1 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF
RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.
Thursday the 14th day of May ,2026.
Present: Smt. M.K. Padmavathi, Fast Track Spl. Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar
SC.SPL/94/2023
(Cr.No. 388 of 2021 P.S Balapur)
1Name of the complainantThe Assistant commissioner of
Police, Vanasthalipuram Division,
Rachakonda, Commissionerate.
2Name of the accusedA1.MohammadAzeemS/o
Mohammad Saleem, Aged: 25 years,
Occ: Sentring Mason, H.No. 18- 131/11, Abubakar Colony, Kothapet
Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District.
A2.Mohammed Haleem S/o
Mohammad Saleem, Aged: 31 years,
Occ: Labour, R/o Abubakar Colony,
Kothapet Village, Balapur Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District.
A3: Jameela Begum W/o Mohammad
Saleem, Aged: 60 years, Occ: House
Wife, Abubakar Colony, Kothapet
Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District.
A4: T. Shobha Singh W/o Late
Pravesh Singh, Aged: 62 years, Occ:
General Physician R/o Shoha
Hospital 18-13-6/31/a, Beside Choice
Spl.Judge.
2 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
FunctionalHall,Hashamabad,
Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.
3Offences charged ofAccused No. 1 :-Under section 376(2)(n), 506 and 312 of IPC and section 5(l) read with 6 and section 5(j)(ii) read with 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
Accused No. 2 and 3:- 312 and 506 of IPC.
Accused No.4:- 312 of IPC..
4Crime No.& Name of the PS388 of 2021 P.S Balapur.
5Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.
6Finding of the CourtFound guilty.
7Sentence or orderIn the result, Accused No.4 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 312 of the
Indian Penal Code and is accordingly acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., with her bail bonds to remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under
Section 437-A Cr.P.C.; however, A1 is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)
(n), 312, and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, as well as under Sections 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, while A2 and A3 are found guilty of the offences
Spl.Judge.
3 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
punishable under Sections 312 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly, A1 to A3 stand convicted under Section 235(2)
Cr.P.C.
In view of Section 42 of the
POCSO Act, as Accused No. 1 committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life (natural life) and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence under
Section 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which is punishable under
Section 6(1) of the said Act.
The Accused No.1 is also convicted under section 235(2) of
Crpc for the offence punishable under section 5(l) read with 6 (1) of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life (natural life) and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he shall
Spl.Judge.
4 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
The Accused No.1 is also convicted under section 235(2) of
Crpc for the offence punishable under section 312 of IPC and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in defaulttosuffersimple imprisonment for one month.
The Accused No.1 is also convicted under section 235(2) of Crpc for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and also to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
The Accused No.2 and 3 are convicted under section 235(2) of
Crpc for the offence punishable under section 312 of IPC and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three(3) year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in defaulttosuffersimple imprisonment for two months.
Spl.Judge.
5 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
The Accused No.2 and 3 are convicted under section 235(2) of
Crpc for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one(1) year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in defaulttosuffersimple imprisonment for one month.
In view of Section 42 of the
POCSO Act, no separate sentence is being imposed against the Accused
No.1 for the offences under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.
The fine amount of Rs.20,000/- (Ru-pees twenty Thousand) imposed against the Accused No.1 for the offences under Section 5(l) and 5(j)
(ii) read with Section 6(2) of the
POCSO Act shall be paid to the victim-girl/PW.1 to meet medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim-girl/PW.1.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by the Accused No.1 to 3 shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 to 3 are appraised about their right to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble High
Court and they are further informed
Spl.Judge.
6 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
that they will be provided legal aid counsel, if required. Free copy of the judgment is supplied to them.
As the Accused No.1 stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6(1) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim-girl below the age of 16 years, this Court is duty-bound to consider not only the gravity of the offence but also the consequences suffered by the victim. The circumstances under which the offence was committed reveal the exploitationofaminor’s vulnerability, resulting in severe physical,emotional,and psychological trauma. Such trauma, particularly at a tender age, has long-lasting effects on the victim’s dignity, self-confidence, and overall well-being.
Taking into account the loss and injuries suffered by the victim-girl, her family background, and financial condition, it is evident that the offence has caused irreparable harm beyond the immediate incident. The victim has endured mental anguish,
Spl.Judge.
7 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
social stigma, and disruption in her educationandpersonal development. The law recognises that justice is incomplete unless adequate measures are taken to rehabilitate the victim and restore her to a life of dignity.
Compensation, therefore, serves not merely as monetary relief but as a means of acknowledging the harm caused and supporting her recovery.
Accordingly, this Court, keeping in view the mandate under Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act and the principles laid down for victim compensation, determines that the victim-girl must be awarded a fair and reasonable amount. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the financial condition of the family,andtheneedfor rehabilitation, an amount of Rs.
4,00,000/- (Rupees four Lakhs) is awarded as compensation to PW1, the victim-girl. This sum is intended to meet her immediate needs, support her education, provide medical and psychological care, and assist in her long-term rehabilitation, thereby ensuring that justice is rendered not only in punishing the offender but also in restoring the
Spl.Judge.
8 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
victim’s dignity. Therefore, the
Secretary, District Legal Services
Authority, is directed to take steps forpaymentofthesaid compensationamountof
Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four Lakhs) to the victim girl, from and out of the
Victim Compensation Fund at the earliest.
8Name of the prosecution Sri. P. Sathyanarayana. counsel 9Name of the Defence counselSri. P. Ram Mohan For A1 to A3. Sri. Mohd. Ajmal Ahmed for A4.
10 Remaind PeriodA1. 30-09-2021 to 22-12-2021. A2. 10-01-2022 to 25-02-2022. A3. 10-01-2022 to 07-02-2022.
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri. P. Sathyanarayana, Addl Public Prosecutor for the State and of
Sri. P. Ram Mohan For A1 to A3 and Sri. Mohd. Ajmal Ahmed for A4, Advocate
for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on
record, this Court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The Assistant commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Division,
Rachakonda, Commissionerate.filed Charge sheet in Cr.No. 388 of 2021 against above named accused person for the offences punishable Under
Sections 312, 376(2)(n) and 506 read with 109 of IPC and section 5 read with 6 of POCSO Act 2012.
Spl.Judge.
9 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
2.The gist of the prosecution case reads as follows:-
On 28-09-2021 at 08:00 PM, LW/1, the mother of the victim, lodged a complaint stating that her marriage was solemnised with one Shaik Arshad.
After their wedlock, she was blessed with two daughters and one son. Due to family disputes, her husband, Shaik Arshad, left her long ago and has been living separately. Since then, she has been working as a maid servant. While she attends work, her children are kept at her mother’s house in Abubakar
Colony. About 15 days ago, when she went to her mother’s house, she found her elder daughter (details enclosed in the sealed cover) weeping. When the complainant asked the reason, her daughter revealed that her own brother,
Mohammad Azeem, who resides at her mother’s house, had deceived her with false words and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her several times against her will, putting her in fear. He further threatened her with dire consequences if she revealed the matter to anyone. Recently, her elder daughter suffered from severe stomach pain. The complainant, along with her mother and brothers Mohammad Haleem and Mohammad Azeem, took her daughter to a hospital in Chandrayangutta. The duty doctor examined her and informed them that she was pregnant. After learning the facts, the complainant admonished her mother and brothers about the incident, but they threatened her and her daughter not to disclose the matter to anyone. Subsequently, her mother, Jameela Begum and brothers Mohammad Azeem and Mohammad
Haleem brought pregnancy termination tablets and forcibly made the victim consume them by threatening her, which caused a miscarriage. Hence, the complainant requested that necessary action be taken against them as per the
Spl.Judge.
10 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
provisions of law.
2(i). Basing on the contents of above complaint, LW-14 registered a case in
Crime No. 388/2021 U/sec 312. 376(2), 506 IPC & Sec 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and issued express FIRs and submitted to the Honourable court as well as to all concerned and took up investigation.
2(ii). During investigation, LW-1 and LW-2 were examined, confirming the victim’s age as 16 years. The scene of offence at Abubakar Colony was inspected, Panchanama conducted, and medical examination referred to Area
Hospital, Vanasthalipuram, where samples were collected for FSL analysis. CHC
Barkas later confirmed pregnancy, and medico-legal records were obtained.
Evidence established the involvement of accused Mohammad Azeem,
Mohammad Haleem, and Jameela Begum. On 30.09.2021, A1 Mohammad
Azeem was apprehended, his confession recorded, and he was arrested and remanded after medical and potency tests. FSL analysis reported no semen or blood detected, but rape could not be ruled out. Later, A2 Mohammad Haleem and A3 Jameela Begum surrendered before the Special Court under POCSO Act on 10.01.2022 and were remanded. Police custody petition was dismissed, and further witness statements were recorded.
2(iii).On 21.02.2022, the Hon’ble IX ADJ Court under POCSO Act released
A2 Mohammad Haleem on bail with directions to report weekly to the SHO
Balapur. After his release, his confession was recorded in the presence of LWs- 6 & 7, wherein he admitted that along with A1 and A3, they threatened the complainant and victim, took her to Shobha Hospital, and requested A4 Dr. T.
Shobha Singh to terminate the pregnancy. A4 accepted ₹20,000, provided pills,
Spl.Judge.
11 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
and the victim was forcibly made to consume them, resulting in miscarriage.
The foetus was then disposed of in a drainage. Based on this confession, A4’s involvement was established and notice under Sec. 41(A)(3) Cr.P.C. was served. Subsequently, the victim’s statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, and age proof was collected from Nishanth High School. The case was handed over to LW-15 for further investigation. As the offence constituted aggravated penetrative sexual assault, relevant IPC sections and Sec. 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act were invoked. The investigation was reviewed, found proper, and the charge sheet was filed.
2(iv). After completion of the investigation, LW-14 filed a charge sheet against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 312, 376(2), and 506 of the IPC, and under Section 5 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. A charge sheet was also filed for offences punishable under Sections 312 and 506 read with Section 109 of the IPC against A2 and A3, and for the offence punishable under Section 312 of the IPC against A4.
3.The Hon'ble Special Sessions Judge For Trial and Disposal of POCSO Act
Cases, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar took cognizance for the offences punishable under section 312, 376(2), 506 of IPC and section 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and section 5(n) read with 6 of POCSO Act and section 5(j)(ii) read with 6 of POCSO Act against A1. And A2 and A3 Committed and offence punishable under section 312, 506 read with 109 of IPC and A4,Committed an offence punishable under section 312.
4.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to accused
U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.
Spl.Judge.
12 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
5. In view of the proceedings of the Hon’ble High Court, vide ROC
No.346/E1/2022 dated 01-06-2022, this case is transferred to this court for trial and disposal as per law.
6.Heard on charges and charges were framed against the accused No.1 for the offences punishable Under Section 376(2)(n), 506 and 312 of IPC and section 5(l) read with 6 and section 5(j)(ii) read with 6 of POCSO Act 2012, and charges were framed against the accused No.2 and 3 for the offences punishable Under Section 506 and 312 of IPC and section 312 against A4 and same were read over and explained to them in vernacular language, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.During course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 to P11 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and marked. Learned Spl. App given up the evidence of Lws 4,5, 7 and 12.
8.On completion of examination of witnesses on behalf of prosecution, A1 to A4 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and explained all the incriminating evidence available against them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the
Counsel for the accused.
(i).In the current case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that
PW.1, the victim, has clearly described the offense committed by the accused.
The victim's testimony alone is considered adequate for conviction. Moreover, the evidence presented by PW.1 is supported by the testimonies of Pws.2 to 11 and the medical records. Based on this collective evidence, the prosecution
Spl.Judge.
13 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
aims to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the learned Special Public Prosecutor requests the accused's conviction.
(ii). On the contrary, the learned counsel for the accused contended that there is no corroboration in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and that their evidence is full of contradictions and omissions, and therefore cannot be believed. The learned counsel further argued that the accused did not commit any offence against the victim and that the present case was filed solely with the intention of extorting money from the accused, who is a wealthy man. He further contended that there is no material evidence to establish the guilt of the accused and prayed that the Court may acquit the accused.
10.Now the points that arise for determination are:-
(i). Whether the victim girl was a child as on the date of offence as defined under Section 2 (d) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act?
(ii).Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused
No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 506 and 312 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) read with 6 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt?
(iii).Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused
No.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 506 and 312 of
Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?
(iv).Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused No.4 for the offence punishable under Section 312 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?
Point No.1:-
11. The prosecution's case is that A1, the maternal uncle of the minor victim girl, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. It is also the case
Spl.Judge.
14 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
of the prosecution that at the time of filing of the complaint victim was 16 years old. To bring this case under the purview of the POCSO Act, it must be established that the victim was a child, as defined under Section 2(1)(d), on the date the case was filed. According to Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, a child is an individual who has not yet reached eighteen years of age. At this stage, the court must determine whether the victim falls under the scope of the
POCSO Act.
11(i). In this case, the prosecution contends that the victim girl was 16 years old at the time of the offense. EX.P2 complaint reveals the age of the victim as 16 years as on the date of the incident. Interestingly, the defense counsel did not specifically dispute the victim's age. Although there is no explicit denial regarding her age, the prosecution submitted the victim's bonafide/study certificate, issued by the Head Mistress Head mistress in
Nishant High School, Vatapally Hyderabad. PW9, being the competent authority from the school where the victim studied, has produced documentary evidence relating to the age of the victim girl. Her evidence discloses that, upon receipt of a requisition from the Inspector of Police, Balapur, dated 09-12-2022, she issued the bonafide certificate of the victim girl on 12-12-2022. She specifically stated that the victim studied in their school from IV to X Standard during the academic years 2014 to 2020 under Admission No. 3719. She further deposed that, as per the school admission register maintained in the ordinary course of official business, the date of birth of the victim girl is 05-05-2005. She identified
Ex.P12 as the police requisition and Ex.P13 as the bonafide certificate issued by her.
Spl.Judge.
15 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
11(ii). In the present case, PW1, the victim girl, in her evidence stated that at the time of the incident she was pursuing 10th Standard, her age was 16 years, and her date of birth is 05-05-2005. Evidently, the defence did not deny or dispute the evidence of PW1 regarding her age and date of birth, and the same remained unchallenged in the cross-examination.
11(iii). Significantly, the present complaint was lodged on 28.09.2025. As per the contents of Ex.P2 complaint, Accused No.1 had been continuously committing sexual assault on the victim for the preceding 5 to 6 months. It is further revealed from the complaint that, at the time of disclosure of the incident, the victim was carrying a pregnancy of about five months. Thus, the allegations made in the complaint clearly indicate that the acts of sexual assault had commenced when the victim was below 18 years of age.
11(iv). Further, by calculating the age of the victim as on the date of lodging of the complaint, it is evident that the victim was aged about 16 years, and consequently, at the time of commission of the offence, she was approximately 15 years old. Therefore, the material placed on record unmistakably establishes that the victim was a minor child at the relevant point of time. In view of the above discussion and appreciation of the evidence available on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved that the victim falls within the definition of a “child” under the provisions of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. This fact unequivocally aligns with the provisions outlined in the POCSO Act. Thus, this point is addressed accordingly.
Spl.Judge.
16 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
Point Nos. 2 to 4:-
For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition of evidence, these
points are taken up together for discussion.
12. It is the case of the prosecution that A1, the maternal uncle of the minor victim girl, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her despite knowing she was a minor, which resulted in pregnancy. He, along with A2 and
A3 (his brother and mother), caused the miscarriage by administering unknown pills to the victim. A2 and A3 abetted A1 in terminating the pregnancy, while
A4, a medical practitioner, provided the pills and instructed that they be consumed by the victim. Thus, A1 to A4, despite knowing the victim’s minority, terminated her pregnancy. Accordingly, A1 committed offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, and 312 IPC, as well as Section 5(l) read with 6 and Section 5(j)(ii) read with 6 of the POCSO Act. A2 and A3 abetted A1 in causing miscarriage of the victim’s pregnancy, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 312 and 506 IPC. A4, being a medical practitioner, aborted the pregnancy of the minor victim girl by administering an unknown medicine, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 312 IPC.
12(i). In view of the aforesaid charges leveled against the accused, the initial burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate that the accused person had committed the aforesaid offences. To ascertain that aspects, it becomes necessary to scrutinize the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
12(ii). Before evaluating the evidence, the Court deems it appropriate to set out the provisions under which the accused has been charged.
Spl.Judge.
17 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
(a). Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states that if a person commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, they 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 (which means imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life), and shall also be liable to fine.
(b). Section 312 of IPC deals with Causing miscarraige:- “Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine”.
(c). Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of criminal intimidation. Let’s break down the key points:
1. Offense: Criminal intimidation occurs when an individual threatens another person with injury to their person, property, or reputation.
2. Punishment: If the threat is general (without specifying any particular harm), the offender can be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend up to two years, or with a fine, or both. If the threat specifies causing death, grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, or imputing unchastity to a woman, the punishment can be imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend up to seven years, or with a fine, or both.
(d). Section 5 of the POCSO Act deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Spl.Judge.
18 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
Section 5(j)(ii) reads as follows:- whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, which—(ii) in the case of female child, makes the child pregnant as a consequence of sexual assault;
Section 5(l) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly; or
(e). Section 6 of the POCSO Act specifies the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
(1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.
(2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.
Discussion, appreciation of evidence and reasons thereof:-
13. The prosecution, in order to prove the above-mentioned offenses, has relied entirely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 11. PW1 is the victim herself; PW2 is the mother of the victim and the complainant; and PW3 is a neighbour of the complainant. PW4 is the medical officer who first examined the victim and issued a report confirming her pregnancy. PW5 is the panch witness for the confession Panchanama of A1 and A2. PW6 is the medical officer who conducted the potency test on the accused and issued his opinion. PW7 is the medical officer who examined the victim, collected biological samples, and issued the final opinion. PW8 is the woman police officer who recorded the statement of the victim girl. PW9 is the headmaster who issued the bona fide
Spl.Judge.
19 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
certificate of the victim girl. Finally, PWs 10 and 11 are the investigating officers who carried out the entire investigation in this case.
14. The prosecution argues that the victim is a crucial witness who can offer significant insight into the allegations against the accused. Consequently, the court is inclined to first examine the victim's testimony before considering the evidence of other witnesses. The evidence of PW1, who is the victim girl, occupies a central position in the prosecution case and constitutes direct evidence regarding the involvement of A1 to A3. PW1 clearly identified A1 as her junior maternal uncle, A2 as her senior maternal uncle and A3 as her grandmother. Her evidence further discloses that after the death of her father, her mother was working as a house-keeping employee and used to leave PW1 and her siblings in the house of A3 while attending work. This evidence establishes the domestic environment, access and opportunity available to A1 to commit the offence upon the victim in the absence of her mother.
14(i). PW1 categorically deposed that during the relevant period A1 forced her into physical relationship and committed sexual assault on her repeatedly about 6 to 7 times. She further stated that A1 threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anybody. The testimony of PW1 regarding repeated acts of sexual assault is clear, cogent and consistent. The explanation offered by the victim for her silence, namely fear due to threats extended by A1, appears natural and probable considering that A1 was her close maternal relative residing within the family set-up. In cases involving sexual offences against minors, particularly within the family, delayed disclosure cannot be
Spl.Judge.
20 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
viewed as unnatural. The evidence of PW1 therefore inspires confidence regarding the acts committed by A1.
14(ii). PW1 further stated that she subsequently suffered severe back pain and when her mother took her to a hospital at Chandrayangutta, the doctor informed that she was carrying a pregnancy of about five months. Thereafter, on being questioned by her mother, PW1 disclosed that A1 had repeatedly committed sexual assault on her in the absence of family members. This part of the testimony is highly material, as the pregnancy of the victim constitutes a strong corroborative circumstance supporting the allegations of repeated sexual assault by A1. The sequence of events narrated by PW1 appears natural, spontaneous and free from exaggeration.
14(iii). The evidence of PW1 also directly connects A2 and A3 with the subsequent acts relating to the termination of pregnancy. PW1 specifically deposed that on the following day, in the absence of her mother, A1 to A3 took her to Shobha Hospital at Chandrayangutta, where A4 administered tablets due to which she lost her pregnancy. This evidence clearly shows that A2 and A3 accompanied the victim along with A1 to the hospital after coming to know about the pregnancy. Their conduct, as spoken to by PW1, demonstrates knowledge about the condition of the victim and active participation in taking her for abortion instead of protecting the minor victim or reporting the matter to lawful authorities.
Spl.Judge.
21 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
15. The cross-examination of PW1 by the counsel for A1 to A3, on careful appreciation, does not create any material dent in the prosecution case. On the contrary, the core allegations made by PW1 against A1 to A3 remained intact throughout the cross-examination. The defence was unable to elicit any material contradiction, omission or inconsistency affecting the substratum of the prosecution case. The testimony of PW1 therefore continued to inspire confidence even after lengthy cross-examination.
15(i). During cross-examination, PW1 stated that she narrated the incident to the police in Hindi and the same was reduced into writing in Telugu by the police officer, and thereafter the contents were read over to her in Hindi. This answer of PW1 shows procedural transparency and removes any possible defence contention regarding misunderstanding or incorrect recording of her statement. The witness clearly affirmed that the contents recorded by police were explained to her in a language known to her. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn merely because the statement was recorded in Telugu instead of Hindi.
15(ii). PW1 further reiterated in cross-examination that A1 threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anybody and because of such fear she remained silent. This answer is highly significant because it explains the delayed disclosure of the offence. In cases involving sexual assault within family circles, silence of the victim due to fear, shame or intimidation is a natural human conduct. The defence suggestion that A1 never threatened her was specifically denied by PW1. Nothing was elicited to discredit her
Spl.Judge.
22 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
explanation. Thus, the cross-examination rather strengthens the prosecution case by reaffirming the intimidation exercised by A1 upon the victim.
15(iii). The defence attempted to challenge the minority of PW1 by suggesting that there was no proof to show that she was a minor on the date of incident.
However, the suggestion itself does not disprove the evidence already spoken to by PW1 regarding her age and date of birth. Further, PW1 stated that she was referred for medical examination by police. No contradiction was elicited regarding her age. Thus, the challenge made by the defence remained only a bare suggestion without evidentiary support.
15(iv). The defence further suggested that the mother of PW1 filed a false complaint against A1 to A3 due to previous disputes. PW1 categorically denied the said suggestion. From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that the victim girl had been living in the house of A1 to A3 since her childhood and held them in high regard, addressing them with respect. Under such circumstances, it is unlikely that she would depose false evidence against A1 to A3. Furthermore, during the cross-examination of PW1, the defence counsel failed to elicit any fact suggesting that the present case was filed out of grudge, enmity, or past history. No suspicious circumstances emerged from PW1’s testimony to indicate any ill motive behind filing this case. If no incident had occurred, there would be no reason for the victim girl to give false evidence against A1 to A3, who had raised her since childhood. Importantly, the defence failed to bring on record the nature of such alleged disputes, their seriousness, or any circumstances indicating motive for false implication. Mere bald suggestions
Spl.Judge.
23 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
without supporting material cannot outweigh the direct testimony of the victim, particularly in a case involving sexual offences against a minor girl.
15(v). Another important aspect emerging from the cross-examination is that the defence suggested that the evidence before the Court was completely different from the statement before police. However, no specific contradiction under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act was confronted to PW1. In the absence of duly proved contradictions, the defence cannot rely upon vague suggestions to impeach the credibility of the witness. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 remained substantially consistent on all material particulars connecting
A1 to A3.
15(vi). The defence also specifically suggested that A1 to A3 were in no way concerned with the alleged offence. PW1 unequivocally denied the said suggestion. Significantly, despite detailed cross-examination, the defence could not shake her version that A1 committed repeated sexual assault upon her and that A1 to A3 took her to the hospital after discovery of pregnancy. Thus, the material allegations against A1 to A3 remained unchallenged in substance.
15(vii). On overall appreciation of the cross-examination, it is evident that the defence failed to impeach the credibility of PW1 on any material aspect. Her testimony regarding repeated sexual assault by A1, threats extended by him, resultant pregnancy, and subsequent conduct of A1 to A3 in taking her for abortion remained consistent and trustworthy throughout. The cross- examination did not bring forth any material contradiction, improbability or vimotive sufficient to discard her evidence. Hence, the evidence of PW1, even
Spl.Judge.
24 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
after cross-examination, firmly connects A1 to A3 with the offences alleged by the prosecution.
16. In this case the prosecution to support the evidence of Pw1 examined her mother and the defeacto complinant as Pw2. The evidence of PW2, who is the mother of the victim girl and the de facto complainant, is highly material and forms an important corroborative link in the prosecution case. Her testimony substantially supports the evidence of PW1 regarding repeated sexual assault committed by A1, the consequential pregnancy of the victim, threats extended by A2 and A3, and the subsequent abortion. Being the mother of the victim,
PW2 is a natural witness to the surrounding circumstances that unfolded after discovery of the pregnancy. PW2 clearly identified all the accused persons and stated that A1 is her younger brother, A2 is her elder brother, A3 is her mother and A4 is the doctor who terminated the pregnancy of the victim. Her evidence establishes the close domestic relationship between the parties and explains the circumstances under which the victim girl was left in the care of A1 to A3.
PW2 deposed that after separation from her husband she was residing in her parental house along with her children and due to her employment in
Faluknama Palace she used to leave her children in the custody of her mother and brothers while attending work. This evidence is significant because it establishes the opportunity available to A1 to commit the offence upon the victim in the absence of PW2.
16(i). PW2 further stated that during the relevant period she noticed that the victim was suffering from ill-health and therefore she took her to
Chandrayangutta Government Hospital where a woman doctor examined the
Spl.Judge.
25 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
victim and confirmed that she was carrying a pregnancy of about five months.
This evidence directly corroborates the testimony of PW1 and the medical evidence of PW4 regarding the pregnancy of the victim. The conduct of PW2 in immediately questioning the victim after discovery of pregnancy appears natural and probable. PW2 categorically deposed that upon enquiry, the victim disclosed that A1 repeatedly committed rape on her by threatening her and that A2 and A3 also threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody. This evidence is admissible as conduct and disclosure made by the victim immediately after discovery of pregnancy. The testimony of PW2 therefore corroborates the substantive evidence of PW1 regarding repeated sexual assault by A1 and threats extended by A2 and A3.
16(ii). The evidence of PW2 further discloses that after returning home she questioned A1 to A3 regarding the acts committed by them, and they threatened her with dire consequences. She further stated that when she expressed her intention to lodge a police complaint, A1 to A3 illegally confined her in a room and took the victim to Shobha Singh Hospital where tablets were administered causing termination of pregnancy. This portion of evidence is highly incriminating against A1 to A3 as it indicates their conduct after disclosure of the offence and their attempt to suppress evidence relating to pregnancy. The evidence of PW2 therefore materially connects A1 to A3 with the subsequent abortion of the victim.
16(iii). PW2 also proved the lodging of complaint before police. She stated that police reduced her complaint into writing based upon her narration and thereafter obtained her signature. Ex.P2 complaint was identified by her. The
Spl.Judge.
26 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
prompt lodging of complaint after discovery of pregnancy and abortion lends assurance to the truthfulness of the prosecution case. There is nothing on record to indicate any abnormal delay or concoction.
17. The cross-examination of PW2 does not create any serious dent in the prosecution case. PW2 admitted that she is illiterate and does not know Telugu language and that the police scribed the complaint in Telugu after hearing her narration. This admission does not affect her credibility because she consistently maintained that the complaint was based on her narration. The defence could not establish that the contents of the complaint were fabricated or incorrectly recorded.
17(i). The counsel for the defence cross-examined PW2 at length, offering various suggestions; however, nothing concrete was elicited to discredit her evidence. In fact, nothing was brought on record to establish that PW2 had any previous grudge, enmity, or dispute with A1 to A3 to falsely implicate them in the present case. It is the evidence of PW2 that, after the death of her husband about 10 years ago, she separated from him and started residing with her parents at Abu Bakar Colony. She has two daughters and one son, and she was working at Falaknuma Palace as a domestic worker. During her working hours, she used to leave her children in the care of her mother and brother for their safety and well-being. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW2 clearly establishes that she had utmost trust and confidence in A1 to A3, as they had been looking after her and her children ever since she left her husband. The evidence further indicates that she shared a close and special bond with A1 and A3. If no such incident had taken place, there was no necessity for PW2 to
Spl.Judge.
27 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
lodge a case against her own mother and brother and falsely implicate them in a serious offence. Ordinarily, no Indian woman would file a false case against her own parents and brother with the intention to tarnish not only their reputation but also the character and dignity of her own daughter. This Court finds that no circumstances have been established from the evidence of PW2 to suggest that the present case was falsely lodged due to any past grudge, enmity, or ulterior motive.
17(ii). Further the the defence suggested that no incident had occurred and that a false case was filed to extort money from the accused persons. PW2 categorically denied the said suggestion. Significantly, no material was placed
before the Court to substantiate any monetary dispute or motive for false
implication. Mere bald suggestions in cross-examination without supporting evidence cannot discredit an otherwise natural and trustworthy witness.
17(iii). On overall appreciation, the evidence of PW2 is natural, trustworthy and substantially corroborative of the testimony of PW1. Her evidence establishes the surrounding circumstances leading to discovery of pregnancy, disclosure made by the victim implicating A1, threats extended by A2 and A3, and the subsequent conduct of A1 to A3 in taking the victim for abortion.
Nothing substantial was elicited in cross-examination to discredit her testimony.
Therefore, the evidence of PW2 materially strengthens the prosecution case and firmly connects A1 to A3 with the offences alleged against them.
18. In the present case, PW2 stated that, in the year 2021, when her daughter suffered stomach and back pain, she took her to the Government
Hospital at Chandrayangutta, where the doctor informed them that the victim
Spl.Judge.
28 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
girl was carrying a six-month pregnancy. PW1 also corroborated the same in her evidence. To support their version, the prosecution examined Dr Sameera
Nasreen, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Community Health Centre,
Barkas, as PW4. She in her evidence deposed that at the relevant time she was working as Deputy Civil Surgeon at Government Community Health Centre,
Barkas. She stated that on 20-09-2021 the victim girl was brought to the hospital by her mother under OP No.094599/2021 with complaints of abdominal pain and amenorrhea of three months. PW4 further deposed that upon physical examination she noticed swelling in the abdomen and thereafter asked the victim to lie down on the bed for further examination. On examination, she observed bulging of the abdomen corresponding to 4 to 5 months pregnancy. This evidence of PW4 is highly material because it establishes, through direct medical examination, that the victim girl was carrying pregnancy during the relevant period.
18(i). PW4 further stated that though the mother of the victim denied the pregnancy, she advised them to undergo scanning for confirmation. Thereafter, according to PW4, the victim and her mother did not return to the hospital. This conduct spoken to by PW4 probabilizes the prosecution case that after discovery of pregnancy, the accused persons took steps to terminate the same.
The testimony of PW4 is natural, clinical and devoid of exaggeration. Ex.P4, being the report issued by PW4 to police, further corroborates her oral testimony before the Court.
18(ii). Importantly, the cross-examination of PW4 did not bring out any material contradiction or infirmity. The defence merely suggested that Ex.P4
Spl.Judge.
29 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
was issued at the request of police and that the victim was never brought to the hospital or was not pregnant at the time of examination. PW4 categorically denied all such suggestions. No medical material or contrary evidence was produced to discredit her findings regarding the 4 to 5 months pregnancy.
Therefore, the evidence of PW4 remained intact and reliable.
19. In this case, it is the testimony of PW1 that after registration of the case, the police referred the victim to the hospital for medical examination. To corroborate this, the prosecution examined Dr. P. Vijaya Laxmi, the medical officer as PW11. She in her evidence testified that on 29-09-2021 she examined the victim girl pursuant to police requisition. She stated that both the victim and her mother gave history of abortion on 21-09-2021 allegedly caused forcibly by the accused. This history recorded during medical examination becomes relevant and corroborative in nature.
19(i). PW7 further deposed that during physical examination she found irregular hymen tears, brownish vaginal discharge and extra orifice admitting two fingers easily. She also found the uterus bulky and anteverted. These findings are medically significant because they are consistent with recent abortion and prior pregnancy. Particularly, the finding of bulky uterus and brownish discharge strongly supports the prosecution case that the victim had recently undergone termination of pregnancy.
19(ii). PW7 also stated that she collected vaginal swabs, cervical swabs, pubic hair and nail clippings and forwarded them to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
She issued preliminary examination report under Ex.P9 and after receipt of FSL report under Ex.P10, issued final opinion under Ex.P11 stating that “the
Spl.Judge.
30 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
possibility of rape cannot be ruled out.” Though medical evidence alone may not conclusively establish rape, the findings of PW7 substantially corroborate the testimony of the victim regarding repeated sexual assault and consequential pregnancy.
19(iii). The cross-examination of PW7 also failed to create any dent in the prosecution case. Except making a bare suggestion that she had not examined the victim and issued reports only at the request of police, no substantial contradiction or discrepancy was elicited. PW7 firmly denied the defence suggestions. Significantly, the defence did not challenge the specific medical findings regarding bulky uterus, irregular hymen tears and brownish discharge.
Thus, the testimony of PW7 remained credible and trustworthy.
20. On cumulative appreciation of the evidence of PW4 and PW7, it is clearly established that the victim girl was carrying a pregnancy of about 4 to 5 months and that an abortion had subsequently taken place. Their medical evidence materially corroborates the testimony of PW1 regarding repeated sexual assault by A1 and forms an important link in establishing the prosecution case.
21. In the present case, it is the specific contention of the learned defence counsel that the FSL report under Ex.P9 yielded negative results and no semen or spermatozoa were detected. On that basis, it was argued that the allegation of sexual assault made by the victim girl is not believable and, therefore, the evidence of PW1 deserves to be discarded. However, upon careful appreciation of the entire material available on record, this Court is unable to accept the said contention.
Spl.Judge.
31 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
21(i). This Court has carefully perused Ex.P1 complaint lodged by the mother of the victim girl on 28-09-2021, the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, and the medical evidence placed on record. The evidence clearly discloses that the pregnancy of the victim girl had already been terminated about ten days prior to lodging of the complaint. It is the consistent version of PW1 and PW2 that the accused persons threatened them and restrained them from disclosing the incident or approaching the police. It is only after escaping from their control with great difficulty that the complaint came to be lodged. Hence, the delay in lodging the complaint stands satisfactorily explained.
21(ii). The medical history recorded under Ex.P9 further reveals that the victim girl complained of stomach pain on 20-09-2021, and therefore her mother took her to the hospital for medical examination. Upon examination, the doctor informed them that the victim girl was carrying a pregnancy. The medical history also discloses that thereafter the accused persons forcibly administered tablets to the victim girl, due to which the pregnancy was terminated on the following day. It is further mentioned that the victim had not attained menstrual periods from July 2021, that her last menstrual period was on 30-06-2021, and that the last sexual contact took place on 18-09-2021.
21(iii). In fact, as per Ex.P9, the last sexual contact took place on 18-09- 2021, whereas the victim girl was medically examined only on 29-09-2021, nearly ten days later and after termination of pregnancy. Under such circumstances, non-detection of spermatozoa or semen is neither unnatural nor fatal to the prosecution case. Mere absence of seminal traces after such lapse
Spl.Judge.
32 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
of time cannot, by itself, discredit the consistent testimony of the victim and the supporting medical evidence.
21(iv). Though the FSL report yielded negative results, the clinical findings noted in Ex.P9 assume considerable significance. The medical officer found old irregular hymenal tears, brownish vaginal discharge, and observed that the introitus admitted two fingers easily. The uterus was found to be bulky and anteverted, which clearly indicates a recent loss of pregnancy. These medical findings materially corroborate the testimony of the victim girl regarding repeated sexual assault and subsequent abortion.
21(v). The evidence of PW4 and PW7, who medically examined the victim girl, clearly establishes that the victim was carrying a pregnancy and that the pregnancy had subsequently been terminated. Their evidence also establishes the physical condition of the victim immediately after the abortion. Therefore, merely because the FSL report did not detect semen or spermatozoa, the otherwise cogent and convincing evidence of PW1, supported by the medical evidence of PW4 and PW7, cannot be brushed aside. Further, the prosecution examined Dr. G. Venugopal, Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Government Medical College, Maheshwaram, as PW6. He deposed that on 30-09-2021 he conducted potency examination of A1 and issued Ex.P8 potency certificate. According to his evidence, there was nothing to suggest that A1 was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. The evidence of PW6 and Ex.P8 further corroborates the prosecution case and establishes that A1 was physically capable of committing the alleged act of sexual assault.
Spl.Judge.
33 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
21(vi). Thus, the oral evidence of the victim girl, coupled with the medical evidence of PW4, PW6, and PW7, along with Exs.P4, P8, P9, and P11, forms a complete and consistent chain supporting the prosecution's case. As already discussed supra, despite the lengthy cross-examination of the medical witnesses, particularly PW4, nothing material was elicited to discredit their testimony. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the contention of the defence that the prosecution's case must fail solely on the ground that the FSL report yielded negative results.
22. In the present case, it is the specific contention of the learned defence counsel that the evidence of the victim girl is riddled with contradictions and omissions and that her testimony before the Court is inconsistent with her earlier statements made before the police and the learned Magistrate. On that basis, it was argued that the evidence of PW1 is unreliable and unworthy of acceptance.
22(i). In order to establish that the statement of the victim girl was duly recorded during the course of investigation, the prosecution examined Ch.
Devaki, Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, as PW8. The evidence of PW1 discloses that, after registration of the case, a woman police officer examined her and recorded her statement. To corroborate the same, PW8 deposed that on 28-09- 2021 she received a requisition from LW14 requesting her to record the statement of the victim girl. Accordingly, she recorded the statement of the victim girl at PS Balapur and thereafter handed over the same to LW14. She also identified her signature on the said statement.
Spl.Judge.
34 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
22(ii). The learned defence counsel cross-examined PW8 at length; however, nothing material was elicited to discredit her testimony. No suggestion was put to PW8 that the statement of the victim girl was incorrectly recorded or that any material omissions or contradictions existed in such statement. As already discussed supra, though the defence strongly contended that the evidence of
PW1 is riddled with contradictions and omissions, no specific contradictions or omissions were confronted to PW8, who recorded the statement of the victim girl during investigation. In the absence of confronting the witness with such alleged contradictions in the manner known to law, the defence cannot merely rely upon vague and bald allegations that the testimony of the victim suffers from inconsistencies. Therefore, this Court finds that the evidence of PW8 regarding recording of the statement of the victim girl remains trustworthy, unrebutted, and retains full evidentiary value. Consequently, the contention of the defence that the testimony of PW1 is liable to be discarded on the ground of contradictions and omissions is devoid of merit.
23. In this case, the prosecution further to support its version examined PW10 and PW11, the Investigating Officers who conducted the inquiry. They narrated in detail the steps undertaken during the course of the investigation, as reflected in the final report. They explained how they visited the scene of offence, prepared the requisite documents, effected seizures, apprehended the accused, and forwarded the material objects for forensic analysis. Their testimony provides a comprehensive account of the investigation and affirms the procedural correctness of the prosecution’s case.
Spl.Judge.
35 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
23(i). Although the defence counsel cross-examined PW10 and PW11 extensively, nothing substantial was elicited to discredit their evidence. The witnesses remained consistent and unwavering in their version, and their testimony stood firm and unshaken.
24. It is a well-settled principle of law that the evidence of the victim is more than sufficient to establish the case, as she is the sufferer, and there is no need for corroboration. This court observes that the evidence of PW1 is cogent, convincing, and trustworthy regarding the incident that took place and sexual assault committed by the accused. Furthermore, her testimony is clearly corroborated by the evidence of the medical officer concerning the sexual assault committed against her.
a). In Ranjith Hazarika Vs. State of Assam Crl.Appeal No.190 of 1996 dated 28.02.1996 reported in (1998) 8 SCC 635, their Lordships of our Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of Rape.The evidence of victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. The evidence of victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding.
Courts cannot cling to fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable”.
b). In a case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Asha Ram in
Criminal Appeal No.1266/1998 dated 17.11.2005reported in AIR 2006
SC 381, where in the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows : “Conviction can be
founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual
Spl.Judge.
36 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony 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 isot 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 offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality”.
24(i). In the light of the above decisions, it is no doubt true that in rape cases the evidence of the victim/prosecutrix is of predominant conisideration and her sole testimony is sufficient to act upon if it inspires confidence in the mind of the Court about the commission of offence by the accused against her.
The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in most of the cases held that the evidence of prosecutrix in case of rape and other physical outrages is to be construed that of an injured witness where no corroboration is required, however, the duty is also cast upon the Court to see that the accused must be protected against the possibility of false implication.
24(ii). The court carefully examined the incriminating evidence presented by PW1/victim-girl. Notably, no inconsistencies or omissions were identified in her testimony. Reading her deposition reveals a clear and consistent narrative with a strong ring of truth. Furthermore, during cross-examination, no motive
Spl.Judge.
37 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
emerged for PW1 to fabricate false evidence against the accused. Therefore, the court finds PW1/victim-girl's testimony to be cogent, convincing, trustworthy, and inspires confidence.
24(iii). In the present case, this Court notes that, after registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer got the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. This Court has carefully perused the statement of the victim girl recorded by the learned 11th
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District, at L.B. Nagar. On
perusal of the said statement, this Court finds that the victim girl consistently narrated the entire incident, including the acts committed by the accused, the threats extended to her, the resulting pregnancy, and the subsequent termination of pregnancy. The statement recorded before the Magistrate substantially corroborates the testimony of PW1 before this Court, and no material contradictions or omissions were elicited by the defence to discredit its evidentiary value. Therefore, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
strongly supports the prosecution case.
25. As already discussed supra, it is the specific case of the prosecution that
A1 committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim girl on several occasions, which ultimately resulted in her pregnancy. It is further the allegation of the prosecution that A1 threatened the victim girl with dire consequences, including threats to kill her, if she disclosed the incident to anyone. The prosecution further alleges that, after the pregnancy came to light, A1 administered unknown tablets to the victim girl, resulting in termination of her pregnancy.
Spl.Judge.
38 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
25(i). In order to establish the said allegations, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1, the victim girl. PW1, in her evidence before the
Court, categorically narrated the incriminating circumstances against A1 and clearly connected him with the offences alleged in the charge. Her testimony regarding repeated acts of sexual assault, the resulting pregnancy, the threats extended by A1, and the subsequent abortion caused by administration of tablets remained consistent, cogent, and trustworthy throughout her examination.
25(ii). The evidence of PW1 is not an isolated piece of testimony. Her version stands materially corroborated by the evidence of PW2, her mother, and the medical evidence of PW4, PW6, and PW7. The evidence of the medical officers clearly establishes that the victim girl was carrying pregnancy and that the pregnancy had subsequently been terminated. The medical findings noted by the doctors fully support the version of PW1 regarding repeated sexual assault and the subsequent miscarriage caused after administration of tablets. Thus, the oral and medical evidence available on record form a complete and consistent chain supporting the prosecution case against A1.
25(iii). Further, even during the course of lengthy cross-examination, PW1 consistently maintained that she could not disclose the incident to anyone, including her own mother, due to fear, as A1 had threatened her with dire consequences and threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident. The conduct of the victim in not immediately disclosing the incident therefore appears natural and stands properly explained in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Spl.Judge.
39 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
25(iv). Therefore, on cumulative appreciation of the oral, medical, and documentary evidence available on record, this Court safely concludes that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that A1 committed repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim girl, caused termination of her pregnancy, and criminally intimidated her.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 312, and 506 of IPC and Sections 5(l) read with 6 and 5(j)(ii) read with 6 of the POCSO Act against A1.
26. So far as the charges framed against A2 and A3 are concerned, it is the specific case of the prosecution that A2 and A3, who are the brother and mother of A1, actively abetted A1 in causing miscarriage of the pregnancy of the victim girl and also criminally intimidated the victim girl and her mother by threatening them with dire consequences if they disclosed the incident to anyone. On the basis of the said allegations, the prosecution sought to establish the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 312 of IPC against A2 and A3.
26(i). As already discussed supra, PW1 and PW2, in their evidence, categorically stated that after the pregnancy of the victim girl was confirmed by PW4, they returned home and confronted A1 to A3 regarding the same.
According to their evidence, instead of extending support to the victim girl, A2 and A3 threatened both PW1 and PW2 with dire consequences and warned them not to reveal the incident to anyone. Their evidence further discloses that
PW2 was restrained and prevented from moving freely.
Spl.Judge.
40 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
26(ii). The evidence of PW1 and PW2 further reveals that, in the absence of
PW2, A1 to A3 took the victim girl to Shobha Hospital, Chandrayangutta, where
A4, who is a doctor, administered tablets to the victim girl, due to which she lost her pregnancy. The evidence on record clearly establishes that A2 and A3 were fully aware that the victim girl had become pregnant as a result of the sexual assault committed by A1. Despite having such knowledge, they neither protected the victim girl nor informed the authorities. On the contrary, they actively participated in threatening the victim and facilitating termination of her pregnancy.
26(iii). From the consistent testimony of PW1 and PW2, it is evident that A2 and A3 intentionally suppressed the incident and attempted to prevent the victim girl and her mother from approaching the authorities. Their conduct in threatening the victim and assisting in termination of the pregnancy without the consent of PW2 clearly establishes their active involvement in the commission of the offences alleged by the prosecution.
26(iv). Though the learned defence counsel cross-examined PW1 and PW2 at length by putting various suggestions, nothing material was elicited to establish that PW1 and PW2 had any previous grudge, enmity, or dispute with
A2 and A3 so as to falsely implicate them in the present case. The evidence of
PW1 and PW2 remained consistent, natural, and trustworthy on all material particulars regarding the role played by A2 and A3 in threatening the victim girl and causing miscarriage of her pregnancy. Accordingly, this Court holds that the pr osecution has proved the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 312 of IPC against A2 and A3 beyond reasonable doubt.
Spl.Judge.
41 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
27. So far as the charge framed against A4 is concerned, it is the specific case of the prosecution that A4, being a medical practitioner, terminated the pregnancy of the minor victim girl by administering certain tablets and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 312 of IPC. In order to establish the said allegation, the prosecution mainly relied upon the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2.
27(i). PW1, the victim girl, in her evidence deposed that after A1 to A3 came to know about her pregnancy, they threatened her and took her to Shobha
Hospital at Chandrayangutta, where A4, who is a doctor, administered some tablets to her, due to which she lost her pregnancy. Similarly, PW2, who is the mother of the victim girl, stated in her evidence that after she confronted A1 to
A3 regarding the pregnancy of the victim girl caused due to the acts of A1, they threatened her with dire consequences and restrained her from approaching the police. According to PW2, in her absence, A1 to A3 took the victim girl to a hospital at Chandrayangutta and administered tablets, resulting in termination of the pregnancy.
27(ii). Though PW1 and PW2, during the course of their evidence before the
Court, referred to Shobha Hospital and A4 by name, this Court carefully examined the earlier versions given by them in Ex.P2 complaint, and their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and Section 164 Crpc. On careful scrutiny of the said material, this Court finds that neither PW1 nor PW2 specifically disclosed at the earliest point of time that the victim girl was taken to Shobha Hospital or that A4, namely Dr. T. Shobha Singh, administered or prescribed tablets for termination of pregnancy.
Spl.Judge.
42 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
27(iii). In Ex.P2 complaint lodged by PW2, it is only generally stated that after coming to know about the pregnancy, A1 to A3 took the victim girl to a hospital at Chandrayangutta where the pregnancy was aborted. Similarly, in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW1 and PW2 merely stated that unknown tablets were administered to the victim girl after she was taken to a hospital. They did not specifically disclose the exact name of the hospital, the identity of the doctor, or the role allegedly played by A4 in terminating the pregnancy.
27(iv). Even in the statement of the victim girl recorded before the learned
Magistrate, no specific mention was made regarding Shobha Hospital, A4, or
the exact person who prescribed or administered the tablets. Thus, the identity and involvement of A4 were not disclosed by the material witnesses at the earliest available opportunity. The name of Shobha Hospital and the alleged involvement of A4 appear to have surfaced for the first time during the course of investigation and in the charge sheet.
27(v). Apart from the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 before the Court, the prosecution has not produced any independent or corroborative evidence connecting A4 with the alleged termination of pregnancy. No prescription allegedly issued by A4, no hospital records, no admission register, no treatment papers, no medical bills, and no CCTV footage from the hospital were produced
before the Court to establish that the victim girl was actually taken to Shobha
Hospital or that A4 treated her in connection with termination of pregnancy.
27(vi). This Court finds that in a case of this nature, where the prosecution seeks to implicate a medical practitioner in a serious offence under Section 312
Spl.Judge.
43 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
IPC, some independent documentary or medical evidence connecting the accused doctor with the alleged act becomes highly necessary. Mere oral assertions made for the first time during trial, without any supporting documentary evidence, are insufficient to conclusively establish the involvement of A4.
27(vii). Therefore, in the absence of reliable corroborative material linking A4 with the alleged termination of pregnancy, this Court is not inclined to place implicit reliance solely upon the improved oral testimony of PW1 and PW2. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that A4 administered or prescribed medicines for termination of the pregnancy of the victim girl.
27(viii). Furthermore, PW11 investigating officer in his evidence admitted that he was not aware of the exact cause for termination of the pregnancy of the victim girl. He further admitted that though it was alleged that A1 to A3 had taken the victim girl to Shobha Hospital where A4 prescribed certain tablets, the victim herself was not aware of the names of the tablets consumed by her.
PW11 also admitted that the investigating agency did not collect any prescription allegedly issued by A4, nor did they secure any hospital records or receipts relating to payment of Rs.20,000/- allegedly made for the treatment of the victim girl. From the admissions made by PW11, it is evident that no independent documentary or medical evidence was collected during investigation to establish that A4 administered or prescribed medicines for termination of the pregnancy of the victim girl. Except the oral allegations made by PW1 and PW2, there is absolutely no material on record connecting
Spl.Judge.
44 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
A4 with the alleged offence. Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the involvement of A4 beyond reasonable doubt.
28. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion, the prosecution, by examining both oral and documentary evidence, coupled with medical reports, categorically establishes that that at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was a minor. It is evident that the testimony of PW1 is deemed truthful, as she testified in court about the offenses committed against her by the accused. The corroboration of her evidence comes from PWs 2 to 11. In summary, the collective testimonies of PWs 1 to 11 establish beyond doubt that A1, the maternal uncle of the minor victim girl, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her despite knowing she was a minor, which led to her pregnancy, and that A2 and A3, being his brother and mother respectively, abetted him by administering unknown pills to the victim girl to cause miscarriage; the consistent oral and medical evidence, supported by documentary exhibits, proves the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)
(n), 312, and 506 of IPC and Sections 5(l) read with 6 and 5(j)(ii) read with 6 of the POCSO Act against A1, and offences under Sections 506 and 312 of IPC against A2 and A3, thereby forming a complete and corroborated chain of circumstances supporting the prosecution case. Thus, the prerequisite condition required to invoke the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO
Act is satisfied by the prosecution, and the onus to prove innocence or to disprove the allegations is shifted onto the accused. However, a perusal of the cross-examinations of PWs1 to 11 and the statements of the Accused No.1 to 3 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C failed to present any material from which it can
Spl.Judge.
45 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
be inferred that the accused is innocent. Consequently, the accused failed to discharge his reverse burden.
29. It is pertinent to mention that under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, a reverse burden is imposed on the accused. It is observed that there is a marked difference between the provisions of presumptions provided under the POCSO
Act and those provided in negotiable instrumental acts, the Prevention of
Corruption Act, etc. Under the POCSO Act, there is no other requirement to be complied with by the prosecution to raise a presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, except to show that the accused has been prosecuted for any of the offenses as enumerated under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
a). While discussing Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the Hon’ble
Kolkata High Court observed in the case of Sahid Hossain Biswas
Vs.State of West Bengal, that “Once the foundation of the prosecution case is laid by leading legally admissible evidence, it becomes incumbent on the accused to establish from the evidence on record that he has not committed the offence or to show from the circumstances of a particular case that a man of ordinary prudence would most probably draw an inference of innocence of his favour. The accused may achieve such an end by leading defence evidence or by discrediting prosecution witnesses through effective cross- examination or by exposing the patent absurdities or inherent infirmities in their version by an analysis of the special features of the case.”
b). Furthermore, in S. Suresh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2017), the court held that “Section 30 provides the accused with the opportunity to prove his or her innocence, thereby making the presumption under Section 29 rebuttable.
Spl.Judge.
46 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
In this case, the accused was convicted under the POCSO Act, and he has not rebutted the presumption of Section 29. Therefore, the court observed that the failure to rebut the presumption also establishes the guilt of the accused”.
c). It would be justified to refer to the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 5 SCC 667, wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that – “In the absence of any existing enmity between the accused and the witnesses there exists no ground to question the veracity of the witnesses or to raise a ground of false implication… 29(i). In this case, the defence failed to elicit any evidence from the witnesses to show that the complaint was filed out of personal grudge.
Although the defence counsel suggested to PW-1 and Pw2 that they had instituted the case due to previous grudge, no concrete evidence was produced to substantiate that suggestion.
(a). In a case of Bharanwada Bhogibhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in AIR (1983) SC 753, observed as follows: “It is quite unthinkable that the parents of the victim would go to the length of inventing a story of sexual assault on their own daughter and tutor her to narrate such version which would bring down their social status and spoil reputation in society. Ordinarily no parents would do so in Indian Society as at present”.
(b). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radha Krishna Nagesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reportedin (2013) 11 SCC 688 observed as follows :
“While appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the Court must keep in mind that the context of thevalues prevailing in the country, particularly in rural India, it would be unusual for a woman to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person”. In these circumstances, the defence of accused that this case is filed sue to past
Spl.Judge.
47 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
grudges and disputes cannot believed as the accused failed to substantiate his defence.
29(ii). In light of the foregoing discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case, the plea advanced by the defence counsel is found to be unsustainable, as the victim, being a minor, is unlikely to fabricate allegations against her maternal uncles and grandmother who had nurtured her since childhood; moreover, PW2, being the mother of the victim, would not risk the reputation and character of her own daughter by lodging a false complaint against her own brother and mother unless an incident had truly occurred, and the judicial precedents cited are directly applicable to the present matter, thereby rendering the defence assertion of false implication devoid of merit and incapable of acceptance.
30. In this instance, it is acknowledged that the defense counsel is unable to substantiate the claim that Pw1 and her family harbored ill feelings toward the accused or that they falsely accused him. Nevertheless, the defense fell short in counteracting the evidence put forth by the prosecution by presenting their own defense evidence.
31. Considering the entire factual scenario, oral and documentary evidence, in conjunction with the Ex.P4, P8, P9 and P11 medical reports, and the totality of facts and circumstances presented before this Court, there is no option but to conclude that the Accused No1 have committed an offense punishable under
Sections 376(2)(n), 312 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and under section 5(l)and 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and
Accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed an offense punishable under Sections 312 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the above discussion, this
Spl.Judge.
48 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
Court holds that Points No. 2 and 3 are answered in favour of the prosecution, while Point No. 4 is answered in favour of the Accused No.4.
32. In the result, Accused No.4 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code and is accordingly acquitted under
Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., with her bail bonds to remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.; however, A1 is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 312, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Sections 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) read with
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, while A2 and
A3 are found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 312 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly, A1 to A3 stand convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the open
Court, on this the 14h day of March, 2026.
Sd/-
Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.
Questionnaire on the quantum of sentence
33. The Accused No. 1 is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed. He stated that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and he has to look after his old aged grand mother that if he is sent to jail, his family will suffer in his absence. He therefore requested the Court to reduce the sentence and prayed that a lenient view be taken with regard to the sentence to be imposed against him.
Spl.Judge.
49 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
33(i). The Accused No. 2 is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed. He stated that he has aged parents and an obligation to maintain them. He therefore requested the Court to reduce the sentence and prayed that a lenient view be taken with regard to the sentence to be imposed against him.
33(ii). The Accused No. 3 is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed. She stated that she is suffering with old aged aliments and under medication, at this stage if she sent to jail, she will suffer a lot at this old age.
She therefore requested the Court to reduce the sentence and prayed that a lenient view be taken with regard to the sentence to be imposed against him.
33(iii). The learned counsel for the accused prayed the Court to take a lenient view in awarding the sentence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that no lenient view can be given to the accused in awarding the sentence.
34. Upon hearing the plea submitted by the accused and having regard to the facts and circumstances, the nature of the offence, the manner in which the offence is perpetrated, this Court is not inclined to give a lenient view against the accused and to apply the provisions of the Probation of Offenders
Act of Section 360 Cr.P.C to the accused.
35. In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, as Accused No. 1 committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life (natural life) and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence under
Spl.Judge.
50 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
Section 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which is punishable under Section 6(1) of the said Act.
35(i). The Accused No.1 is also convicted under section 235(2) of Crpc for the offence punishable under section 5(l) read with 6 (1) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life (natural life) and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
35(ii). The Accused No.1 is also convicted under section 235(2) of Crpc for the offence punishable under section 312 of IPC and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
35(iii). The Accused No.1 is also convicted under section 235(2) of Crpc for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
35(iv). The Accused No.2 and 3 are convicted under section 235(2) of Crpc for the offence punishable under section 312 of IPC and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three(3) year and also to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
Spl.Judge.
51 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
35(v). The Accused No.2 and 3 are convicted under section 235(2) of Crpc for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one(1) year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
36. In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, no separate sentence is being imposed against the Accused No.1 for the offences under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.
37. The fine amount of Rs.20,000/- (Ru-pees twenty Thousand) imposed against the Accused No.1 for the offences under Section 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6(2) of the POCSO Act shall be paid to the victim-girl/PW.1 to meet medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim-girl/PW.1.
38. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by the Accused No.1 to 3 shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Accused No.1 to 3 are appraised about their right to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and they are further informed that they will be provided legal aid counsel, if required. Free copy of the judgment is supplied to them.
39. As the Accused No.1 stands convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6(1) of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim-girl below the age of 16 years, this Court is duty-bound to consider not only the gravity of the offence but also the consequences suffered by the victim. The circumstances under which the offence was committed reveal the exploitation of a minor’s vulnerability, resulting in severe physical,
Spl.Judge.
52 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
emotional, and psychological trauma. Such trauma, particularly at a tender age, has long-lasting effects on the victim’s dignity, self-confidence, and overall well-being.
39(i). Taking into account the loss and injuries suffered by the victim-girl, her family background, and financial condition, it is evident that the offence has caused irreparable harm beyond the immediate incident. The victim has endured mental anguish, social stigma, and disruption in her education and personal development. The law recognises that justice is incomplete unless adequate measures are taken to rehabilitate the victim and restore her to a life of dignity. Compensation, therefore, serves not merely as monetary relief but as a means of acknowledging the harm caused and supporting her recovery.
39(ii). Accordingly, this Court, keeping in view the mandate under Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act and the principles laid down for victim compensation, determines that the victim-girl must be awarded a fair and reasonable amount.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the financial condition of the family, and the need for rehabilitation, an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four Lakhs) is awarded as compensation to PW1, the victim-girl. This sum is intended to meet her immediate needs, support her education, provide medical and psychological care, and assist in her long-term rehabilitation, thereby ensuring that justice is rendered not only in punishing the offender but also in restoring the victim’s dignity. Therefore, the Secretary, District Legal Services
Authority, is directed to take steps for payment of the said compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four Lakhs) to the victim girl, from and out of the Victim Compensation Fund at the earliest.
Spl.Judge.
53 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the open Court,
on this the 14th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-
Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(Witnesses examined)
For the prosecution:
PW’s No.NameOfWitnessDescription Description 1 Victim. Sufferer.
2 Mother of the Victim. Complainant.
3 MD. Ehsan Ullah Neighbour and Circumstantial witnesses.
4. Dr. Sameena Nasreen. Diagnosed the victim and issued report as she is carrying pregnant.
5. T. Srisailam.Panch witness for scene of offenceandconfession panchanama as A1 and A2.
6. Dr. G. Venugogal.Conducted potency test of the accused and issued Opinion.
7. Dr. P. Vijaya Laxmi. Examined the victim girl and collected Bilolgical items and issued final opinion.
8. CH. Devaki. Recorded the statement of the victim girl.
9. Smt. Salma Begum. Issued Bonafide certificate in respect of victim/LW2.
Spl.Judge.
54 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
10. B. Bhaskar. Issued FIR and I.0.
11. K. Purushotam Reddy. filed charge sheet.
For the defence: Nil
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the prosecution:
Exhibit No.Description of the ExhibitProved by/Attested by
P1 Signature of PW1 On 164 CrPC State-PW1.
ment (3 in Numbers).
P2 complaint.PW2.
P3 Section 161 CrPC Statement of PW3.PW3.
P4 Medical Report issued by PW4.PW4.
P5 Signature of PW5 On Crime DetailsPW5.
Form.
P6 Signature of PW5 on the ConfessionPW5.
Panchanama of A1.
P7 Signature of PW5 on the ConfessionPW5.
Panchanama of A2.
P8 Potency certificate.PW6
P9Preliminary examination report alongPW7.
with Lab Report.
P10 Forensic Science laboratories reportPW7.
dated 02-12-2021.
P11 Final Opinion Dated 14-01-2022.PW7.
P12. Requisition to issue bonafide of thePW9.
victim girl dated 09-12-2022.
Spl.Judge.
55 of 55SC.No.94 of 2023Dated 14-05-2026.
P13 Bonafide certificate of the victimPW9.
dated 12-12-2022.
P14 First Information Report.PW10.
For the defence:
Exhibits. Description of the Exhibit.Proved by/Attested by
DWs.
DW1Portion of 161 CrPC Statement of PW2. PW2.
Material Objects: Nil
Sd/-
[[ Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.
Spl.Judge.