10.2020 to 14.12.2020, the said period shall be given set off under
Section 428 Cr.P.C. against the substantial sentence imposed as above.
v)This Court recommended to the the District Legal Service Authority,
Mancherial to award a compensation Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim girl from and out of the victim compensation fund within the one month from the date of receipt of copy of Judgment.
vi)This Court informed to the Convict 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.
vii)The office is directed to send a copy of the Judgment to learned
District Magistrate, Mancherial u/s 365 CrPC.
Fair 52 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026 viii)Let a copy of the Judgment be given to the convict Accused immediately as per the provisions of Section 363(1) CrPC free of costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, and after correction
pronounced by me in open Court this the 4th day of May 2026.
FAC:Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE
PW1Mother of victim girl NONE PW2Victim girl
PW3Neighbour of victim girl
PW4Neighbour of victim girl
PW5T. Pattabhi Ramaiah – Panch for CDF and seizure panchanama PW6Asadi Madhukar – Panch for confession and seizure panchanama PW7Shaik Sadiq - Panch for confession and seizure panchanama PW8Smt. G. Swaroopa Rani – Municipal Commissioner,Mancherial Municipality PW9Dr. Aruna Jyothi – Medical Officer
PW10Dr. S. Sakaram – Medical Officer
PW11Kum. M. Manasa - WSI
PW12Kum. B. Aruna - WPC
PW13B. Raju - IO
PW14M.A. Rahaman - IO
EXHIBITS MARKED
Ex.P1Complaint by PW1 NIL
Fair 53 SC(P) No.63 of 2021, dt: 04.05.2026
Ex.P2Section 161 CrPC statement of PW3
Ex.P3Panchanama conducted at the time of seizure of clothes of victim by PW5 Ex.P4Signature of PW5 on panchanama
Ex.P5CDF with rough sketch by PW5
Ex.P6Signature of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P7Signature of PW7 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P8Birth certificate of victim girl issued by PW8 Ex.P9Attested copy of birth certificate by PW8
Ex.P10Primary examination report by PW9
Ex.P11FSL report by PW9
Ex.P12Final opinion by PW9
Ex.P13Potency certificate of accused by PW10
Ex.P14FIR by PW13
Ex.P15Relevant portion in confession statement by PW14 Ex.P16Photographs with CD by PW14
Ex.P17DVD by PW12
Ex.P18Pen drive by PW12
Ex.P18AVideo clipping of the victim duration of 2.06 minutes – MP4 by PW12 Ex.P1965B certificate by PW12
MOs Marked MO1 Frock of victim girl MO2 Drawer of victim girl MO3 Shirt MO4 Pant MO5 Underwear
FAC:Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, Mancherial