Page No.1 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, 2012-CUM- XII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE: HYDERABAD.
Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026
Present:Ms. Archana Kumari M.,
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF POCSO ACT CASES
CUM XII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD.
SC.POCSO No.35/2024 (Cr.No.192/2023 of P.S Kamatipura) ==========================================================
1. Name and description of : The State of Telangana, through Inspector of the complainant Police, P.S., Kamatipura
2. Name and description of : Accused: Kali Aman Kumar @ Akshay, the accusedS/o. K. Anand Kumar, Age 29 years, Occ. Pvt. Job, R/o H.No. 20-1-745, 2ndFloor, Pardhiwala, Puranapool, Hyderabad
3. Crime Number and Police : 192 of 2023 of P.S., Kamatipura, Hyderabad station
4. Prosecution conducted by: Sri. P.J.Rama Krishna, Additional Public Prosecutor, I/c. Special Public Prosecutor.
5. Defence conducted by: Sri. Subhash Singh, Advocate for Accused
6. Offence charged: Under Section 377 and 506 of IPC, Section 5(l)(m)(n) read with 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
7. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty
8. Finding of the court: Found guilty
9. Result: In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.377 and 506 of IPC and Sec.5(l)(m)(n) r/w. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and he is convicted under Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C.
The Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Twenty Five (25) years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees: Ten Thousand only) for the offence under Section 5(l)(m)(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for Six (6) months.
Page No.2 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026
The Accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Two (2) years for the offence under Section 506 of IPC.
All the above sentences shall run concurrently. As seen from the record, the Accused is in judicial custody from 03-12-2023 to 02-02- 2024. The said period shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C against the substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed against him. The marked case properties i.e., MO.1 – Bed sheet brown colour. MO.2 – Blanket white and grayish colour deposited vide PI No. 18/2024 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and MO.3- One Plus Nord CE2 having Sim bearing No. 8143545223, deposited vide P.I.No. 18/2024, shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time.
Further, having regard to the nature of offence, the age of victim boy, psychological trauma underwent and financial position, this court considers it is appropriate to recommend awarding an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees: Seventy Five Thousand only) to the victim boy, as final compensation, which would help him to meet his immediate needs; medical and educational expenses. Hence, Rs.75,000/- is decided as compensation amount. Therefore, the Secretary, Metropolitan Legal Services Authority is hereby directed to take steps to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees: Seventy Five Thousand only) to the victim boy at the earliest.
A copy of the judgment is furnished to the accused at free of cost under Section 363 Cr.P.C by intimating him about his right to prefer an appeal against the present judgment and right to get free legal aid.
* * *
This case coming on 20.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor I/c. Special Public Prosecutor, Special Judge For Trial Of Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) ACT, 2012-cum- XII Additional Sessions Judge,
Page No.3 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026
Hyderabad for the State/Complainant and Sri. Subhash Singh, Advocate for Accused upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police, P.S. Kamatipura has filed charge-sheet against the
Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 506 IPC & Sec. 5 (l), (m),
(n) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (herein after referred it as ‘POCSO Act, 2012’).
2. The case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as follows:
i)On 02.12.2023, at about 1400 hours, the defacto/complainant i.e., father of the victim minor boy came to the station and lodged a report before police, stating that he is blessed with three children and his elder son (PW2) aged about 10 years, student of 4th Class of Shloka High School, Puranapool. On 01.12.2023 at about 11:30 pm his elder son/PW2 (victim boy) informed him that he is getting pain in the anus. On enquiry, he has informed him that his neighbour-cum-relative
Kali Aman Kumar @ Akashay, S/o K. Anand Kumar, Age 29 years, Occ : Private job residing in House bearing no. 20-1-745, Puranapool ; has been calling his son for the past four months to his house on the pretext of watching TV and done unnatural sex with him in his Anus, when nobody was there at his house. After doing the unnatural sex said Kali Aman Kumar, used to threaten him not to inform anybody and due to fear his son has not informed this matter to them. Finally, on 23.11.2023 at about 8:00 pm also the Kali Aman Kumar has took the victim boy into his house and done unnatural sex; therefore, the complainant has requested to take necessary action as per law against Kali Aman Kumar. On receipt of the above complaint, PW8 registered the crime no. 192/2023 u/sec. 377, 506 IPC and sec. 5 (l) (m) (n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and took up the investigation.
Page No.4 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026 ii)During the course of investigation, PW8 recorded the statement of PW1 and
LW2/Mother of the Victim boy in part II CD in which both corroborated with the contents of the FIR Facts. The PW8 visited the scene of offence and from the scene at H. No. 20-1-745, drafted the Crime Details Form where in the presence of
LW4/C. Vijesh and PW3 drafted rough sketch and seized (1) Hair (2) Bedsheet brown colour and (3) Blanket, white grayish colour with blood stain with the assistance of clues team staff.
iii) As part of investigation, PW8 collected the Birth Certificate of PW2/Victim boy from PW1 on which the date of birth of the Victim Boy is mentioned as 03.12.2013, which discloses the victim boy is minor. Since the victim boy is aged about 10 years, PW8 has sent the minor victim boy to Bharosa Centre, Hyderabad under the escort of LW13/Rajender Kumar for recording his statement and also for medical examination.
iv)At Bharosa Centre, PW5, WSI of Police of Bharosa Centre, HACA Bhavan,
Hyderabad has examined the PW2/Minor Victim boy and recorded his detailed statement in Part II CD. The PW6, Medical Officer, Bharosa Medical Unit, HACA
Bhavan, Hyderabad conducted medical examination of PW2/Minor Victim boy and vide MLC No. 400/2023 the collected material objects were sent to FSL for opinion.
v)While the efforts were in progress to apprehend the Accused, PW8 on receipt of credible information, deputed LW14/V. Pruthvi and LW15/G. Sandeep to apprehend the Accused/Kali Aman Kumar @ Akshay, accordingly on 03.12.2023 at 6:00 hours the Accused was apprehended near the residence of the Accused and brought to PS Kamatipura and produced before PW8. The Accused voluntarily admitted and confessed that since last one year he used to take the PW2/Victim
Page No.5 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026 minor boy and repeatedly done unnatural sex on him. The PW8 has recorded the
Confession-cum-seizure panchananam of the Accused in the presence of PW4 and
LW7/C.Suman. Also, the cell phone make One Plus Nord CE2 having SIM bearing no. 8143545223 from the possession of the Accused was seized by PW8 in the presence of PW4 and LW7/C. Suman. The PW8 affected the arrest of the
Accused/Kali Aman Kumar @ Akshay on 03.12.2023 by issuing arrest memo by informing the grounds of arrest to the Accused as well as to the father of the
Accused under proper acknowledgment and produced before the Hon’ble Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and remanded the Accused to Judicial
Custody. The PW8 sent the material objects to FSL, which were collected from the scene of offence for examination and opinion. The PW8 took the Accused into
Police Custody with the permission of Hon’ble Court vide Crl. MP No. 605/2023, vide Dis No. 1546/XII Addl. MSJ/Hyd. dt. 15.12.2023 and reconstructed the scene of offence where the Accused took the PW2/Minor Victim boy and committed unnatural sex with the minor Victim boy on the pretext of watching the movies on
TV at the house of the Accused. Later, PW8 produced the Accused before the
PW7, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, Osmania
General Hospital, Hyderabad along with requisition to conduct potency test of the accused, where in the opinion was that “there is nothing to suggest that the individual examined is not capable of performing act of sexual intercourse” vide
S.O. No. 480/FM/OMC-OGH/2023, dt. 16.12.2023.
vi)Further, as part of investigation, LW10/Smt. G. Radhika has recorded the statement under 164 Cr.P.C of PW2/minor Victim boy. The LW12/Raja Naik,
Assistant Director, FSL, Red Hill, Hyderabad examined the material objects and gave opinion vide File No. SER/2289/2023, dt. 16.12.2023. Based on the opinion
Page No.6 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026 given by LW12/Raja Naik, Assistant Director, the PW6 has given the final report that “Tear at glans penis, there is a evidence of penetrative anal sex (Sodomy)”.
After completion of investigation and collection of all the relevant documents, PW8 filed charge sheet against the accused.
3.This case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections
Sections 377, 506 IPC & Sec. 5 (l), (m), (n) r/w sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 by the Special Court for the trial of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cases -cum-XII Additional
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, as it is having jurisdiction to take cognizance.
4. On appearance of the accused before this Court, he was furnished with the copies of the relevant documents relied upon by the prosecution, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5.Thereafter, upon consideration of material available on record and on hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, charges framed for the accusations under Sections 377, 506 IPC & Sec. 5 (l), (m),
(n) r/w & Sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (herein after referred it as ‘POCSO Act, 2012’). The charges framed were read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8 and exhibits P1 to P9 and MOs. 1 to 3 were marked. The learned special
Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining other witnesses.
Page No.7 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to which the accused denied the same and pleaded as no defence evidence.
8.This court heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.
9.Now the points for determination are as follows:
i) Whether the prosecution has proved that the victim was a child as on the date of commission of offence? ii) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 506 IPC & Sec. 5 (l), (m), (n) r/w & Sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (herein after referred it as ‘POCSO Act, 2012’)?
POINT No. i : Whether the prosecution has proved that the victim was a child as on the date of commission of offence?
10.Section 2 (1) (d) of POCSO Act says that “the child means a person below the age of 18 years”. Since the present case is filed under POCSO Act, the prosecution has to prove that the Victim boy was a child below the age of 18 years. In this case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 and Ex. P2.
Based on the Ex. P2, the date of birth of the victim boy is 03.12.2013. It is pertinent to note that the defence has also not challenged the Ex. P2 and so also nothing was disputed during the cross examination of the PW2. The victim boy was minor by the date of registration of the crime and the victim boy is a child as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of POCSO Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.
POINT No. ii : Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 506 IPC & Sec. 5 (l), (m), (n) r/w & Sec. 6 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (herein after referred it as ‘POCSO Act, 2012’)?
Page No.8 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026
11.PW1, who is the father of victim minor boy testified that on 01.12.2023 at about 11:00 pm victim boy informed him that he is suffering pain in his stomach and at his private parts. When he removed the pants of the minor boy and observed his private parts, he found bleeding from anus and also found that the skin was cut on his toilet part and there was some bleeding on it. On enquiry, the
Victim boy was scared at first but later he revealed that the Accused used to take the Victim boy to his bedroom and committed unnatural sex with the boy from front and behind, both private parts. He was informed by Victim boy that the
Accused committed unnatural sex with him since one year and the Accused threatened him not to reveal about the unnatural sex to anyone or else he will beat victim boy and also beat PW1 and his wife. The victim boy also informed him the Accused has bet him and pressed his neck. On the following day, he lodged complaint against the Accused, the complaint was marked as Ex.P1. In the cross examination, the evidence of the PW1 was unshaken and it was suggested and denied by the PW1 that he was having suspecting illegal intimacy with the
Accused and his wife and keeping the grudges, he has foisted false case against the Accused. Though the witness was subjected to lengthy cross examination, but there is nothing adverse has come out to falsify the evidence of PW1 and support the Accused. The evidence of PW2 clearly shows that the Victim boy was sexually assaulted by the Accused and committed unnatural sex repeatedly and intimidated the Victim boy not to disclose to anyone otherwise he would harm the Victim boy and his family.
12.PW2, Victim boy stated that the Accused used to take him to the 2nd floor of his house and shown him porn videos in his cell phone. He further stated that
Page No.9 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026 the Accused used to remove his pants and inserted his toilet part into his anus and also used to put his toilet part in his mouth and Accused used to hold his toilet part and move front and back. The Accused used to give him chocolates after doing such acts with him. The Accused has committed the above acts with the
Victim boy many times, every three days he used to do with him. The Victim also deposed that he sustained bleeding in his private part. One day when he experienced severe pain in the stomach he informed the incidents happened with him to his father/PW1. In the cross-examination, the learned defence counsel could not elicit anything in favour of the Accused after having grueling cross-examination of the Victim boy. Further, the Victim boy, PW2 evidence clearly shows that the
Accused committed penetrative sexual assault repeatedly on him.
13. PW3 stated that on 02.12.2023 the Police visited the scene of offence situated at Puranapool and conducted Crime Details Form and drawn rough sketch in her presence and the Police seized hairs, bed sheet and blanket from the scene of offence. On identifying the material objects that were seized by Police in her presence, the bed sheet brown color was marked as MO1 and blanket white and greyish colour was marked as MO2. The crime details form was marked as Ex.P3.
In the cross-examination, the suggestions put to PW3 were denied and there is nothing adverse has come out to falsify the evidence of PW3.
14. PW4 stated that in the month of December 2023 the Police called him to
PS Kamatipura where one person was in custody of the Police, who was Accused.
On enquiry, the Accused confessed the commission of offence and the Police have prepared the confession-cum-seizure and seized One Plus cell in his presence. The relevant portion of the confession-cum-seizure Panchanama was marked as Ex.P4.
Page No.10 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026
The One Plus mobile phone was identified as MO3. In the cross-examination, the suggestions put to PW4 were denied and there is nothing adverse has come out to falsify the evidence of PW4.
15. PW5 stated on 02.12.2023, their admin received requisition from PS
Kamatipura to record the statement of Victim boy/PW2. Accordingly, she examined and recorded the statement of Victim boy and handed over the statement to the escort Police of Kamatipura. In the cross-examination, the suggestions put to PW5 were denied and there is nothing adverse has come out to falsify the evidence of
PW5.
16. PW6 stated that on requisition from PS Kamatipura to conduct medical examination of Victim boy. Accordingly, he has examined Victim boy and on examination he found tear at glans pennis and he has collected anal smear and oral swab for sending the same to FSL for analysis and report. After receipt of FSL report he issued final opinion that “tear at glans pennis, there is a evidence of penetrative anal sex (sodomy)”. Accordingly he issued preliminary examination report and final opinion. Ex.P5 is preliminary examination report of victim girl.
Ex.P6 is FSL report. Ex.P7 is final opinion. In the final opinion, it was opined that “Semen and spermatozoa are not detected on Item Nos.1 to 8, blood is not detected on Item Nos.1, 2 and 3”. Hence, the final opinion of the PW6 was “Tear at glans penis, there is a evidence of penetrative anal sex (sodomy)”. In the cross- examination, the PW6 has denied all the suggestions put forth by the defence counsel and also denied specifically the suggestion that the tear at glans penis occurs due to balanities, fungal infection, or poor hygienic conditions. It is also stated by the PW6 that digital examination of anus using gloves and lubricated
Page No.11 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026 fingers I or II was not conducted since the Victim boy was ten years and the anus was painful. However, though there were minor contradictions in the evidence of
PW6 which automatically cannot lead to the brushing out of the material evidence of the PW6. The evidence of PW6 corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and
PW2/Minor Victim boy with regard to the alleged sexual assault.
17. PW7 stated that on 16-12-2023, she received requisition from PS Kamatipura for conducting potency test of accused. Accordingly, she examined the Accused and on her local and general examination and based on physical, general and local examination of the Accused and she has opined that “there is nothing to suggest that he is not capable of performing sexual intercourse”. Accordingly she issued report. Ex.P8 is potency test report issued by her. The cross-examination of this witness treated as nil and no steps were taken to complete the cross-examination.
18. PW8, on 02-12-2023 at 1400 hours, he received complaint from PW1 and basing on the same he registered a case in Cr.No. 192/2023 u/sec 377, 506 IPC and Section 5(l)(m)(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of his investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and LW2/Mother of Victim boy. Later, he visited the scene of offence situated at Pardiwada, Puranapool, Hyderabad and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of PW3 and LW4/C.
Vijesh and seized one hair, two bed sheets brown colour, three blankets white grayish colour with blood stains. He collected birth certificate of Victim boy from
PW1 and got recorded the statement of Victim boy through PW5 at Bharosa center. Further PW6 examined the Victim boy medically and collected material
Page No.12 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026 objects from him for sending the same to FSL for analysis and report. On 03-12- 2023, on information he apprehended the Accused at his house and brought him to PS. On interrogation the Accused confessed the guilt of offence. Then he recorded confession cum seizure panchanama and seized one plus with SIM 8143545223 cell phone from the possession of accused in the presence of PW4 and
LW7/C. Suman. Later he effected the arrest of Accused and got remanded him to
Judicial Custody. He forwarded the material objects collected from victim boy sent to FSL for examination and report. Later he obtained police custody of accused from the Court and during police custody he visited the scene of offence and reconstructed the scene of offence and got conducted potency test to the accused through PW7. After completion of Police Custody, he reproduced the Accused
before the Court for further Judicial Custody. Further, he got recorded the
statement u/sec 164 Cr.PC of Victim boy through LW10, Hon’ble V Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. On receipt of FSL report from
LW12/Raja Naik, Assistant Director, FSL, Red Hills, Hyderabad, he obtained final opinion from PW6. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Ex.P9 is the FIR. In the cross-examination, PW8 denied that he never visited the scene of offence and denied that it was done table made investigation and filed false charge sheet by falsely implicating the Accused at the instance of PW1. It is also denied by PW8 that the Accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence.
19.In this case, this Court framed charges under Sec.5(j)(ii)(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO
Act and Sec.376(2)(n) of IPC. The said sections reads as follows :
Offence under section 377 of Indian Penal Code says that “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
Page No.13 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”.
Offence under section 506 of Indian Penal Code says that “Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine or with both”.
Offence under section 5(l) of POCSO Act says that “Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child more than once or repeatedly”.
Offence under section 5(m) of POCSO Act says that “Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years”.
Offence under section 5(n) of POCSO Act says that “Whoever being a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care or having a domestic relationship with a parent of the child or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on such child”.
20.As discussed supra, the evidence of PW1 and PW2/Victim minor boy shows that the Accused had lured the boy by giving chocolates and committed the penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim boy multiple times. Further, as the evidence of PW6, there was a tear noted at the glans penis of the Victim minor boy as per Ex.P7. The Medical Officer (PW6) has testified that due to pain there was no digital anal examination was conducted and cannot say the Victim minor boy was sodomized without the examination during the cross- examination of the
PW6. The PW6 denied the suggestions put to her by the learned defence counsel that the tear of glans penis could occur due to infection; however, the complete evidence of PW6 cannot be brushed out. The counsel for the Accused submitted an argument that the Accused was falsely implicated and there was no sexual assault
Page No.14 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026 happened with the minor victim boy. Further, the defence counsel has pointed out that only out of the personal vengeance, the PW1 has falsely implicated the
Accused out of the suspicion on the Accused that he is closely moving with his wife.
21.Since the present case is filed under POCSO, this Court can take assistance of presumptions contained under Sec.29 of the POCSO Act.
Sec. 29 of POCSO Act says that “Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sec.3,5,7 and 9 of this act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved”.
22.In this case, the Accused has not taken any specific defence. His contention is that he has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated by the
PW1 who is his neighbour and relative with personal vengeance against him. But, as discussed above, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was unshaken during the cross- examination by the counsel for the defence and nothing adverse was elicited in favour of the Accused that he has not committed the unnatural sexual assault on the minor Victim boy. The Accused has failed to rebutt the presumptions contained under Sec.29 of POCSO Act. As such the prosecution established the guilt of the
Accused under Sec.377 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 5(l)(m)(n) r/w. 6 of the POCSO
Act.
23.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution proved the guilt of the
Accused under Sec. 377 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 5(l)(m)(n) r/w. 6 of the POCSO
Act. Accordingly the Point No.ii is answered.
Page No.15 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026
RESULT:
24. In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under
Sec.377 and 506 of IPC and Sec.5(l)(m)(n) r/w. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and he is convicted under Sec. 235(2) of
Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026.
Sd/-
SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF THE
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL
OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, 2012, -CUM– XII
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD
25.Heard the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence. Accused submitted that his wife is pregnant and she needs his presence during her pregnancy period. Hence, prayed the court to take lenient view while imposing the sentence. Having heard the accused and the submissions made by him, this court is of the considered opinion that lenient view can be taken against the accused while imposing the sentence.
26.In this case, Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.5(l)(m)
(n) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sec.377 and 506 of IPC. Here, in view of Section 42 of POCSO Act, a question arises whether the
Accused can be punished for the offences under Sec.377 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sec.5(l)(m)(n) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act. To decide this question, it would be necessary to notice Section 42 of the POCSO Act and the same reads as under:
27.42. Alternate punishment:- “Where an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under Sections 166A, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 370, 370A, 375, 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, 376E, 509 of the Indian
Penal Code or Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the
Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree.”
Page No.16 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026
28.From the above provision, it is obvious that if the wrong doer is found guilty of any offence under the POCSO Act and under any of the above provisions of the Indian
Penal Code, he shall be punished under the POCSO Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree. In the instant case, the Accused is found guilty of the offences under Sec.377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.5(l)(m)(n) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
29.The punishment prescribed for the offence under Sec.5(l)(m)(n) r/w 6 of POCSO
Act, 2012, for which the Accused is convicted, is greater to the punishment prescribed under Sec.377 of the Indian Penal Code, for which also the Accused is convicted. The punishment prescribed for the offence under Sec.377 of IPC shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Whereas the punishment provided for the offence under Sec.5(l)(m)(n) r/w 6 of
POCSO Act shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person, and shall also be liable to fine, or with death. So, the punishment provided under Sec.5(l)(m)(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act is greater in degree than the punishment provided for the offence under Sec.377 of IPC.
Hence, in view of the principle contained in Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the Accused shall be inflicted with the alternate punishment prescribed for the offence under Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act only and he need not be punished for the offences under
Sec.376(3) of the Indian Penal Code.
30.The Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Twenty
Five (25) years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees: Ten Thousand only) for the offence under Section 5(l)(m)(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine amount, the accused further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for Six (6) months.
Page No.17 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026
The Accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of
Two (2) years for the offence under Section 506 of IPC.
31.All the above sentences shall run concurrently. As seen from the record, the
Accused is in judicial custody from 03-12-2023 to 02-02-2024. The said period shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C against the substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed against him. The marked case properties i.e., MO.1 – Bed sheet brown colour.
MO.2 – Blanket white and grayish colour deposited vide PI No. 18/2024 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and MO.3- One Plus Nord CE2 having Sim bearing
No. 8143545223, deposited vide P.I.No. 18/2024, shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time.
32.Further, having regard to the nature of offence, the age of victim boy, psychological trauma underwent and financial position, this court considers it is appropriate to recommend awarding an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees: Seventy Five
Thousand only) to the victim boy, as final compensation, which would help him to meet his immediate needs; medical and educational expenses. Hence, Rs.75,000/- is decided as compensation amount. Therefore, the Secretary, Metropolitan Legal Services Authority is hereby directed to take steps to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees:
Seventy Five Thousand only) to the victim boy at the earliest.
33.A copy of the judgment is furnished to the accused at free of cost under Section 363 Cr.P.C by intimating him about his right to prefer an appeal against the present judgment and right to get free legal aid.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026.
Sd/-
SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF THE
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL
OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, 2012, -CUM- XII
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD
Page No.18 of 18 total pages SC.POCSO No.35/2024, dated 29.04.2026
-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: PW.1:Father of the Victim Boy PW.2:Victim Boy PW.3:K. Kailashwari, Panch for Crime Details Form PW.4:C. Dheeraj, Panch for Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of Accused PW.5:Ch. Suma Priay, Sub-Inspector of Police, SHE Teams and Bharosa, CCS, DD, Hyderabad and recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Victim Minor Boy PW.6:Dr. Haseeb Jahan, Medical Officer, Bharosa Medical Unit, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad and conducted medical examination of Victim Minor Boy PW.7:Dr.G. Jhansi Lakshmi, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, Osmania Medical College/Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and conducted Potency Test of Accused and issued Certificate PW.8:Y.Kamal Kumar, Inspector of Police and Investigation Officer
The names of the parents of the victim and the victim are not disclosed as barred under Section 228A of IPC and as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Karnataka Vs. Puttaraj (2004 (2) ALT (SC) 6) as discussed in para 2 of the Judgment.
DEFENCE:-NONE Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION: Ex.P1:Complaint of PW1 Ex.P2:Birth Certificate of Victim Boy Ex.P3:Crime Details Form along with Rough Sketch Ex.P4:Relevant portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P5:Preliminary Examination Report Ex.P6:FSL Report Ex.P7:Final Opinion Ex.P8:Potency Test Report Ex.P9:First Information Report
FOR DEFENCE:- Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED, IF ANY:- MO.1:Bed sheet brown colour MO.2:Blanket white and grayish colour MO.3:One Plus Cell Phone
Sd/-
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF PROTECTION
OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES
(POCSO) ACT, 2012-CUM- XII ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD