Sri Mohd. Abdul Rafi

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPL.SESSIONS

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, AT NARAYANPET

Thursday, this the 10th day of April, 2025

Present:-Mohd.Abdul Rafi, Prl.District and Sessions Judge Narayanpet

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) No. 51 OF 2024

=======================================

1.Complainant::The State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Marikal Circle.

2.Name of the accused:: Tappa Baanu S/o Late Narsimulu, Age: 23 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o H.No.12-70, Dhanwada village and mandal, Narayanpet District.

3.Crime No.::29/2024 of PS Dhanwada

4.Prosecution conducted By::Sri Akula Balappa, Public Prosecutor, Narayanpet.

5.Defence conducted by::Sri K.Laxmipathi Goud, Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the accused.

6.Charges::Charges U/Secs 366, 342, 506, 376(2)

(n) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

7.Plea of the accused::“Not guilty”

8.Finding of the Court::“Found guilty”

9.Result :: In the result, the accused found guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n), 342, 506 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 and accordingly, he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.

"Thus, the Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only),in default of

Dt.10-04-2025 2 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under section 366 of IPC. The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six monthsfor the offence punishableunder section 6 of POCSO Act-2012. The Accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only), in default of payment of fine, he shallfurtherundergosimple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 342 of IPC. The Accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundread only),in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC.

All the substantial sentences imposed against the accused shall be run concurrently. The remand period of the accused from 18.03.2024 to 13-08- 2024 shall be set off as against the term of imprisonment as per section 428 of Cr.P.C. The total fine amount is that of Rs.8,000/-

A sum ofRs.5,00,000-00 (Rupees Five Lakhs only) is awarded to the victim girl (PW2) towards compensationundersection 357-A(2)/357-A(3) of Cr.P.C, r/w section 33(8) of POCSO Act-2012, r/w the Telanganavictimcompensation scheme, 2015. The case property of

Dt.10-04-2025 3 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

M.Os.1 to 4 which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The Accused is informed the appeal provision and also facility of the Legal Aid for filing an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.

=======================================

This Sessions case came before me on 01-04-2025 for final hearing; after hearing the arguments of Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the accused; upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. The State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police,

Marikal Cricle has laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.29/2024 of P.S. Dhanwada charged U/Secs 366-A, 342, 506, 376(2)

(n) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. with the following allegations:-

i) That the victim-girl (PW2) is a minor, attained the age of 14 years and is a resident of Vaddera colony of Dhanwada village and

Mandal. Her parents have got three daughters and she is the second daughter and she has studied up to 7th class at Z.P.H.S.(Girls),

Dhanwada village and later, she dropout her studies in the academic year2024.Aboutoneyearago,priorto 17-03-2024, the accused, who is a resident of same village near the house of the victim girl. Further, the accused and mother of the victim girl by name Vadde Laxmi(PW-1), both worked at Narsimha Hotel, in this regard, the victim-girl used go to the same hotel to meet her mother and developed close acquaintance with the accused, upon

Dt.10-04-2025 4 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 that the accused made a false promise by expressing that he fallen in love with her and would marry her, but the victim girl refused the said love proposal of the accused, but the accused was not let her and roamed around her, frequently met her at village outskirts. After sometime, they both have been very close and the victim-girl frequently met him at her house and also at the house of the accused.

ii)It is further alleged that while so, on 16-03-2024, at about 1.00 PM, the victim-girl(PW-2) and her younger sister by name

Radhika(PW-3) came to Santha Bazar to buy footwear, in the meantime, the accused saw the victim-girl, upon that he came near to her for chitchatting, in the meantime, the accused lured her with his deceitful words and forcefully took her to the old under construction house belonging to Bogam Srinivasulu(PW-4) kept her there all night and threatened her with dire consequences and subjected her for sexual intercourse with her repeatedly and also threatened to kill her if she disclose the same to anybody else. Later, on 18-03-2024, during afternoon hours the accused brought the victim-girl at Santha Bazar, dropped her there and escaped.

iii)It is further alleged that on 17-03-2024, at 4.30 PM, the mother of the victim-girl by name Vadde Laxmi(PW1) went to

P.S.Dhanwada and lodged a report against the accused narrating the aforesaid incident. Basing on the contents of the report lodged by

PW.1, a case in Cr.No.29/2024, u/Secs.366-A, 376(2)(n)(3) of IPC and

Sec.5(l) r/w Sec.6 of POCSO Act-2012 was registered at P.S. Dhanwada and investigated into. During the course of investigation, K.Rajender

Dt.10-04-2025 5 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Marikal Circle (PW-15) proceeded to

P.S.Dhanwada and recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 3 at

P.S.Dhanwada. Later, he visited the scene of offence, which is old under construction house belonging to PW.4 situated at Dhanwada village and secured the presence of two mediators namely Bogam

Nagaraju(PW-8) and B.Sathyanarayana(LW-9) in their presence observed the scene of offence and their observations were incorporated in Crime Details Form and he has drawn rough sketch for the scene of offence in Col.No.11 of Crime Details Form and he seized light colour pink, green with white colour checks bed sheet from the scene of offence under the cover of Crime Details Form in the presence of the aforesaid mediators. Later, he has examined and recorded the statement of PW.4 at the scene of offence.

iv)It is further alleged that later on the same day, as per the relevant provision of POCSO Act-2012, PW-15 got recorded the statement of the victim-girl through M.Sunitha, Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, I/c of DCRB, Narayanpet District(PW-6) in the presence of

PW.1 at Bharosa centre, Narayanpet and PW-6 seized the victim-girl wearing clothes i.e., under wear, top, pant, on these clothes found some sticky material, in the presence of two mediators namely Varala

Pramila, Counselor and Co-coordinator of Bharosa Centre,

Narayanpet(PW-9) and Motor Gadde Devi Prasanna Laxmi, support person at Bharosa Centre, Narayanpet(LW-11) as the Woman sub-

Inspector was not available in P.S.Dhanwada. Later, PW-15 has examined and recorded the statement of PW-6 at Bharosa Centre,

Dt.10-04-2025 6 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

Narayanpet. Later, he referred the victim girl to the District head quarter hospital, Narayanpet for medical examination. Accordingly, Dr

Himaja, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Head quarters hospital,

Narayanpet(PW-10) has examined the victim girl and preserved her vaginal swabs on the glass slides for onward submission to the State

FSL, Hyderabad for chemical examination.

v)It is further alleged that on 18-03-2024, PW-15 visited

Z.P.H.S.(Girls), Dhanwada village and collected bonafide certificate of the victim-girl from I/c Head master, Z.P.H.S.(Girls), Dhanwada village, by name P.Sandhya Rani(PW-7) wherein, the date of birth of the victim-girl is mentioned as 01-01-2011 and her age is 14 years. Later,

PW-15 has examined and recorded the statement of PW.7 at Z.P.H.S.

(Girls) Dhanwada village. Later, he has examined and recorded the statement of the eye witness by name Abdul Khader @ Jhony(PW-5) at

P.S.Dhanwada.

vi)It is further alleged that while the investigation was in progress, to apprehend the accused, on 18-03-2024 at about 10.00

AM, on receipt of reliable information, the C.I. of Police (PW-15) along with his staff apprehended the accused at his house situated at

Dhanwada village and brought him to office of Marikal circle and interrogated him by securing the presence of two mediators namely

Vemula Balaswamy(PW-11) and Neerati Naresh Kumar(LW-13) and during the course of interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case. After completion of

Dt.10-04-2025 7 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 said process, PW-15 effected the arrest of the accused and referred him to the potency test at District Head quarters Hospital, Narayanpet.

vii)It is further alleged that accordingly, Dr. Usha Rani, Civil

Assistant Surgen, District Head quarters hospital, Narayanpet(LW-15) has examined the accused and issued certificate, wherein, she opined that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is examined, is not capable of performing sex act. After completion of said process, PW-15 got the accused remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure. On requisition submitted by the Circle Inspector of

Police(PW-15), Smt Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana, Additional JFCM,

Narayanpet recorded the statement of the victim-girl u/Sec.164 of

Cr.P.C. The Circle-Inspector of Police(PW-15) forwarded the vaginal swabs of the victim-girl to the State FSL, Hyderabad along with bed sheet and clothes seized from the victim girl and on receipt of the same, A.Raja Naik, Assistant Director, TSFSL, Hyderabad (PW-12) has examined the vaginal swabs of the victim-girl i.e., SER/699/2024 along with a torn pink and green colour cotton bed sheet, pink and blue colour cotton kurtha, black colour mill madelegging, black colour mill made cut drawer with red colour dots design and found human semen and spermatozoa were detected on vaginal swabs of the victim girl, legging and cut drawer of the victim girl and semen and spermatozoa were not detected on bed sheet and kurtha and blood was also not detected on the bed sheet and clothes of the victim girl.

viii)It is further alleged that on receipt of the report from State

FSL, Hyderabad, the lady medical officer(PW-10) issued her final

Dt.10-04-2025 8 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 opinion wherein, she opined that sexual assault has been happened, confirmed case of sexual intercourse. The bed sheet and the dress collected from the victim girl were deposited before this Court vide

C.P.R.No.23/2024. During the course of further investigation, PW-15 got produced the accused to the State FSL, Hyderabad for taking blood samples for D.N.A profile, establishing the same D.N.A. on two glass slides, legging and cut drawer of the victim girl.

ix)It is further alleged that PW-15 collected D.N.A. report from

G.Pandu, Assistant Director, TSFSL, Hyderabad(PW-13), vide

D.N.A./589/2024, D.N.A./736/2024. D.N.A. extracted from item Nos.3 and 4 of D.N.A./736/2024 are subjected to Auto somal STR Analysis by using Versaplex-27PY kit, a male D.N.A. profile was obtained from item

Nos.3 and 4 of D.N.A./736/2024. The D.N.A. profile obtained from item

Nos.3 and 4 of D.N.A./736/2024 are compared with the D.N.A. profile obtained from Item No.1 of DNA/589/2024, the allelic pattern of item

Nos.3 and 4 of DNA/736/2024 matches with allelic pattern of item no.1 of DNA/589/2024. The auto somal STR analysis indicates that the seminal stains on the source item Nos.3 and 4 of

DNA/736/2024(legging and cut drawer collected from the victim girl) are matching with the DNA profile of the accused(source item No.1 of

DNA/589/2024) and conclusively proves that they are of same biological origin. After collecting all the documents, after completion of the investigation, the Circle-Inspector of Police (PW15) filed a charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

Dt.10-04-2025 9 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

2. This case was taken on file by this Court vide S.C (POCSO)

No.51/2024, U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n), 342, 506 of IPC and Sec.6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused and proceeded with the case against the accused. On appearance of the accused before this Court, all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

3.On 05-12-2024, the accused was examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against him, wherein he denied the commission of offence. Upon consideration of the case record and documents submitted there with, after hearing the arguments on both sides, it was opined that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offences, whereupon charges U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n), 342, 506 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO

Act, 2012 were framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 documents and M.Os.1 to 4. The prosecution has given up the evidence of B. Sathyanarayana(LW-9),

M.G.Devi Prasanna Laxmi(LW-11) and Neerati Naresh Kumar(LW-13).

5. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, he denied the incriminating circumstances and

Dt.10-04-2025 10 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record including the written arguments filed on behalf of the accused.

7. Now the points for determination are:

i) Whether the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim-girl (PW2) repeatedly knowing that she is a minor girl ?

ii) Whether the accused kidnapped the victim-girl (PW2) from Santha Bazar, Dhanwada, took her to the old under construction house of PW.4 near Santha Bazar, Dhanwada confined her in the said under construction house and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her ?

iii) Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n), 342, 506 of IPC and Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 beyond all reasonable doubts ?

8.The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused is the neighbour of the victim girl, resident of Vaddera Colony, Dhanwada developed close acquaintance with the victim-girl (PW2), lured her on the guise of love with his deceitful words by making false promise that he would marry her, knowingly she is a minor girl, kidnapped from

Santha Bazar, Dhanwada from the lawful custody of her mother took her to the old under construction house belonging to PW.4 and exploited her sexually several times by confining in the said old under construction house threatened her with dire consequences to kill her, in case, she disclose the same to anybody else and as such, the accused is liable for punishment for the offences punishable U/Secs

Dt.10-04-2025 11 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 366,376(2)(n), 342, 506 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012. On the other hand, the defence of the accused is one of the total denial of the prosecution case.

9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses, out of them, the defacto complainant, mother of the victim-girl by name Vadde Laxmi was examined as PW1. The victim-girl was examined as PW2. The younger sister of victim girl by name Vadde Radhika was examined as

PW3. Bogam Srinivasulu, who is the owner of the old under constructed house, Dhawada was examined as PW-4. The proprietor of

Footwear shop by name Abdul Khader @ Jhony, who is said to be an eye witness, to the alleged incident was examined as PW.5.

M.Sunitha, Woman S.I. of Police, I/c of Bharosa Centre, Narayanpet, who recorded the statement of the victim girl was examined as PW.6.

P.Sandhya Rani, FAC of Headmaster of Z.P.H.S.(Girls) Dhanwada, who issued bonafide certificate of the victim-girl was examined as PW7.

The mediator by name Bogam Nagaraju @Jaya Barath, who is said to be present at the time of conducting panchanama for the scene of offence was examined as Pw 8. Varala Pramila, Counselor-cum-

Coordinator of Bharosa Centre, Narayanpet, who is said to be present at the time of seizure of cloths of the victim girl was examined as

PW.9. Dr.Himaja, Civil Assistant Surgeon, district headquarters hospital, Narayanpet, who examined the victim-girl, collected and preserved her vaginal smears on the glass slides was examined as

PW10. The mediator by name Vemula Balaswamy, who is said to be

Dt.10-04-2025 12 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 present at the time of interrogation of the accused was examined as

PW.11. Dr A.Raja Naik, Assistant Director, State FSL, Hyderabad, who analyzed the vaginal smears of the victim-girl and bed sheet, clothes collected from the victim girl at State FSL, Hyderabad was examined as PW12. Dr G.Pandu, Assistant director, State FSL, Hyderabad, who extracted DNA from the vaginal smears of the victim-girl, bed sheet, clothes collected from the victim girl and compared with DNA extracted from blood samples of the accused was examined as PW13.

V.Ramesh, SI of Police, PS Dhanwada, who registered the crime was examined as PW.14. K.Rajender Reddy, Circle-Inspector of Police,

Marikal Circle, who is the investigating officer in this case was examined as PW15.

10.In support of oral evidence, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the following documents and material objects. Ex.P1 is the report dated 17.03.2024 lodged by PW1 to the police concerned. Ex.P2

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 recorded by the Police concerned.

Ex.P3 Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 recorded by the Police concerned. Ex.P-4 is the seizure panchanama, dt.17-03-2024. Ex.P-5 is the bonafide certificate of the victim girl, dt.18-03-2024 issued by

PW-7. Ex.P-6 is CDF, dt.17-03-2024. Ex.P-7 is preliminary examination report of PW2 dated 17.03.2024 issued by PW10. Ex.P8 is FSL report

dated 20.04.2024 issued by PW12. Ex.P9 is the final opinion,

dt.10-05-2024 issued by PW10. Ex.P10 report of the state FSL,

Hyderabad, dt.30-07-2024 issued by PW.13. Ex.P.11 is the FSL Report, dt.13-09-2024 along with electro pherogram- 5 pages issued by

Dt.10-04-2025 13 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

PW.13. Ex.P-12 is the F.I.R., dt.17-03-2024 issued by PW.14. Ex.P13 is the potency test report of the accused. M.O.1 is long frock, M.O.2 is black colour legging, M.O.3 is black colour under wear, M.O.4. Light pink green and white colour bed sheet.

11.In order to establish the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 15, among them,

PWs.1 to 3 are the main witnesses, on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution relied upon. In addition to the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 15, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the documentary evidence. The oral evidence of Pws.1 to 15 and the documentary evidence (Exs.P1 to P13 and M.Os.1 to 4) is to be appreciated by the Court. No material discrepancies going to the root of the case have been elicited in the cross examination of material witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason for these witnesses are coming-forth to speak falsehood as against the accused. Thus, there is nothing to discredit the testimony of these material witnesses and their evidence is consistent throughout and inspires the confidence of the court. Therefore, these witnesses can be believed and can be depended upon in adjudicating the matter.

Point Nos.i) to iii) :-

12.It is to be first seen whether the victim-girl is a “Child” as defined U/Sec 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act., 2012 (herein after referred to as POCSO Act., 2012).

As per the prosecution, the victim-girl (PW2) is aged about 14 years as on the date of the incident and she is a child as defined U/Sec 2(d)

Dt.10-04-2025 14 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act., 2012 as on the date of commission of the offence. In order to establish the age of the victim-girl, the prosecution has examined the victim girl (PW-2) and PW-7 among them, PW2, who is the victim-girl, in her evidence stated that she is aged 15 years as on 27-01-2025 at the time of recording her evidence before the Court and they are three daghters to their parents, she is the second daughter among the three daughters. While Vedde Bheemamma is her elder sister, she is suffering from Epilepsy and her marriage was performed and after one month of her marriage, her husband has died and since then she is residing along with them. PW.2 in her evidence further stated that she studied up to 8th class, at Z.P.H.S.(Girls) Dhanwada.

13.PW7 – P.Sandhya Rani, who is working as School Assistant,

Z.P.H.S.(Girls) Dhanwada, in her evidence stated that she was kept as

Full Additional Charge to the post of Head Mistress, Z.P.H.S.(Girls)

Dhanwada from 25-09-2023 to 12-06-2024. On 18-03-2024, while she was discharging her duties, at her school, during after noon time, one police constable of P.S.Dhanwada came to her and submitted the requisition given by C.I. of Police, Marikal, with a request to issue bonafide certificate of the victim girl(PW-2) upon that she verified the admission register and noticed that PW.2 studied in their school from 6th class onwards, by 17-03-2024, she was studying 7th class, she issued Ex.P-5, bonafide certificate of the victim girl, wherein, the date of birth of the victim girl is mentioned as 01-01-2011. It was elicited in the cross-examination of PW.7, on behalf of the accused that she

Dt.10-04-2025 15 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 did not give the extract of relevant Admission Register to the Police concerned. While admitting PW.2, in 6th class, she submitted an application along with Transfer Certificate of her earlier school, wherein, her date of birth is mentioned as 01-01-2011 and the same was incorporated in their School Admission Register in respect of

PW.2.

14.On perusal of oral evidence of PW.2 read together with the evidence of PW7 coupled with Ex.P5 bonafide certificate, it establishes that the victim-girl was aged 13 years 2 1/2 months as on 17.03.2024 i.e., as on the date of incident. It was suggested to PW7 in her cross examination that on the request of the police concerned she issued

Ex.P-5 bonafide certificate of the victim girl without verifying any records and the said suggestion was denied by PW7 in her cross examination. There is no dispute from the side of the accused with regard to age of the victim-girl. Therefore, it can be concluded that the prosecution has established that the victim-girl is aged 13 years 2 ½ months as on the date of incident. Hence, the victim-girl is a “child” and she is below the age of 18 years by the date of commission of offence as per Sec.2(d) of the POCSO Act., 2012.

15.It is to be next seen whether the accused has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim-girl (PW2).

As per the prosecution, the accused has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim-girl, who is aged less than 16 years. The Court expects from the prosecution to produce the evidence to prove the guilt of the accused in particular case. In my

Dt.10-04-2025 16 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 opinion, it depends upon case to case and according to the case and circumstances, expectation of producing the evidence from the side of prosecution be made. It is settled proposition of law that the single testimony is sufficient to hold the guilt for the offences under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012.

16.Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act., 2012 is quoted as under:- “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”.

Aggravated Sexual Assault is defined U/sec 5 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 is quoted as under:- “Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly”

17.“Penetrative sexual assault” defined U/Sec 3 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012. Sec.3 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences act., 2012 is quoted as under:-

A person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if-

(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

Dt.10-04-2025 17 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, ure- thra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person.

18.Section 2(1)(a) and (f) of the Protection of Children from sexual Offences Act., 2012 is quoted as under:-

a) “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.,

f) “penetrative sexual assault” has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.,

19.According to Section 2(1)(a), Section 3, Section 5(l), and

Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012, a person commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault even on the child more than once or repeatedly, he penetrates his penis or inserts any object or manipulates any part of the body or applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, urethra, anus and shall be punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

as having done aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Hence, it is very clear that for the punishment under section 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act., penetration of penis in vagina is not necessary if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused penetrate his penis in her vagina or apply his mouth to the penis shall be convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act.

Dt.10-04-2025 18 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

20.PW2, who is the victim-girl, in her evidence stated that about 10 months ago on one day, at about 12.00 noon herself and her younger sister by name Radhika(PW.3) left the house for purchasing footwear and went to the shop of her neighbour by name Jhony(PW-5) at Santha Bazar of Dhanwada village. In the meantime, the accused came to near footwear shop and caught hold of her hand and by using force taken away from the shop and she was taken away by the accused to the old under construction house of Srinivasulu(PW-4) near by Santha Bazar, Dhanwada and she was confined in the said old house for two days and the accused had sexual intercourse with her thrice by using force without her consent. Then, she started crying, after two days to drop her at her house and then the accused left her and then she returned back to her house at about 3.00 pm and her mother enquired her what was happened to her.

21. PW-2 in her evidence further stated that upon that she narrated the above said incident to her mother(PW-1). And then, she was taken by her mother to P.S.Dhanwada, where PW-1 lodged Ex.P-1 report. Her statement was recorded by one woman police at Bharosa centre, Narayanpet. And later, she was taken to the hospital,

Narayanpet, where one Lady doctor examined her and collected her vaginal smears. Thereafter, she was summoned to the Court at

Narayanpet along with her mother, where her statement was recorded by one Lady Judge. Two months prior to the incident, she worked in the hotel, belonging to Narsimulu at Dhanwada by attending cleaning

Dt.10-04-2025 19 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 vessels, while the accused worked in the same hotel as supplier and as such, she has acquaintance with the accused.

22.Apart from the evidence of PW2, the prosecution has also examined mother of the victim-girl, by name Vadde Laxmi and younger sister of Victim girl by name Vadde Radhika as PWs.1 and 3 respectively . PW1 – Vadde Laxmi, who is the mother of the victim-girl, in her evidence stated that she got three daughters namely Vadde

Bheemamma, victim girl and Vadde Radhika(PW-3). Her third daughter by name Vadde Radhika(PW-3) is aged about 12 years, she was studying 8th class at Jadcherla. Her husband had died about 10 years ago. Her elder daughter by name Bheemamma is suffering from fits(Epilepsy) disease and her marriage was performed with one

Venkatesh R/o Damaragidda and due to his death, her elder daughter is living with her. About 10 months ago, on one day, at about 11.00 am, her second and third daughters namely victim girl and

Radhika(PW.3) left the house in order to purchase footwear at the shop of Abdul Khader @ Jhony(PW.5) situated at Santha Bazar of Dhawada village.

23. PW.1 in her evidence further stated that after some time, her younger daughter by name Radhika(PW-3) return back to the house and informed her that one person taken away the victim girl from the footwear shop of Jhony(PW-5), at Santha Bazar. Upon that she rushed to the footwear shop of PW-5 at Dhanwada village and started searching for the victim gril, but she was not traced out. On the following day, at about 3.00 pm,her victim daughter by return back to the house and informed them that one Tappa Baanu (Accused) took away her from the footwear shop of Jhony forcibly to near one old

Dt.10-04-2025 20 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 house and confined her in the said old house and he forcibly participated in sexual intercourse with her thrice then herself, her both the daughters went to P.S.Dhanwada where she lodged Ex.P-1 report narrating the aforesaid incident.

24.It was elicited in the cross examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused that she gave a sum of Rs.500/- to her daughters on their request to purchase footwear. The footwear shop of PW.5 is situated in busy area and people are moving. It was suggested to PW.1 in her cross-examination on behalf of the accused that on the date and time of incident, her victim daughter was not taken away by anybody else from the footwear shop of PW.5 and no incident was taken place as stated by her and the said suggestions were denied by PW.1 in her cross-examination.

25.PW3 – Vadde Radhika, who is aged 13 years as on 10-02- 2025 at the time of recording her evidence as she is child witness. To ascertain the competency of the child witness, the preliminary questions are put to the child witness and satisfied with the rational answers given by the child witness for the questions posed to her and then the Court held that the said child witness(PW-3) is competent to give her evidence before the Court in the instant case. PW.3 in her evidence stated that she is studying 07th class at Government Girls

High School, Jedcharla. PW.2 studied up to sixth class at Z.P.H.S.(Girls)

Dhanwada. On 16-03-2024, at about 12.00 noon herself and PW.2 left the house for purchasing footwear and went to the shop of her

Dt.10-04-2025 21 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 neighbour by name Jhony(PW-5) at Santha Bazar of Dhanwada village.

In the meantime, the accused came to near footwear shop caught hold of hand of PW.2 and by using force taken away from the shop and PW- 2 was taken away by the accused to the old house of Bogam

Srinivasulu(PW-4) near by Santha Bazar, Dhanwada and she was confined in the said old house and the accused spoiled the life of PW.2 by participating in sexual intercourse with her.

26. PW-3 in her evidence further stated that when, PW.2 was taken away by the accused from the footwear shop of PW.5, immediately she return back to the house and informed the same to her mother(PW.1). Then, they started searching for PW.2 but, she was not traced out. On 17-03-2024 at about 03.00 PM, PW.2 return back to the house then, her mother enquired with PW.2 what was happened to her and where she was for the last one day. Upon that PW.2 informed them that she was taken by the accused to the under construction house of Bogam Srinivasulu(PW.4) near by Santha Bazar, Dhanwada and confined her in the said house and the accused had sexual intercourse with her by closing her mouth, without her consent by using force and the accused had sexual intercourse with her thrice.

Then my mother(PW-1) went to P.S.Dhanwada and lodged Ex.P-1 report.

27.It was elicited in the cross examination of PW3 on behalf of the accused that while, PW.2 was taking away by the accused from the footwear shop of PW.5, PW.2 raised hues and cries, at that time, the public was gathered. On the date and time of incident only two shops

Dt.10-04-2025 22 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 were opened at Santha Bazar, Dhanwada and other shops remained closed. The owner of the footwear shop (PW-5) questioned the act of the accused upon that the accused replied that PW.5 is no way concerned in this matter, due to which, PW.5 did not try to rescue

PW.2 from the hands of the accused. PW.2 was working in the hotel of

Narsimha, where the accused was also working as a supplier. It was suggested to PW.3 in her cross-examination on behalf of the accused that there was a dispute in between her mother and the accused, due to which, her mother falsely implicated the accused in this case by lodging of the report and in fact, the accused never sexually assaulted

PW.2 and the said suggestions were denied by PW.3 in her cross- examination.

28.PW4 – Bogam Srinivasulu, who is said to be owner of the old under construction house situated near Santha Bazar, Dhanwada, in his evidence stated that he is having under construction house back side of his clothes shop situated at near Santha Bazar, Dhanwada, under the name and style as Sai Teja cloths stores. In the month of

March, 2024, the Police Dhanwada came to him and informed that the accused subjected PW.2 to sexual intercourse in his under construction house.

29.PW5 – Abdul Khader @ Jhony, who is said to be proprietor of footwear shop in his evidence stated that he is running footwear shop under the name and style as Jhony footwear shop at Dhanwada.

He denied his knowledge with regard to the facts of the case and also denied his witnessing the incident. As seen from the evidence of

Dt.10-04-2025 23 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

PWs.4 and 5, they did not speak any incriminating circumstances against the accused and thereby, they did not support the prosecuting the case. Therefore, the Learned Public Prosecutor declared PWs.4 and 5 as hostile subjected to cross-examine them. At the instance of the

Learned Public Prosecutor PW.4 and 5 were declared as hostile, and their sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by the police concerned were marked as Exs.P-2 and P.3 respectively.

30.PW6 – M.Sunitha, Woman Sub-Insepctor of Police, In-charge of Bharosa center, Narayanpet, in her evidence stated that on 17-03- 2024, at about 4.30 pm, While she was discharging her duties at DCRB

Office, Narayanpet, at that time, she received phone call from Circle

Inspector of Police, Marikal Circle with a request to record the statement of the victim girl(PW-2) and on receipt of the phone call from

C.I. of Police, Marikal circle, she rushed to Bharosa Centre, Narayanpet, where she recorded the statement of PW-2 in the presence of her mother(PW-1) at 5.00 pm and PW-2 stated before her that on 16-03- 2024, at about 1.00 pm, PWs.2 and 3 left their house after informing to their mother, for purchasing footwear and they went to the shop of PW- 5, in the meantime, the accused came to the said shop and PW-2 was taken towards one old under construction house belonging to PW-4 and she was confined in the said old under construction house, threatened her with dire consequences and the accused had sexual intercourse with her thrice in the said night.

31.PW-6 in her evidence further stated that PW-2 further stated before her that on 17-03-2024 at about 3.00 pm, she reached

Dt.10-04-2025 24 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 her house and informed the said incident to her mother. After completion of the recording of the statement of PW-2, she collected dress from PW-2, i.e., light brown colour long frock(M.O.1), black colour legging(M.O.2) and black under wear(M.O.3) and in this regard a seizure panchanama(Ex.P-4) was reduced into writing and later, she handed over the statement of PW-2 and also clothes collected from

PW-2(M.Os.1 to 3) along with the seizure panchanama(Ex.P-4) to the

C.I. of Police, Marikal Circle.

32.PW9- Varala Pramila, who is said to be counselor-cum-

Coordinator of Bharosa Centre, Narayanpet, in her evidence stated that on 17-03-2024, at about 5.00 pm, the victim girl(PW.2) was produced

before Bharosa Centre, Narayanpet along with her mother. PW-6-

Woman S.I. of Police by name M.Sunitha also came to the Bharosa

Centre from DCRB, Narayanpet. As per the instructions of the C.I. of

Police, Marikal Circle, PW-6 recorded the statement of the victim girl in the presence of her mother and thereafter, PW-6 collected clothes from the victim girl in her presence and in that regard a seizure panchanama(Ex.P-4) was prepared in their presence. PW-6 collected one long frock, black colour legging, black colour under wear (M.Os.1 to 3) from the victim girl in her presence. The aforesaid testimony made by PW.6 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.9 with regard to seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 from the victim girl under Ex.P-4 seizure panchanama at Bharosa Centre, Narayanpet.

33.PW10 – Dr.Himaja, Civil Assistant Surgeon, district headquarters hospital, Narayanpet, in her evidence stated that on 17- 03-2024, at about 10.00 pm, the victim girl was produced before her through WPC NO.498 of P.S.Dhanwada, along with requisition for the

Dt.10-04-2025 25 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 medical examination of the victim girl. Accordingly, on the same day and at the same time, she has examined the victim girl and found hymen is ruptured, two fingers easily admitted in her vagina. No external injures on her private parts, no tears cuts. She collected vaginal smears of the victim girl on glass slides in order to send the same to the FSL for chemical examination and she handed over the vaginal smears of the victim girl to the police concerned. She issued

Ex.P.7 report to that effect.

34.PW.10, in her evidence further stated that the police concerned forwarded the vaginal smears of the victim girl along with clothes(M.Os.1 to 3) collected from the victim girl to the State FSL,

Hyderabad for chemical examination and on receipt of the same, the

Assistant Director, TGFSL, Hyderabad by name A.Raja Naik(PW.12), analyzed the vaginal smears of the victim girl and clothes collected from the victim girl and human semen and spermatozoa were detected on vaginal smears of the victim girl, legging and under wear of the victim girl and semen and spermatozoa were not detected on cotton bed sheet and long frock of the victim girl and blood was not detected on the clothes collected from the victim girl and in that regard, Ex.P-8 report was issued by the Assistant Director, TGFSL,

Hyderabad. On receipt of the Ex.P-8 report, she issued her final opinion under Ex.P-9 wherein, she opined that sexual assault has been happened, confirmed case of sexual intercourse.

35.It was elicited in the cross examination of PW10 on behalf of the accused that the columns in the final opinion (Ex.P-9) was filled

Dt.10-04-2025 26 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 up by her. She has mentioned in Ex.P-9 final opinion that the victim girl was brought to the hospital and produced before her by one Devi on 17-03-2024 and the said Devi might have been woman police constable. It was denied that the sexual intercourse was happened within 12 hours, one can find tears or bleeding or discharge on her private parts. Normally, if the girls age group of 14 years, play any outdoor game, there is a possibility of hymen is ruptured. It was further denied that as per her Ex.P7-Preliminary examination report issued by her, no sexual intercourse is happened. It was suggested to

PW.10, in her cross-examination on behalf of the accused that at the instance of the police concerned, she issued Ex.P-9, final opinion in favour of the prosecution and that no sexual intercourse was happened to the victim girl and due to influence of the police concerned, she issued Exs.P-7 and P-9 reports with all false contents and the said suggestion was denied by PW.10 in her cross-examination.

36.PW12 – Dr A.Raja Naik, Assistant director, State FSL,

Hyderabad, in his evidence stated that on 27-03-2024, their laboratory received one sealed Gauze parcel and two sealed cloth parcels, each sealed with three seals which are intact and tallying with the sample seal through PC No.763 of PS.Dhanwada by name K.Harish Goud from

Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narayanpet Sub-Division along with letter of advise in Cr.No.29 of 2024 of PS Dhanwada. A gauze cloth parcel contained i). Two glass slides with dried smear on each marked as item

No.1, ii) A torn pink and green colour cotton bed sheet marked as item

No.2., iii) A pink and blue colour cotton kurtha with blue colour floral

Dt.10-04-2025 27 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 design marked as item No.3, iv). A black colour mill made leggings marked as item no.4, v) A black colour mill made cut drawer with red colour dots design marked as item No.5. He conducted O-Tolidine test for identification of the blood stains and acid phosphate test for identification of seminal stains and also conducted microscopic tests for identification of spermatozoa and further conducted prostate specific antigen semi quant(PSA) kit for detection of human semen.

Item Nos.1 to 5 were examined and human semen and spermatozoa were detected on item nos.1, 4 and 5. Semen and spermatozoa were not detected on item Nos.2 and 3. Blood was not detected on item nos.2 to 5. He issued Ex.P-8 report to that effect and it was approved and forwarded by their Joint Director, T.G.F.S.L, Hyderabad by name

K.Arun Jyothi.

37.PW13 – G.Pandu, Assistant director, State FSL, Hyderabad in his evidence stated that on 12-07-2024, the Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, Narayanpet Sub-Division produced the accused for collection of blood sample for DNA Finger printing through PC.No.3554 of

P.S.Dhanwada by name M.Venkat Ramana in Cr.No.29 of 2024 of

P.S.Dhanwada. Blood sample was collected from the accused marked as item No.1. The DNA was extracted from item No.1 is subjected to auto somal STR analysis by using Versaplex 27PY kit. The DNA profile has been generated and recorded from item No.1. He Issued Ex.P-10 report to that effect. It was approved and forwarded by their Joint

Director, TGFSL, Hyderabad by name K.Arun Jyothi.

Dt.10-04-2025 28 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

38.PW.13, in his evidence further stated that on05-09- 2024, the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, FAC of Prl.

District and Sessions Judge, Narayanpet, produced one Jute parcel sealed with two seals in Cr.No.29 of 2024 of PS Dhanwada, which are intact and tallying with the sample seal on letter of advise through PC

No.602 of PS Dhanwada by name B.Ramanjaneyulu. A cloth parcel containing i). A torn pink and green colour cotton bed sheet marked as item No.1, ii). A torn pink and blue colour kurtha marked as item No.2, iii). A torn black colour mill made leggings marked as item No.3, iv). A torn black colour mill made cut drawer with red colour dots design marked as item No.4. D.N.A. was extracted from item Nos.3 and 4 of

D.N.A./736/2024 are subjected to auto somal STR Analysis by using

Versaplex 27PY kit. A male D.N.A. profile was obtained from item Nos.3 and 4 of DNA/736/2024. The D.N.A. profile obtained from item Nos.3 and 4 of D.N.A./736/2024 are compared with D.N.A. profile obtained from item No.1 of DNA/589/2024. The allelic pattern of item Nos.3 and 4 of D.N.A./736/2024 matches with the allelic pattern of item No.1 of

D.N.A./589/2024.

39.PW-13, in his evidence further stated that the Auto somal

STR analysis indicated the seminal stains on the source of item Nos.3 and 4 of DNA/736/2024(Legging and cut drawer collected from the victim girl) are matching with the DNA Profile of the accused (source item No.1 of DNA/589/2024) and conclusively proves that they are of same biological origin. He issued Ex.P-11 report to that effect along with Electro Pherogram 5 pages and it is approved and forwarded by

Dt.10-04-2025 29 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

Joint Director, T.G.F.S.L, Hyderabad by name K.Arun Jyothi. It was elicited in the cross-examination of PW.13 on behalf of the accused that they obtained consent from the accused prior to taking blood sample from him and further there was a Court order to take the blood sample from the accused conducting D.N.A. finger printing test. It was denied that the result of the D.N.A. can be affected on the quantity and quality of the sample obtained by them and the result of the D.N.A. can be affected by using their software and technical instrumentation.

40.PW14 – V.Ramesh, Sub-Insepctor of Police, PS Dhanwada, who registered the crime in his evidence stated that on 17-03-2024, while he was discharging his duties as Station House Officer,

P.S.Dhanwada, at about 4.30 PM, PW1 came to the Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 report upon that he registered a case in Cr.No.29 of 2024 u/Secs.366-A, 376(2)(n)(3) of IPC and Sec.5(l) r/w Sec.6 of POCSO Act- 2012 and issued Ex.P12 - F.I.R. The original F.I.R. was dispatched to the

Court concerned and its copies to his higher officials. On receipt of copy of F.I.R., as offences are grave in nature, the C.I. of Police, Marikal

Circle, by name K.Rajender Reddy(PW-15) took up the investigation in this case and collected CD file from him.

41.PW15 – K.Rajender Reddy, Circle-Inspector of Police, marikal circle, who is the investigating officer in this case, in his evidence stated that on 17-03-2024 on receipt copy of F.I.R from

PW.14 as the offence is grave in nature, he took up the investigation in this case and received crime record from PW.14. He has examined and the recorded the statements of PWs. 1 and 3 at P.S.Dhanwada. He

Dt.10-04-2025 30 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 visited the scene of offence which is under construction old house at

Dhanwada village belonging to PW.4 and he secured the presence of twomediatorsnamelyBogamNagaraju(PW.8)and

B.Satyanarayana(LW.9) in their presence he observed the scene of offence and their observations were incorporated in Ex.P6 crime details form and he has drawn rough sketch for the scene of offence in

Colmn.No.11 of crime details form and after read over its contents obtained the signatures of the mediators on it. They noticed one light colour pink green with white colour checks bed sheet(M.O.4) in the scene of offence and the same was seized under Ex.P-6-Crime Details

Form.

42.The aforesaid testimony made by PW.15 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.8- Bogam Nagaraju, who is said to be present at the time of conducting panchanama for the scene of offence under

Ex.P-6, Crime Details Form. PW.8 in his evidence stated that on 17-03- 2024, during evening, in between 6.00 Pm and 7.00 Pm, he was called to Old under construction house of PW.4 situated at Santha Bazar,

Dhanwada and conducted panchanama for the scene of offence by

PW.15 in his presence and in the presence of B.Sathyanarayana and their observation were incorporated in Crime Details form and PW.15 has drawn rough sketch for the scene of offence and they found M.O.4

Bed sheet in the scene of offence and PW-15 seized M.O.4 bed sheet from the scene of offence under Ex.P-6 Crime details Form.

43.PW-15, in his evidence further stated that he has examined and recorded the statement of PW. 4 , who is the owner of the old

Dt.10-04-2025 31 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 under construction house, where the incident took place. On the next day, he has examined and recorded the statement of PW.5 at

P.S.Dhanwada, who stated before him as in Ex.P.2. The victim-girl was sent to Bharosa Centre, Narayanpet and got recorded her statement through PW.6-M.Sunitha, Woman Sub-Inspector of Police in-charge of

Bharosa Centre, Narayanpet and he requested PW.6 to seize the wearing cloths of the victim-girl. Accordingly, PW.6 collected cloths from the victim-girlunder Ex.P.4 seizure Panchanama. This part of testimony made by PW.15 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.6 with regard to recording the statement of the victim girl and seizure of her wearing clothes under Ex.P-4 seizure panchanama. This part of testimony made by PWs.6 and 15 is further corroborated by the evidence of PW-9 with regard to seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 clothes of the victim girl under Ex.P-4, seizure panchanama at Bharosa Centre,

Narayanpet.

44. PW-15, in his evidence further stated that the victim-girl was referred to the government Hospital, Narayanpet for her medical examination. Accordingly, the victim-girl was produced before

Dr.Himaja, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Govt.General Hospital,

Narayanpet(PW.10), who examined the victim-girl and preserved her vaginal swabs on the glass slides, in order to send the same to the

State FSL, Hyderabad for chemical examination and PW.10 handed over vaginal swabs of the victim-girl and the same was forwarded to the State FSL, Hyderabad along with cloths collected from the victim- girl(M.Os.1 to 3) through Sub-divisional Police officer, Narayanpet.

Dt.10-04-2025 32 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

PW.10 issued Ex.P.7 preliminary examination report. This part of testimony made by PW.15 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.10 with regard to Medical examination of the Victim girl and collected vaginal swabs of the victim girl on glass slides for onwards submission to the state FSL, Hyderabad for chemical examination.

45.PW-15, in his evidence further stated that the vaginal swabs of the victim-girl along with cloths collected from the victim-girl, on receipt of the same at State FSL, Hyderabad, Dr.A.Raja Naik,

Assistant Director, TSFSL, Hyderabad(PW.12) analyzed the vaginal swabs of the victim-girl and cloths collected from the victim girl issued

Ex.P.8 report stating that Human Semen and Spermatozoa were detected on vaginal smears of the victim girl (item No.1) legging of the victim-girl (item No.4) and cut-drawer of the victim-girl (item No.5) but semen and spermatozoa were not detected on bed sheet(item No.2) and cotton Kurtha of the victim-girl (item NO.3). On receipt of Ex.P.8 report from State FSL, Hyderabad, the lady medical officer (PW.10) issued her final opinion under Ex.P.9 wherein, she opined that sexual assault has been happened, confirmed case of sexual intercourse. This part of testimony made by PW.15 is corroborated by the evidence of

PW.12 and further corroborated by the evidence of PW.10-Lady Medical

Officer.

46.PW-15, in his evidence further stated that he obtained

Bonafide certificate of the victim-girl from P.Sandhya Rani, FAC of Head

Master, ZPHS (Girls) Dhanwada, (Ex.P.5 ) wherein the date of birth of the victim-girl mentioned as 01-01-2011. He has examined and

Dt.10-04-2025 33 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 recorded the statements PWs. 6 and 7. This part of testimony made by

PW-15 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.7 with regard to getting bonafide certificate of the victim-girl .

47.PW-15, in his evidence further stated that while, the investigation was in progress to apprehend the accused, on receipt of reliable information on 18-03-2024 he apprehended the accused at his house at 10.00 am i.e., house bearing door No.12-70 situated at

Dhanwada village and brought the accused to Marikal Circle office and he secured the presence of two mediators namely Vemula Balaswami (PW.11) and N.Naresh Kumar (LW.13), in their presence he interrogated the accused. During the course of interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case and in this regard a confessional panchanama was reduced into writing and after read over its contents obtained the signatures of the mediators on it. This part of testimony made by PW.15 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.11-Vemula Balaswamy with regard to apprehension of the accused and his interrogation in his presence and during the course of interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case.

48.PW-15, in his evidence further stated that after completion of the aforesaid process, he effected the arrest of the accused and referred him to the Govt.General Hospital, Narayanper for potency test.

Accordingly, Dr.Usha Rani, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Govt.General

Hospital, Narayanpet (LW.15) has examined the accused and issued a report(Ex.P-13), wherein, she opined that there is nothing to suggest

Dt.10-04-2025 34 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 that the accused is examined is not capable of performing sex act.

After, completion of the said process, he got the accused remanded to

Judicial Custody after following the due procedure. On his requisition,

Smt.Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana, Addl.JFCM, Narayanpet recorded the statement of the victim-girl u/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C.

49.PW-15, in his evidence further stated that since, the FSL report reveals human semen and Spermatozoa were detected in vaginal smears of the victim-girl, legging and cut drawer collected from the victim girl. He filed a requisition before this Court with a request to send the accused for taking his blood samples for DNA Profile test.

After obtaining permission from this Court, the accused was sent to the

State FSL, Hyderabad for taking blood samples and accordingly, the blood samples were taken from the accused at State FSL, Hyderabad.

DNA extracted from legging and cut-drawer and a male DNA profile was obtained and they are compared with DNA profile from the blood samplesoftheaccusedandallelicpatternof

DNA from legging and cut-drawer matches with allelic pattern of blood sample of the accused and accordingly, Dr.G.Pandu, Assistant Director,

TSFSL, Hyderabad (PW.13) issued Ex.P-11 report wherein, he opined that the auto-somal STR Analysis indicates that the seminal stains on the legging and cut-drawer of the victim-girl are matching with the

DNA Profile from the blood sample of the accused and conclusively proves that they are of same biological origin.

50.The aforesaid testimony made by PW.15 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.13 with regard to the auto-somal STR analyses

Dt.10-04-2025 35 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 indicated that the seminal stains on legging and cut-drawer of the victim girl are matching with the D.N.A. profile from the blood samples of the accused and conclusively proves that they are same biological origin. PW.15, in his evidence further stated that he deposited the case property(M.Os.1 to 4) before this Court. After collecting all the documents and after completion of his investigation, he filed a charge- sheet against the accused.

51.As per the prosecution, the accused developed close acquaintance with the victim-girl (PW2), who is aged about 14 years, on the name of love and marriage. On 16.03.2024 at about 1.00 PM, the accused kidnapped the minor victim-girl(PW.2) from the lawful custody of her mother from near by footwear shop of PW.5 situated at

Santha Bazar, Dhanwada, took her to the old under construction house of PW.4, where the accused confined her and subjected her to sexual intercourse forcefully thrice and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her, if she discloses the same to anybody else.

52.The undisputed facts are that the accused is a resident of

Vaddera colony of Dhanwada village which is near by the house of the victim girl. The victim-girl was working at Narsimulu hotel, where the accused was working as supplier and at that time, the accused developed close acquaintance with the victim-girl.PW2, who is the victim-girl, in her evidence categorically stated that on 16-03-2024, at about 1.00 PM, while she along with her younger sister(PW3) went to the footwear shop of PW.5 at Santha Bazar, Dhanwada. The accused met her near by the shop of PW.5 and took her by using force to one

Dt.10-04-2025 36 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 old under construction house belonging to PW.4 and confined her in the said house and subjected her to sexual intercourse against her consent in the said night thrice and on the following day, i.e., 17.03.2024, at about 3.00 PM, she return back to the house and informed the aforesaid incident to her mother(PW-1) and her younger sister (PW-3). PW1, who is the mother of the victim-girl, in her evidence corroborated the aforesaid version of the victim-girl and PW.3, who is the younger sister of the victim-girl is further corroborated the aforesaid testimony made by PWs.1 and 2.

53.As can be seen from the evidence of PW1, she has no personal knowledge that the accused kidnapped the victim-girl and exploited her sexually. but she came to know the aforesaid version from the victim-girl (PW2). PW3, who is the younger sister of the victim-girl stated in the similar manner as that of PW1 and thereby she supported the testimony of PWs1 and 2 in all respects. PW3 has also no personal knowledge with regard to the accused exploited PW-2 sexually, but she came to know about the aforesaid version through

PW2 – victim-girl.The evidence of PW2 is corroborated by the evidence of Pws 1 and 3, who are the mother and younger sister of the victim-girl that the accused kidnapped her from the lawful custody of her mother from near by the footwear shop of PW.5 and confined in old under construction house belonging to PW.4 and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her and subjected her to sexual intercourse in the said night thrice.

Dt.10-04-2025 37 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

54.Unlike an Indian Penal Code, the Special enactment of prevention of children from sexual offences Act., 2012, provides a special provision for presumption as to certain offences. Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 provides:- “Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or admitting to commit any offence under sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act., the

Special Court shall presume that such person has committed the offence, unless the contrary is proved”. Sexual offences are usually being committed secretly that too on children, there may not be any eye witnesses in such cases. Therefore, Section 29 of the POCSO Act.- 2012, aiding prosecution in establishing its case by invoking the statutory presumption.

55.It is to be next seen whether the prosecution adduced any acceptable evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt with regard to the foundational facts constitute the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act., 2012 and if so, whether the accused has proved his innocence on the principle of preponderance of probability. The evidence of victim-girl (PW2) that the accused developed close acquaintance with her and on 16-03-2024, at about 1.00 PM, he kidnapped the victim girl from near by the footwear shop of PW.5 and confined in the old under construction house belonging to PW.4 and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her and participated in sexual intercourse with her against her will thrice in the said night.

Dt.10-04-2025 38 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

56. PW2 in her evidence narrated the very same sexual assault she narrated before her mother and younger sister (Pws 1 and

3) and also before this Special Court and also before the learned

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet(LW-15), who

recorded her statement Under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C with regard to the sexual assault, the nature, manner in which the accused had subjected her to sexual assault and further PW6 – Woman Sub-Inspector of

Police, who recorded the statement of the victim-girl under section 161 of Cr.P.C with regard to sexual assault, the nature, manner in which the accused had subjected her to sexual assault. The aforesaid testimony made by PW2 is corroborated by the evidence of her mother and younger sister(PWs.1 and 3).

57.Further the evidence of PW2 is corroborated by the evidence of Pws 1 and 3 with regard to sexual assault committed by the accused on minor girl (PW2). The victim-girl was subjected to medical examination through PW10, who is the medical officer and after examination, she issued Ex.P7- preliminary examination report and she collected vaginal smears of the victim-girl on the glass slides in order to send the same to State FSL, Hyderabad, she handed over the vaginal smears of the victim-girl (PW2) to the Circle-Inspector,

Marikal circle (PW15), in turn he forwarded the same to the state FSL,

Hyderabad for chemical analysis along with M.Os.1 to 4, i.e., clothes collected from the victim girl and bed sheet. After analysis of the vaginal smears of the victim-girl and M.Os.1 to 4. PW12 – Dr A.Raja

Naik, Assistant director, State FSL, Hyderabad issued Ex.P8 report

Dt.10-04-2025 39 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 stating that human semen and spermatozoa were detected in the vaginal smears of the victim-girl and on the legging and cut-drawer belonging to the victim girl. On receipt of Ex.P8 report from State FSL,

Hyderabad, the lady medical officer (PW10) issued her final opinion under Ex.P9 stating sexual assault has been happened and confirmed case of sexual intercourse.

58.Further, PW13 – Dr.G.Pandu, Assistant director, State FSL,

Hyderabad, in his evidence categorically stated that PW12 conducted microscopic examination for identification of Spermatozoa and detected human semen and spermatozoa in dried smears, legging and cut-drawer belonging to the victim girl and PW.12 issued Ex.P8 report to that effect. Further, D.N.A. was extracted by him from dried smears, legging and cut-drawer belonging to the victim-girl and other material objects subjected to auto-somal and Y-STR analysis by using global filer and versaplex 27PY kit, a male D.N.A. profile has been generated and recorded from item Nos.3 and 4 of DNA/736/2024.

59.PW13 in his evidence further stated that a male D.N.A.

profile obtained from item Nos.3 and 4 of DNA/736/2024 and the same are compared with D.NA profile obtained from item No.1, blood sample of the accused i.e., DNA/589/2024, the allelic pattern of item nos.3 and 4 of DNA/736/2024 matches with allelic pattern of item No.1 of

DNA/589/2024. The Auto-somal STR analyses indicated the seminal stains on the source of item Nos.3 and 4 of DNA/736/2024 (Legging and cut-drawer collected from the victim-girl) are matching with the

DNA profile of the accused(Source item No.1 of DNA/589/2024-Blood

Dt.10-04-2025 40 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 sample of the accused) and conclusively proves that they are of same biological origin, He issued Ex.P-11 report along with electro- pherogram 5 pages.

60.The oral evidence of PW2 is corroborated with the medical evidence through PW10 and her given Ex.P7 preliminary examination report and Ex.P9 final opinion. Further, PW12-Assistant director, State

FSL, Hyderabad, in his evidence categorically stated that she analyzed the vaginal smears of the victim-girl, legging and cut-drawer collected from the victim-girl, found human semen and spermatozoa in the vaginal smears, legging and cut-drawer of the victim-girl and further

PW13, who collected blood samples of the accused and extracted DNA from the blood samples of the accused and also extracted DNA from the vaginal smears, legging and cut drawer of the victim-girl and issued Ex.P11 report stating that both are same biological origin.

Therefore, the prosecution established medically and scientifically that the accused subjected the victim-girl to sexual intercourse.

61.From the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the evidence of lady doctor (PW10), the evidence of Assistant directors, State FSL,

Hyderabad i.e., Pws 12 and 13 and the documentary evidence lead by the prosecution, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubts and hence presumption under section 29 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 has arisen. Further, when the prosecution is successful in establishing the foundational facts and the presumption is raised against the accused and the accused can rebut

Dt.10-04-2025 41 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 the same either by discarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses through cross examination or by adducing his own evidence to demonstrate that the prosecution case is improbable based on the principle of preponderance of probability. The accused did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption except total denial of the prosecution case. As such, the prosecution taking the shelter of

Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 apart from the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the material witnesses.

62.As seen from the evidence of PW2-Victim-girl, she categorically stated that the accused kidnapped her from near by footwear shop of PW.5 at Santha Bazar, confined her in the old under construction house belonging to PW.4 and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her and subjected her to sexual intercourse in the said night and on the following day, i.e., on 17-03-2024 at about 3.00 PM, she reached her house and informed the aforesaid incident to

PWs.1 and 3.The case of the prosecution through reliable and trustworthy testimony of PWs.1 to 3 and other witnesses is more probable than the alleged possibility of falsely implicating the accused in this case. There are no material discrepancies which can create any kind of doubt over the case of prosecution or over the testimony of any of the material witnesses. The testimony of PW2-Victim-girl is quite reliable and I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve her testimony. The cross examination of the victim-girl on behalf of the accused could not extract any material for her to speak false or foist a

Dt.10-04-2025 42 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 false case against the accused. She is not the tutored witness, as such she is wholly reliable witness. Further, her solitary evidence is sufficient, which inspires confidence of the court as it is absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality. Further, the evidence of victim-girl (PW2) is corroborated by the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 who are mother and younger sister of the victim-girl.

63.It is contended on behalf of the accused that mother of the victim-girl had falsely implicated him in this case. The said contention of the accused is not supported or substantiated by any acceptable evidence. There is absolutely, no reason as to why the mother of the victim-girl falsely implicated the accused in this case, if the accused did not do any sexual assault on the victim-girl. A perusal of oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3, it reveals with regard to sexual assault committed by the accused towards the victim-girl. Further, the investigation conducted by Pw 15 has left no material lacunaes which can create doubt over the case of the prosecution.

64.A perusal of the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3, it reveals with regard to the sexual assault committed by the accused towards the victim-girl when the said heinous crime committed by the accused came to the light of the family members of the victim girl , the mother of the victim-girl (PW1) lodged a report in PS Narayanapet town alleging that her daughter was kidnapped, confined in the old under construction house belonging to PW.4, threatened her with dire consequences to kill her and subjected her to sexual intercourse repeatedly. Thus, there appears to be no possibility of investigating

Dt.10-04-2025 43 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 agency or mother of the victim-girl to develop the case against the accused at primary stage itself. PW1, who is the defacto complainant and mother of the victim-girl lodged Ex.P1 report with the police,

Dhanwada, wherein he narrated the aforesaid incident.

65.Ex.P1 is strong piece of corroborative evidence and it corroborates oral testimony of Pws.1 to 3. The cross examination of

PWs.1 to 3 could not extract any reason for making any such false statement against the accused. I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 as against the accused as there is any amount of support from the medical evidence through the evidence of PW10 and her given Exs.P7 and P9 medical certificates and further the scientific evidence through Pws 12 and 13 and their given Exs.P8 and

P11 certificates.

66.PW2-Victim-girl in her evidence categorically stated that the accused committed sexual assault on her repeatedly in old under constructed house belonging to PW.4 near Santha Bazar, Dhanwada thrice on the night of 16-03-2024. On the following day, the victim-girl reached her house and she was produced before the Police station concerned by her mother and the victim-girl was kept at Bharosa

Centre, Narayanpet and after recording her statement by PW.6, she was referred to Medical examination. Accordingly, PW10 has examined the victim-girl and issued Ex.P7 preliminary examination report and on receipt of Ex.P8 report from state FSL, Hyderabad, she issued Ex.P9 - final report containing her final opinion that there is medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse.

Dt.10-04-2025 44 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

67.Further, PW10, who examined the victim-girl and collected vaginal smears of the victim girl on glass slides and the same were handed to the CI of Police (PW15), who forwarded the same to the

State FSL, Hyderabad and received Ex.P8 report from PW12, stating that semen and spermatozoa were detected in the vaginal smears of the victim girl, legging and cut-drawer of the victim-girl, on the basis of Ex.P8 report from State FSL, Hyderabad, PW10 issued Ex.P9 final opinion that there is medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse and further PW13 collected blood samples of the accused as per the order of this Court and further DNA was extracted from the vaginal smears, legging and cut-drawer of the victim-girl and allelic pattern of vaginal smears of the victim girl matches with the allelic pattern of blood sample of the accused and therefore, vaginal smears, legging and cut-drawer collected from the victim-girl containing seminal stains matching with the DNA profile of the blood sample of the accused and conclusively proved. They are the same biological origin. Therefore, the accused had participated in sexual intercourse with the victim-girl (PW2).

68.As aforesaid an ample support from medical and ocular evidence is available in the instant case for the prosecution. There are no material discrepancies which can create any kind of doubt over the case of the prosecution. The testimony of PW2 is quite reliable and

I see absolutely no reason to disbelieve her evidence. The cross examination of PW2 on behalf of the accused could not extract any material for her to speak false against the accused.

Dt.10-04-2025 45 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

69.“Rape” is a dark reality in Indian society like in any other nation. This abnormal conduct is rooted in physical force as well as familiar and other power which the abuser uses to pressure his victim.

It transcends barriers of age, class, language, caste, community, sex and even family. The only commonality is power which triggers and feeds rape. Disbelief, denial and cover-up to “preserve the family reputation” are often then place above the interest of the victim and her abuse (Reliance on the material on internet).

70.It is settled principle of law that courts are expected to show great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape.

They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which are not of fatal nature to throw out allegations of rape. This is all the more important because of lately crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is a sad reflection and we must emphasize that the courts must deal with rape cases in particular with utmost sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the entire case and not in isolation.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the above observations in the decision rendered in the State of A.P V/s Gangula Satyamurthy reported in J.T.1996(10) SC 550. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while recording the evidence of victim-girl has been taken and her evidence had been recorded in camera.

Dt.10-04-2025 46 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

71.The learned Public Prosecutor for the state has requested for convicting the accused for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 342, 506 of IPC and Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 submitting that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges leveled against the accused by examining its witnesses, whose testimonies are corroborative and reliable. On the other hand, the Chief Legal Aid

Defence counsel for the accused has requested acquittal of the accused submitting that there is nothing incriminating against the accused on the record.

72.In support of the aforesaid contention, the Chief Legal Aid

Defence counsel for the accused has relied upon the following decisions:-

I) The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in

Jageshwar Wasudeo Kawle vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2021(1) Acquittal 256 (Bom) wherein it was held that:- “Though actual occurrence has been proved to have taken place, except DNA evidence cannot be made the sole basis of conviction.” ii)The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendred in

Parvej Khan S/o Rafik Khan vs State of Maharashtra passed in

Crl.Appeal No.884/2019 dated 19.12.2023, wherein it was held that:- “Though actual occurrence has been proved to have taken place, except DNA evidence, there is no full proof or legally acceptable evidence. Mere DNA evidence cannot be made the sole basis of conviction. Moral conviction has no legal sanctity and what law requires is legally acceptable evidence ruling out innocence of

Dt.10-04-2025 47 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 the accused. Here, such quality of evidence is not available and therefore, we are constrained to hold, for the reasons discussed herein, that unfortunately, case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as against the appellant and hence, we are further constrained to extend benefit of doubt to the appellant.” iii)The decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in

Shobit Nigam vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Police

Station Bareli district reported in 2021 Crimes (HC) 323 wherein it was held that:- “The testimony of eye witnesses including victim would make it clear that victim had gone along with appellant with her freewill, victim got seated on motorcycle of appellant as pillion and no one was there to prevent her from jumping of motorcycle or to make alarm.

Other eyewitnesses were there to make alarm but they did not choose nor victim made any alarm, goes to show that she was not taken away by force. She travelled and stayed with appellant for two months at different places but she did not make any protest or alarm in spite of fact that she had sufficient opportunity while travelling in a bus along with co-passengers or travelling in a train along with co-passengers or staying in a room where others were there in vicinity. Only after institution of criminal case, she appeared and levelled allegation against appellant. Victim was in consensual relationiship with appellant and unless it is proved that she was a minor on the date of occurrence, her consent assumes importance to negate charges against appellant.

iv)The decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court rendered in Shonu

Kumar Paswan vs State of Bihar passed in Crl.Appeal No.5420 of 209 dated 01.12.2021 wherein it was held that:- “In the case on hand, the first informant stated in the written report that delay is due to the fact that there was a panchayati of the occurrence going on; whereas in his evidence as PW7 he completely denied that he had convened any panchayaity. The delayed

Dt.10-04-2025 48 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 information to the police is not satisfactorily explained. The victim appears to have left along with the appellant due to some affairs with the appellant as she remained with the appellant for two months without making any protest though she had sufficient opportunity

before the public at large. The prosecution has failed to prove the

exact age of the victim to substantiate that she was a minor on the date of occurrence and therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to establish any of the charges against the appellant.

73.Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions raised by the

Chief Legal Aid Defence counsel for the accused and in the light of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the Chief Legal Aid Defence counsel

for the accused, I have perused the relevant record. The accused

claimed in his defence that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

But the accused has not preferred to lead any evidence in his defence to substantiate his claim. Even the suggestions he has given to the victim girl her mother and younger sister (PWs.1 to 3) were denied by them in their cross examination. Therefore, the material available in the evidence of the victim girl indicates that the putting up a false defence on an afterthought. Further, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the Chief Legal Aid Defence counsel for the accused has no application in the present facts of the case as the prosecution has established that the victim-girl is a child, below the age of 16 years and further DNA extracted from the vaginal smears, legging and cut- drawer collected from the victim-girl and blood samples collected from the accused matches with allelic pattern and the seminal stains in the vaginal smears, legging and cut-drawer collected from the victim-girl

Dt.10-04-2025 49 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 is matching with DNA profile of the blood sample of the accused conclusively proved they are the same biological origin.

74.The accused has only attempted unsuccessfully to mislead the Court. He also failed to show any motive or malafide intention on the part of the victim girl or her mother to implicate him in a false case. The defence of the accused does not appear to be probable.

There is no dispute regarding the identity of the accused. He had been named in the FIR. It may be observed that the parties were known to each other even prior to the incident and therefore, there can be no question of doubt being raised with regard to the identity of the accused, who also been correctly identified in the court by the victim girl , her mother and younger sister.

75.At this juncture, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of the victim-girl does not suffer from any inconsistency and is blemish free, while the learned Chief Legal Aid

Defence counsel for the accused has argued that no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of the victim-girl as there are so many variations. It may be observed here that it is a general handicap attached to all material witnesses, if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if they speak to all events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed from broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards.

Dt.10-04-2025 50 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

76.In a particular case material/eye witnesses may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvass of his/her mind in the sequences in which it occurred. He/she may be a person, whose capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what he/she witnessed was not something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he/she is concerned. If he/she reproduces it in the same sequences as it registered in his/her mind the testimony cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone. Similar observations have also been made by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision referred in Bhag Singh and

Others V/s State of Punjab reported in 1997-VII AD SC 507.

77.When an eye witness is examined at length, it is quite possible for him/her to make some discrepancies. No true witnesses can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully made his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning/discarding his evidence. However, I find that the victim girl in her evidence before the court as well as her statement to the police concerned under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and also her statement recorded by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet under Section 164 of Cr.P.C are consistent with regard to the manner of the accused committing sexual acts with her thrice. The

Dt.10-04-2025 51 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 victim-girl has categorically deposed the sexual assault committed by the accused on her at old under construction house of PW.4, situated near Santha Bazar, Dhanwada.

78.Further, the case of the prosecution through reliable and trustworthy testimony of witnesses is more probable than the alleged implication of the accused in the false case. It is already stated supra that the accused has committed sexual assault on the victim-girl in the old under construction house belonging to PW4 at santha Bazar.

Dhanwada. It is already stated supra that the accused has committed sexual assault with the victim girl inside the four walls. In my considered view, in these type of cases, we cannot get eye witnesses to depose the sexual acts committed by the accused towards the victim-girl and we can get only circumstantial witnesses and on the basis of circumstantial evidence, besides evidence of victim girl, we can draw the inference of sexual assault committed by the accused repeatedly on the victim-girl. In these type of cases, precautions are to be taken by the accused from the view of others and the fact of sexual act committed the accused towards the victim-girl has to be inferred from the circumstantial evidence besides the evidence of the victim- girl.

79.It is settled principle of law that in criminal trial conviction can be based even on the strength of the deposition of a single witness, in case it is found trustworthy and reliable as it is quality and not quantity of the evidence that count and the said view is strengthened by the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered

Dt.10-04-2025 52 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 in Sheelam Ramesh and Another V/s State of A.P reported in

J.T.1999(8) SC 537, wherein it was observed that courts are concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on the sole evidence of witness if it inspires confidence. There is nothing on record to indicate that the evidence of the victim-girl (PW2) is false or motivated. Her evidence appears to be completely reliable and trustworthy.

80.The manner in which, the events have unfolded and the surrounding circumstances reflect truthful character of the deposition made by PW2. In the Judgment reported as State of Himachal

Pradesh V/s Lekhraj and Another reported in J.T.1999 (9) SC 43, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the depositions of the witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however,

honest and truthful they may be. Such, discrepancies are due to

normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and the like.

81.It is also settled principle of law that every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity. As far as minor inconsistencies or improvements are concerned in the evidence of the victim-girl or her mother or younger sister (Pws 1 to 3) were comparatively of minor character and do not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. It is already stated supra that in the

Dt.10-04-2025 53 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 depositions of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Therefore, there is no reason to throw out the testimony of material witnesses.

82.The investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case has been substantially proved by the investigation officer (PW 15). PW14 has clearly deposed that on 17.03.2024, at about 04:30 pm, on receipt of Ex.P1 report from PW1, he registered a case in Cr.No.29 of 2024 u/Sec.366-A, 376(2)(n)(3) of

IPC and Section 5(l) r/w Sec. 6 of POCSO Act issued Ex.P12 – F.I.R. PW- 15, in his evidence clearly deposed that during the Course of the investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs1 and 3 at Police station. He visited the scene of offence, which is old under construction house belonging to PW.4 and secured the presence of two mediators namely, Bogam Nagaraju (PW8) and

B.Sathyanarayana (LW9) in their presence he observed the scene of offence and their observations were incorporated in Ex.P6 Crime

Detailed Form. He has drawn rough sketch for the scene of offence at col.no.11 of CDF after read over the contents of the CDF to the mediators and obtained their signatures on it and he seized M.O.4 bed sheet from the scene of offence under Ex.P-6, Crime Details Form. He has examined and recorded the statement of PWs 4 and 5. The victim

Dt.10-04-2025 54 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 girl was sent to Bharosa Centre, Narayanpet and got recorded her statement through PW.6 and on his request, PW.6 collected clothes of the victim-girl (M.Os.1 to 3) under Ex.P4 - seizure panchanama in the presence of PW.9 and another.

83.It is also in the evidence of PW15 that the victim girl was referred to medical examination and accordingly, PW.10 has examined the victim-girl and preserved her vaginal swabs on the glass slides for onwards submission to the state FSL, Hyderabad for chemical examination and PW.10 handed over vaginal swabs of the victim-girl to him and the same was forwarded to the state FSL, Hyderabad along with M.Os.1 to 4. PW.10 issued Ex.P-7 Preliminary report, the vaginal swabs of the victim-girl along with M.Os.1 to 4 were analysed by

PW.12 at state FSL Hyderabad and issued Ex.P-8 report stating that human semen and spermatozoa were detected on vaginal smears of the victim-girl, legging and cut-drawer of the victim-girl. On receipt of the Ex.P-8 report from State FSL, Hyderabad, lady medical

Officer(PW.10) issued her final opinion under Ex,.P-9, wherein, she opined that sexual assault has been happened.

84.It is in the evidence of PW15 that he collected Ex.P-5

Bonafide certificate of the victim-girl from PW-7, wherein, the date of birth of the victim-girl is mentioned as 01-01-2011. He has examined and recorded the statements of PWs.6 and 7. While the investigation was in progress to apprehend the accused, on reliable information, on 18-03-2024 he apprehended the accused at his house bearing door

No.12-70, situated at Dhanwada village at 10.00 AM and brought him

Dt.10-04-2025 55 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 to Marikal circle office and interrogated him by securing the presence of two mediators namely Vemula Balaswamy(PW-11) and N.Naresh

Kumar(LW-13) and during the course of interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case.

He effected the arrest of the accused and referred him to the government hospital, Narayanpet for potency test. Accordingly, Dr

Usha Rani, C.A.S., Government Hospital, Narayanpet (LW15) has examined the potency of the accused and issued Ex.P13 report wherein, she opined that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is examined is not capable of performing sex act. After completion of the said process, he got the accused remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure.

85.It is also in the evidence of PW15 that since in the D.N.A.

finger printing test in respect of the vaginal smears, legging and cut- drawer collected from the victim girl, Dr.G.Pandu, Assistant Director,

State F.S.L., Hyderabad(PW.13), who extracted D.N.A. from vaginal smears, legging and cut-drawer of the victim girl and a male D.N.A.

profile has been generated, upon that he filed a requisition before this

Court with a permission to produce the accused before State F.S.L,

Hyderabad for taking blood samples of the accused and the said requisition was allowed by this Court and accordingly, the accused was produced before State F.S.L. Hyderabad, where his blood samples were collected and marked the same as item No.1 and D.N.A. was extracted from Item No.1 is subjected to the required test and the earlier D.N.A. profile obtained from vaginal smears, legging and cut-

Dt.10-04-2025 56 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 drawer of the victim girl vide DNA/736/2024 is compared with D.N.A.

profile obtained from the blood sample of the accused and the allelic pattern of vaginal smears of the victim girl matches with the allelic pattern of blood sample of the accused and therefore, the said

Assistant Director(PW.13) issued Ex.P11 report stating that the auto somal STR analyses indicates that the seminal stains of victim girl is matching with the D.N.A. profile of the accused from his blood sample and conclusively proves that they are of same biological origin.

86.There is nothing on record to show that the testimony of

PW.15 is false or not reliable. It is evident that the evidence of the victim-girl is reliable, truthful and trustworthy and prosecution has established the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012. There is nothing on record which can shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses are falsified the claim of the prosecution. The important witnesses of the prosecution have supported the prosecution case and their testimony do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative.

The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and the witnesses of the prosecution have been able to build up a continuous link. In view of the foregoing reasons, conscience of this court is completely satisfied with the prosecution has been able to successfully bring home the charge leveled against the accused for the offence

Dt.10-04-2025 57 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 punishable U/Sec 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act., 2012.

87.It is already stated supra that there is no corroboration to the testimony of the victim-girl with regard to that the accused confined the victim girl in old under construction house belonging to

PW4 at near Santha Bazar, Dhanwada in the said night thrice the accused participated sexual intercourse with the victim girl by keeping her under fear. On this aspect our Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down law in Karthik Maihar V/s State of Bihar reported in 1996(1)( ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC), wherein it was held that:- “Conviction can be based on the evidence of solitary witness provided that the evidence of that witness is reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved by only one eye witness, nor can it be insisted that he corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by other eye witnesses”.

88.The evidence of PW2, itself is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution in respect of Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 against the accused, but there is an

additional evidence of mother and younger sister of Victim girl (Pws1

and 3) and further, the evidence of PW6, who recorded her statement

U/Sec 161 of Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that courts are expected to show great responsibility while trying an accused on charge of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a

Dt.10-04-2025 58 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which are not of fatal nature to throw out allegations of rape.

89.It has been argued on behalf of the accused that the victim-girl would have raised alarm and called inhabitants of the neighbours, when the accused had sexual intercourse with her in the old under construction house belonging to PW.4, but I am of the considered opinion that it is unusual for the neighbours to be obvious to the happenings in the old under construction house and it is to be noted that in the present case, the victim girl was facing sexual assault by the accused, who is her known person and neighbor and in these circumstances, there can be any strangle when the accused has committed sexual assault by using force.

90.Further, nothing material has come forth in the cross examination of the victim-girl and her family members on behalf of the accused. The evidence of the victim-girl has been more consistent in so-far as allegations against the accused is concerned. It is apparently clear from the above that the allegations are specific and consistent and there is no reason why the accused would have been falsely implicated in this case. No plausible explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the accused as to why the victim-girl and her family members would falsely implicated him in this case. The explanation of the accused during the course of cross examination of the victim-girl is highly improbable. It has been argued that the victim-girl had made false allegations of sexual assault against the accused, since there was

Dt.10-04-2025 59 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 sufficient opportunity for the victim-girl to have raised the alarm as there are number of persons are residing in neighbouring houses and the testimony of the victim-girl cannot be relied upon.

91.It may be observed in this regard, the victim-girl has explained the circumstances and specifically deposed that the accused used physical force and committed rape on her, the manner in which the events unfolded and the surrounding circumstances reflecting the truthful character of the deposition made by the victim-girl. In India, the woman has tendency to conceive such sexual offences because it involves their prestige as well as prestige of their family. Only in few cases, the victim-girls or the family members of the victim have carried to go before the P.S and lodge a report. There was no apparent reason for the parents of the victim girls to falsely implicate accused persons after taking their own prestige and honour.

92.It is settled principle of law that the courts must while evaluating the evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self respecting woman/girl would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases of involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the victim should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal in nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

Dt.10-04-2025 60 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

93.As seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it reveals that the accused, who is having evil desire in his mind developed close acquaintance with the victim girl (PW2) and had sexual intercourse with her old under construction house belonging to

PW4 near at Santha Bazar, Dhanwada by using force on her without her consent thrice. The said fact was deposed by PW3-victim girl in her evidence before the court and also before PW6, who recorded her statement U/Sec 161 of Cr.P.C and further before the learned

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet by name Smt.

Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana(LW16), who recorded her statement under

Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. The said evidence of victim girl (PW2) is corroborated by the evidence of her mother and younger sister of victim girl (Pws 1 and 3) and thereby, Pws 1 to 3, in their evidence categorically stated that sexual assault committed by the accused towards victim girl in a repeated manner.

94.The conduct of the accused to develop close acquaintance with the victim girl and kidnapped the victim-girl from the lawful custody of her mother and confined her in old under construction house belonging to PW.4 threatened her with dire consequences to kill and committed sexual assault on her repeatedly inside the said under constructed old house as deposed by the victim-girl (PW2) is undoubtedly shows the intention and implementation of evil plan of the accused. As the aforesaid act of the accused constitute an offence punishable U/Sec 6 of POCSO Act., 2012. Having considered the nature and circumstances of the case, irrespective of minor discrepancies,

Dt.10-04-2025 61 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

I am holding that the accused committed penetrate assault on the victim-girl (PW2) repeatedly and as such the accused is liable for the punishment for the offence punishable U/Sec 6 of POCOS Act., 2012.

95.Section 375 of IPC defines “rape” which is quoted as under:-

A man is said to commit “rape”. If he (a) penetrates his penis to any extent into vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, or

(b)inserts to any extent, any object or a part of the body, nor being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

(c)manipulates any part of the body of the woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person.

(d)applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person.

96.Under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:-

First:- Against her will,

Secondly:- Without her consent

Thirdly:- Wither her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly:- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes

Dt.10-04-2025 62 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

Fifthly:- With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind of intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Sixthly:- With or without her consent when she us under eighteen years of age.

Seventhly- When she is unable to communicate consent.

97.Sec.375 of IPC defines offence of rape and enumerates seven description of the offence. The description sixthly speaks of woman with or without her consent , when she is under eighteen years of age. Thus sexual intercourse by a man with a woman with or without her consent under the age of 18 years will constitute the offence of rape. The victim in this case has deposed that the accused had sexual intercourse with her against her will by using force.

98.The above definition under Section 375 of IPC in respect of “rape” which is similar to the definition of sexual assault under POCSO

Act., it is already analyzed the evidence of the victim-girl (PW2) in detailed manner as stated above and so also the evidence of her mother and younger sister (Pws.1 and 3). Pws.1, and 3 in their evidence categorically stated that the accused sexually assaulted the victim girl repeatedly at the old under construction house belonging to

PW4, situated near Santha Bazar, Dhanwada. PW2, the victim-girl in

Dt.10-04-2025 63 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 her evidence categorically stated that the accused assaulted sexually with her by using force. In the aforesaid circumstances, the sexual assault committed by the accused towards her.

99.On analyzing the entire evidence on record, which is discussed above, more particularly the evidence of PW2, which is rightly corroborated by the evidence of Pws.1 and 3. The prosecution proved the charge leveled against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 376(2)(n) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been proved by the prosecution through cogent evidence that the accused participated in sexual intercourse with the victim girl without her consent by using force more than once and as such, he committed the offence of rape as defined U/Sec 375 of IPC. Further, the prosecution established with cogent evidence that the accused committed rape on PW2, who is less than 16 years as such, the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec 376(2)(n) of IPC.

Further, the prosecution proved through the cogent evidence that the accused more than once committed rape on PW2, as such, the accused is liable for punishment for the offence punishable U/Sec 376(2)(n) of

IPC.

100. Sec.366 of IPC provides for kidnapping, abduction or inducing woman to compel her marriage. It states that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment

Dt.10-04-2025 64 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

101.Whether the facts and circumstances of the instant case warranted prosecution of the accused under section 366 of IPC. In order to constitute the offence of “abduction”, a person must be carried off illegally by force or deception, that is to compel a person by force or by deceitful means to induce to go from one place to another.

The intention of the accused is the basis and the gravamen of an offence under this section. The violation, the intention and the conduct of the accused determine the offence. They can only bear upon the intent with which the accused kidnapped or abducted the woman/girl and the intent of the accused is the vital question for determination in each case. Once the necessary intent of the accused is established, the offence is complete, whether or not, the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose and whether or not the woman/girl consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse.

102.To constitute an offence under section 366 of IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced a woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, such abduction took place with the intent that the victim may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the victim may be seduced to illicit sexual intercourse as a result of her abduction. Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal section. To establish an offence under section 366 of IPC, mere finding that a woman abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be

Dt.10-04-2025 65 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 compelled or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless, the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purpose mentioned in section 366 of IPC, the court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under section 366 of IPC.

103.If the girl was 18 years old or over, she can only be abducted and not kidnapped, but she was under 18 years, she could be kidnapped as well as abducted if the taking was by force or the taking was by deceitful means. In order to establish the offence under section 366 of IPC, it must first be established that the offence of kidnapping under section 361 of IPC has been proved and after that it has to be in compliance with the conditions provided under section 366 of IPC. The victim was a minor at the time when she was taken away from her lawful guardian. In the instant case, the prosecution has established that PW2, who is a minor child aged about 14 years was kidnapped by the accused with the intent that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her kidnapping. Unless the prosecution proves that the kidnapping was for the purpose mentioned in section 366 of IPC, the courts cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under section 366 of IPC.

104.The question of law that is brought forth him in this case, whether all the conditions of section 366 of IPC were met and if not, then which provision shall be applied here. It is already stated supra that the ingredients of section 366 of IPC are attracted in the given

Dt.10-04-2025 66 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 facts. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.03.2024 at about 1.00

PM the accused kidnapped the victim-girl from the lawful custody of her mother from near by footwear shop of PW-5, situated at Santha

Bazar, Dhanwada and took her and confined in the old under construction house belonging to PW4 with intend to procure her and seduce her for sexual intercourse where he subjected her to sexual intercourse forcibly thrice.

105.The aforesaid version of the prosecution is corroborated by the evidence of PW2-victim-girl. The testimony of the victim-girl (PW2) is further corroborated by the evidence of Pws 1 and 3, who are the mother and the younger sister of the victim-girl. The prosecution has proved through the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 that the accused kidnapped the victim-girl with intend to procure her and seduce her for sexual intercourse and she was confined in the old under construction house belonging to PW-4 and subjected her to sexual intercourse repeatedly and the said facts are attracted the offence punishable under section 366 of IPC.

106.In the given facts of the case, the accused kidnapped the victim-girl from the lawful guardianship of her mother with intend to procure her and seduce her for sexual intercourse and she was confined in the old under construction house belonging to PW.4 and subjected her to sexual intercourse with her repeatedly against her will. Having considered nature and circumstances of the case, irrespective of minor discrepancies, I am holding that the accused kidnapped the victim-girl from the lawful custody of her mother from

Dt.10-04-2025 67 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 near by footwear shop of PW.5 situated at Santha Bazar, Dhanwada on 16-03-2024 at 1.00 PM with intend to procure her and seduce her for sexual intercourse and confined her in the old under construction house belonging to PW.4 and subjected her sexual intercourse repeatedly in the said night, therefore, the accused is liable for the punishment for the offence punishable under section 366 of IPC.

107.As far as criminal intimidation is concerned, Section 503 of I.P.C. defines criminal intimation as follows:- “Who ever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation, or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act, which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

Section 506 of IPCprovides punishment for criminal intimidation which says that who ever commits the offence of criminal intimidation for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine of with both.

108.It is already supra that PW-2 in her evidence categorically stated that soon before and after committing sexual assault on her by the accused, he threatened her with dire consequences not to disclose the sexual act committed by him towards her to anybody else including her mother. The aforesaid threaten committed by the

Dt.10-04-2025 68 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 accused towards the victim-girl amounts to injury to her reputation and life, which is the main ingredient to attract the offence of Criminal intimidation punishable u/Sec.506 of IPC.

109.As far as wrongful confinement is concerned, wrongful confinement as defined in Sec.340 of IPC means restricting a person’s movement to prevent him or her from proceeding beyond certain limits, essentially keeping him or her confined within boundary without lawful cause. According to Sec.342 of IPC, whoever wrongful confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to one year or with fine, which may extended to Rs.1,000/- or with both. To establish the offence of wrongful confinement, the prosecution must prove that i) there was an obstruction., ii) the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction and iii) the Person/Complainant had a right to proceed in the direction concerned.

110.In the instant case, it is already stated supra that PW.2, in her evidence categorically stated that she was kidnapped by the accused from near footwear shop of PW.5 situated at Santha Bazar,

Dhanwada took her and confined her in the old under construction house of PW.4 and threatened her with dire consequences not to move from the said place and by using force subjected to sexual intercourse with her in the said night repeatedly and further threatened her with dire consequences not to disclose the said sexual assault to anybody else and due to fear, she retained in the said house in the whole night and also on the following day till 3.00pm. The aforesaid confinement

Dt.10-04-2025 69 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 in the old under construction house belonging to PW.4 by the accused amounts to confinement of the victim girl in the said old under construction house in the whole night of 16-03-2024 and on the following day of 17.03.2024 till 3.00 pm amounts to wrongful confinement of victim girl which is the main ingredient to attract the offence of wrongful confinement punishable u/sec.342 of IPC.

111.From the foregoing reasons, I am holding that the prosecution successfully bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n), 342, 506 of IPC and

Sec.6 of POCSO Act.,2012. Further, the accused is charged for substantial offences i.e., both under the IPC and special enactment under POCSO Act., 2012. In the event when the accused is found guilty for the offence, punishable under provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as under the Special enactment of POCSO Act., 2012 for the same criminal acts. Section 42 of the POCSO Act., provides for alternative punishment which indicates that if an offender is found guilty for the offence punishable under this Special enactment and also under provisions of Indian Penal Code, the offender shall be liable to punishable only under the Special enactment or provisions of IPC, which provides a greater punishment.

112.It is already stated supra that the accused is liable for punishment for the offence punishable U/Sec 376(2)(n) of IPC and also under Sec.6 of POCSO Act., 2012 for the very same criminal acts as the punishment awarded in the special enactment of POCSO, 2012 is similar to the provisions of IPC. The accused shall be liable for

Dt.10-04-2025 70 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 punishment only under Sec.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act 2012 instead of U/Sec.376(2)(n) of IPC, besides Section 366, 342 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, these points are answered.

RESULT:-

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n), 342, 506 of IPC and Section 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 and accordingly, he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 10th day of April, 2025.

PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE-CUM- SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT

NARAYANPET

Order of Sentence/Quantum of Sentence: Dt. 10 -04-2025:

It is not the case where invoke the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act or Section 360 of Cr.P.C. When the accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be awarded on him, he represented that he got mother and she is depended upon him and pleaded mercy of the Court.

Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also the learned Chief Legal Aid Defence counsel for the accused.

The offence proved against the accused is sexual assault against the victim girl (PW2), whose age is less than 14 years by the date of

Dt.10-04-2025 71 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 commission of offence and further it is heinous crime and dark reality in the Indian society like in any other nation and required to be dealt by awarding a suitable punishment. Therefore, showing mercy against the accused is unwarranted.

Further, section 42 of the POCSO Act-2012 provides for alternative punishment, which indicates that, if an offender is found guilty for the offence punishable under this special enactment of

POCSO and under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, the offender shall be liable for punishment only under the provisions of the special enactment of POCSO act or the provisions of Indian Penal Code, which provides for greater punishment. Further, the offence proved against the accused is section 376(2)(n) of IPC and section 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act-2012 besides Section 366, 342 and 506 of IPC for the same criminal act done by the accused. But, the punishment provided in section 376(2)(n) of IPC and section 6 of

POCSO Act are similar. In these circumstances, I intend to punish the accused under the provisions of Special enactment i.e., section 6 of

POCSO Act 2012 instead of section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

Further, due to the sexual assault of the accused on the victim girl (PW2), the physical and mental trauma was caused to her and therefore a suitable compensation has to be awarded to the victim-girl under the relevant provisions i.e., sections 357(A)(2) or 357(A)(3) of

Cr.P.C r/w section 33(8) of POCSO Act, 2012 and the Telangana Victim compensation scheme, 2015.

Dt.10-04-2025 72 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

Having considered the nature and circumstances of the case and representation of the accused, I have passed the following sentence:- "Thus, the Accused is sentenced to undergorigorous

imprisonment for a period of five years and shall pay fine of

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under section 366 of IPC.

The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of 20 years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees Five thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

The Accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay fine of

Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only), in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 342 of IPC.

The Accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay fine of

Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundread only), in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC.

All the substantial sentences imposed against the accused shall be run concurrently. The remand period of the accused from 18.03.2024

Dt.10-04-2025 73 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024 to 13-08-2024 shall be set off as against the term of imprisonment as per section 428 of Cr.P.C. The total fine amount is that of Rs.8,000/-

A sum of Rs.5,00,000-00 (Rupees Five Lakhs only) is awarded to the victim girl (PW2) towards compensation under section 357-A(2)/357-A(3) of Cr.P.C, r/w section 33(8) of POCSO Act-2012, r/w the Telangana victim compensation scheme, 2015. The case property of M.Os.1 to 4 which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The Accused is informed the appeal provision and also facility of the Legal Aid for filing an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.

{Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 10th day of April, 2025.}

PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE-CUM-SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT

NARAYANPET

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

PW.1: Vadde Laxmi – Defacto Complainant-cum mother of the victim- girl.

PW.2 : Victim girl.

PW.3 : Vadde Radhika – Younger sister of the victim girl.

PW.4: Bogam Srinivasulu – owner of the old under construction house.

Dt.10-04-2025 74 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

PW.5: Abdul Khadar @ Jhony - Proprietor of footwear shop situated at santha Bazar, Dhanwada.

PW.6: M.Sunitha, Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, In-charge of Bharosa center, Narayanpet - recorded the statement of the victim- girl.

PW.7: P.Sandhya Rani – FAC of Gazetted Headmistress, Z.P.H.S.(Girls), Dhanwada, issued bonafide certificate of the victim-girl.

PW.8: Bogam Nagaraju @ Jaya Barath – mediator, said to be present at the time of conducting panchanama for the scene of offence.

PW.9: Varala Pramila - mediator, said to be present at the time of collecting clothes of victim girl by PW.6.

PW.10: Dr Himaja, Civil Assistant Surgeon, district headquarters hospital, Narayanpet - examined the victim-girl, collected and preserved vaginal smears of the victim girl on the glass slides.

PW.11: Vemula Balaswamy - mediator, said to be present at the time interrogation of the accused.

PW.12: Dr A.Raja Naik, Assistant Director, State FSL, Hyderabad - analyzed the vaginal smears, clothes collected from the victim-girl and bed sheet at State FSL, Hyderabad.

PW.13: G.Pandu, Assistant director, State FSL, Hyderabad, who extracted DNA from the vaginal smears, legging and cut-drawer of the victim-girl and compared with DNA extracted from blood samples of the accused.

PW.14: V.Ramesh, SI of Police, PS Dhanwada - registered the crime and issued F.I.R.

PW.15: K.Rajender Reddy, Circle-Inspector of Police, Marikal Circle - Investigating officer in this case, laid a charge sheet against the accused.

FOR DEFENCE: - -None-

-EXHIBITS MARKED -

FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P1 report, dt.17-03-2024,lodged by PW1 to the police concerned. Ex.P2 is section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 recorded by the police concerned Ex.P3 is section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 recorded by the police concerned Ex.P4 is seizure panchanama, with regard to the clothes collected from the victim girl, dt.17.03.2024. Ex.P5 is bonafide certificate of the victim-girl dated 18.03.2024 issued by PW7.

Dt.10-04-2025 75 S.C.(POCSO).No.51 of 2024

Ex.P6 is crime details form, dated 17.03.2024. Ex.P7 is preliminary examination report of PW2 dated 17.03.2024 issued by PW10. Ex.P8 is FSL report dated 20.04.2024 issued by PW12. Ex.P9 is the final opinion, dt.10-05-2024 issued by PW10. Ex.P10 is report of the state FSL, Hyderabad, dt.30-07-2024 issued by PW.13. Ex.P11. is the FSL Report, dt.13-09-2024 along withelectro pherogram- 5 pages issued by PW.13. Ex.P12 is FIR dated 17.03.2024 issued by PW14. Ex.P13 is the potency test report of the accused.

FOR DEFENCE:- Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED, IF ANY:- M.O.1 is long frock.

M.O.2 is black colour legging,

M.O.3 is black colour under wear,

M.O.4. Light pink green and white colour bed sheet.

PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE-CUM-SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT

NARAYANPET

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPL.SESSIONS

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, AT NARAYANPET

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025

Present:-Mohd.Abdul Rafi, Prl.District and Sessions Judge Narayanpet

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) No.44 OF 2024

=======================================

1.Complainant::The State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Narayanpet Circle.

2.Name of the accused:: Mandla Pedda Balaraju @ Balu S/o Kathalappa, Age: 26 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Kollampally village, Narayanpet mandal.

3.Crime No.::6/2024 of PS Narayanpet Rural.

4.Prosecution conducted By::Sri Akula Balappa, Public Prosecutor, Narayanpet.

5.Defence conducted by::Sri K.Laxmipathi Goud, Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the accused.

6.Charges::Charges U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the Accused.

7.Plea of the accused::“Not guilty”

8.Finding of the Court::“Found guilty”

9.Result :: In the result, the accused found guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 and accordingly, he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.

"Thus, the Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only),in default of

Dt.17-04-2025 2 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three month for the offence punishable under section 366 of IPC. The accused is further sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shallfurtherundergosimple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 6 of POCSO Act- 2012.Both substantial sentences imposed against the accused shall be run concurrently. The remand period of the accused from 01.07.2024 to 03.09.2024 shall be set off as against the term of imprisonment as per section 428 of Cr.P.C. The total fine amount is that of Rs.15,000/-.

A sum ofRs.5,00,000-00 (Rupees Five Lakhs only) is awarded to the victim girl (PW2) towards compensationundersection 357-A(2)/357-A(3) of Cr.P.C, r/w section 33(8) of POCSO Act-2012, r/w the Telanganavictimcompensation scheme, 2015. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The Accused is informed the appeal provision and also facility of the Legal Aid for filing an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.

=======================================

This Sessions case came before me on 09-04-2025 for final hearing; after hearing the arguments of Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the accused; upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

Dt.17-04-2025 3 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. The State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police,

Narayanpet Circle has laid a charge sheet against the accused in

Crime No.6/2024 of P.S. Narayanpet Rural charged U/Secs.363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 with the following allegations:-

i) That the victim-girl (PW2) is a minor, attained the age of 17 years and is a resident of Kollampally village of Narayanpet Rural

Mandal. About 3 years ago, prior to 18.01.2024 her father was expired.

The victim-girl studied 1st class to 5th class at Keshave Shishumandir, 6th class to 10th class, Z.P.H.S.School at Kollampally village and later, she completed her Intermediate at Government Junior College,

Dhanwada village. While she was studying 9th class, the accused came into contact with her and he used to visit her house to meet her uncle by name Neeli Anjaneyulu(PW-7). After few days, the accused expressed his love stating that he fallen in love with her and promised to marry her and the said love proposal of the accused was rejected by the victim-girl initially. Inspite of it, the accused was not let her and roamed around her on the name of love and marriage.

ii)It is further alleged that while the victim-girl was studying in 10th class, she accepted the love proposal of the accused and after that she used to talk with him over cell phone of her mother and she also used to chat in the Instagram and face book and in the meantime, her mother by name Neeli Govindamma(PW-1) noticed the same and warned the victim-girl and after that the victim-girl stopped to talk

Dt.17-04-2025 4 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 with him. Later, again the victim-girl responded to the accused when he made a phone call to her, in turn, the victim girl joined Intermediate

I Year, at Government Junior College, Dhanwada village and the accused used to visit her college to meet her. In the month of

September, 2022 on one day, the mother of the victim-girl went to market by leaving the victim-girl alone in her house, knowing the same, the accused visited her house and subjected her to sexual intercourse forcibly on the name of love and marriage with his deceitful words and after that several times, the accused subjected her to sexual intercourse in the same manner.

iii)It is further alleged that when the victim-girl was studying

II Year, Intermediate, her mother informed to the victim-girl that she intends to perform her marriage by searching marriage alliance for her. Accordingly, the victim-girl communicated the same to the accused for which, the accused proposed to get marriage by visiting elsewhere, for which, the victim-girl also accepted the same. On 17- 01-2021, at about 7.00 AM, the victim girl left the house by informing to her mother that she was going to college and boarded the Auto and reached Peddajatram village where she met the accused. Further both came to Narayanpet bus stand in the Auto and boarded Bhadrachalam bus and step down in Bhadrachalam where, purchased clothes and

Thally, on 19-01-2024, got marriage in a temple at Bhadrachalam and stayed in a rented room for a period of 15 days, where also the accused subjected her to sexual intercourse.

Dt.17-04-2025 5 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 iv)It is further alleged that later, the accused took her to Thirupathi and kept her in a rented room for a period of 4 months where also he subjected her to sexual intercourse repeatedly. After knowing about lodging of missing case by the mother of the victim-girl, on 28-06-2024, the accused brought the victim girl to Mahabubnagar from Thirupathi and boarded Narayanpet bus and the victim-girl step down from Bus at Kollampally gate and the accused fled away in the same bus. The victim-girl reached her house and informed the entire matter to her mother.

v)It is further alleged that on 18.01.2024 at 04:00 PM, the mother of victim-girl by name N.Govindamma went to P.S.Narayanapet Rural and lodged a report alleging that her daughter was missing and suspected that the accused might have kidnapped her daughter.

Basing on the contents of the report lodged by the mother of the victim-girl by name Govindamma(PW-1), a case in Cr.No.6 of 2024 u/Sec.363 of IPC was registered at P.S.Narayanapet Rural and investigated into. During the course of investigation, Jaya Prasad, S.I.

of Police, P.S.Narayanapet Rural(PW-13) has examined and recorded the statement of PW.1 at P.S.Narayanapet rural and he made efforts to trace out the victim-girl and suspect. In view of his transfer, his successor in office, Krishna Deva, S.I. of Police, P.S.Narayanapet

Rural(LW.16), took up further investigation in this case. While the investigation was in progress, to trace out the victim-girl and suspect, on 28-06-2024, in the night hours PW.1 along with the victim-girl came to P.S.Narayanapet Rural and appeared before Krishna Deva, S.I. of

Dt.17-04-2025 6 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

Police(LW16) upon that the said S.I. of Police referred the victim-girl to

Bharosa Centre, Narayanpet and got recorded the statement of the victim-girl on 29-06-2024 through M.Sunitha, Woman Sub-Inspector of

Police, I/c of Bharosa Centre, Narayanpet (PW-10).

vi)It is further alleged that basing on the statement of the victim- girl, the said S.I. of Police(LW16) altered the section of law from

Sec.363 of IPC to Secs.366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.5(l) r/w Sec.6 of

POCSO Act-2012 and issued a Section Alteration Memo to that effect.

On receipt of copy of Section Alteration Memo, as the offence is grave in nature, B.Shiva Shankar, Circle-Inspector of Police, Narayanpet

Circle(PW14) took up the investigation in this case and he visited the house of the victim-girl situated at Kollamapally village , where he has examined and re recorded the statement of PW.1 and he also examined recorded the statement of Neeli Anjaneyulu(PW-7), where the victim shown the scene of offence and as such, PW.14 secured the presence of two mediators namely Telugu Raju(LW-7) and Abhangapur

Hanmanthu(PW-5), in their presence conducted panchanama for the scene of offence by preparing Crime Details Form and he referred the victim-girl to the District Head quarters hospital, Narayanpet for medical examination.

vii)It is further alleged that he visited Government Z.P.H.S.,

Kollampally village and collected the bonafide certificate of the victim- girl from I/c Head Master, Z.P.H.S., Kollampally by name S.Salman

Raj(PW3), wherein, the date of birth of the victim-girl is mentioned as 14-01-2007, where he has examined and recorded the statement of

Dt.17-04-2025 7 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

PW.2 and submitted a requisition before Addl.JFCM, Narayanpet with a request to record the statement of the victim-girl u/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C.

While, the investigation was in progress to apprehend the accused, on credible information, on 01-07-2024, the deputed ID party rushed to

Kollampally village and apprehended the accused at his residence at 12 noon and brought him to the office of Cir-Inspector of Police,

Narayanpet Circle and produced before PW14 at 1.00 PM. On

Interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case and as such, PW.14 effected the arrest of the accused and referred him to the District Head quarters hospital,

Narayanpet for potency test. After completion of the said process,

PW-14 got the accused remanded to Judicial custody after following the due procedure.

viii)It is further alleged that PW14 once again visited Kollampally village, where he has examined and recorded the statements of neighbors of the victim-girl namely S.Anil Kumar(PW-4) and another.

Dr Sowjanya, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Head quarters hospital,

Narayanpet(PW-6) has examined the victim-girl and collected vaginal swabs from the victim-girl and preserved on glass slides and got forwarded the same to the state FSL, Hyderabad for chemical examination. On receipt of the vaginal smears of the victim-girl at

State FSL, Hyderabad, A Raja Naik, Assistant Director, State FSL,

Hyderabad (PW-11) analyzed the vaginal smears of the victim-girl and furnished report stating that semen and spermatozoa were not detected. After receiving the report from State FSL, Hyderabad, Lady

Dt.17-04-2025 8 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

Medical Officer(PW-6) furnished her final opinion wherein, she opined that there is no medical evidence recent sexual assault, however, there is no evidence to prove that she has not participated in sexual intercourse.

ix)It is further alleged that Dr Anusha, Civil Assistant Surgeon,

District Head quarters hospital, Narayanpet (PW-9) has examined the potency of the accused and furnished report wherein, she opined that it can be concluded that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is examined, is not capable of performing sex act. On receipt of requisition from PW.14, Smt Syed Zakiyyaih Sulthana, Additional JFCM,

Narayanpet(LW-14) recorded the statement of the victim-girl u/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. After collecting all the documents and after completion of the investigation, PW.14 filed a charge sheet against the accused, hence the charge.

2. This case was taken on file by this court vide S.C (POCSO)

No.44/2024, U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused and proceeded with the case against the accused. On appearance of the accused before this court, all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

3.On 20.12.2024, the accused was examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against him, wherein he denied the commission of offence. Upon consideration of the case record and documents submitted there with, after hearing the

Dt.17-04-2025 9 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 arguments on both sides, it was opined that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offences, whereupon charges U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against the accused read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 documents. The prosecution has given up the evidence of Telugu Raju(LW7), Baru Basappa(LW9) and

Krishna Deva, Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayanpet Rural P.S.(LW16).

5. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, he denied the incriminating circumstances and did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record including the written arguments filed on behalf of the accused.

7. Now the points for determination are:

i) Whether the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim-girl (PW2) repeatedly knowing that she is a minor girl ?

ii) Whether the accused kidnapped the victim-girl (PW2) from Pedda Jatram village to Bhadrachalam with intend to marry her from there to Thirupathi with intend to procure her and seduce her for sexual intercourse ?

Dt.17-04-2025 10 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 iii) Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 beyond all reasonable doubts ?

8.The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused is a resident of Kollampally village, where the victim girl is residing and developed close acquaintance with the victim-girl on the name of love and marriage and subjected her to sexual intercourse repeatedly in the house of the victim-girl in the absence of her mother. Further, on 17-01-2024, at about 7.00 AM, the accused kidnapped the minor victim-girl from her lawful guardianship of her mother, took her to

Bhadrachalam and got married in the temple and kept her in a rented room for a period of 15 days and subjected her to sexual intercourse and later, she was taken to Thirupathi and kept her in a rented room for a period of four months and subjected her to sexual intercourse repeatedly and as such, the accused is liable for punishment for the offences punishable U/Secs 366,376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO

Act, 2012. On the other hand, the defence of the accused is one of the total denial of the prosecution case.

9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses, out of them, the defacto complainant and mother of the victim-girl by name Neeli Govindamma was examined as PW1. The victim-girl was examined as PW2.

S.Salman Raj, I/c of Headmaster, Z.P.H.S.Kollampally, who issued bonafide certificate of the victim-girl was examined as PW3. S.Anil

Kumar, who is the cousin of the victim-girl was examined as PW.4.

Dt.17-04-2025 11 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

Abhangapur Hanmanthu, who is said to be mediator present at the time of conducting panchanama for the first scene of offence by the

S.I. of Police. P.S.Narayanpet rural was examined as PW5. Dr

Sowjanya, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District headquarters hospital,

Narayanpet, who examined the victim-girl, collected and preserved her vaginal smears on the glass slides was examined as PW6. Neeli

Anjaneyulu, who is the Senior Maternal uncle of the victim-girl was examined as PW.7. M.Narsimulu, who is said to be mediator present at the time of conducting panchanama for the second scene of offence by PW.14 was examined as PW.8. Dr Anusha, Civil Assistant Surgeon,

District Head quarters hospital, Narayanapet, who examined the potency of the accused was examined as PW9. M.Sunitha, Woman

Sub-Inspector of Police, In-charge of Bharosa center, Narayanpet, who recorded the statement of the victim-girl was examined as PW10.

A.Raja Naik, Assistant Director, State FSL, Hyderabad, who analyzed the vaginal smears of the victim-girl was examined as PW11.

Sanjeevaiah, A.S.I. of Police, P.S.Narayanpet rural, who registered the crime and issued F.I.R was examined as PW.12. Jaya Prasad, Sub-

Inspector of Police, P.S.Narayanpet Rural, who is the first investigating

Officer of this cases examined as PW.13. B. Shivashankar, Circle-

Inspector of Police, Narayanpet Circle, who is the second investigating officer in this case, laid a charge sheet against the accused was examined as PW14.

10.In support of oral evidence, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the following documents. Ex.P1 is the report dated

Dt.17-04-2025 12 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 18.01.2024 lodged by PW1 to the police concerned. Ex.P2 is bonafide certificate of the victim-girl dated 29.06.2024 issued by PW3. Ex.P3 is the Crime Details Form dated 18.01.2024 prepared by PW.13., in respect of first scene of offence. Ex.P4 is preliminary examination report of PW2 dated 29.06.2024 issued by PW6. Ex.P5 is the FSL report

dated 11.07.2024 issued by PW11. Ex.P6 is the final opinion,

dt.23.07.2024 issued by PW6. Ex.P7 Crime Detail Form, dt.29.06.2024 conducted by PW14., in respect of second scene of offence. Ex.P8 is potency test report of the accused issued by PW9, dt.01.07.2024.

Ex.P9 is the F.I.R. dt.18-01-2024, issued by PW12. Ex.P10 is the

Section Alteration Memo.

11.In order to establish the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 14, among them,

PWs.1, 2, 4 and 7 are the main witnesses, on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution relied upon. In addition to the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 14, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the documentary evidence. The oral evidence of Pws.1 to 14 and the documentary evidence (Exs.P1 to P10) is to be appreciated by the court. No material discrepancies going to the root of the case have been elicited in the cross examination of material witnesses.

Therefore, there is no reason for these witnesses are coming-forth to speak falsehood as against the accused. Thus, there is nothing to discredit the testimony of these material witnesses and their evidence is consistent throughout and inspires the confidence of the Court.

Dt.17-04-2025 13 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

Therefore, these witnesses can be believed and can be depended upon in adjudicating the matter.

Point Nos.i) to iii) :-

12.It is to be first seen whether the victim-girl is a “Child” as defined U/Sec 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act., 2012 (herein after referred to as POCSO Act., 2012).

As per the prosecution, the victim-girl (PW2) is aged about 17 years as on the date of lodging of the report and she is a child as defined

U/Sec 2(d) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act., 2012 as on the date of commission of the offence. In order to establish the age of the victim-girl, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 3, among them, PW1- Neeli Govindamma, who is the mother of the victim-girl, in her evidence stated that she got two daughers, the victim girl is her elder daughter and Gayathri is her younger daughter, the victim-girl is aged about 17 years, she studied up to I year

Intermediate, Government Junior College, Dhanwada and she stopped her further studies. PW.2, who is the victim-girl in her evidence stated that she is the first daughter to her parents and her father was expired four years ago, she was born on 14-01-2007. She studied from 1st class to 5th class at Srikeshava Shishumandir, Kollampally village. Later, she studied from 6th class to 10th class at Z.P.H.S.Kollampally village, later, she joined in I year, Intermediate at Government Junior College,

Dhanwada and while she was studying II year Intermediate, she was taken away by the accused and as such she stopped her further studies.

Dt.17-04-2025 14 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

13.PW3, S.Salman Raj, Who is working as School Assistant at

Z.P.H.S., Kollampally from 07-07-2009 and he was in charge of Head

Master,Z.P.H.S.Kollampallyfrom01-05-2020to 27-06-2024. On 29-06-2024, the Gazetted Head Mistress,

Z.P.H.S.Kollampally was on leave and he was I/c of her post, on 29-06- 2024, while he was discharging his duties as School Assistant and also

I/c of Head Mistress, Z.P.H.S.Kollampally, at 11.00 AM, the C.I. of

Police, Narayanpet Circle(PW.14) along with his staff approached him with a request to issue bonafide certificate of the victim-girl, who studied 7th class during the academic year 2018-19. Accordingly, his

Clerk verified the Admission Register and placed before him and on the basis of Admission Register, he issued Ex.P.2 bonafide Certificate of the victim-girl wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 14-01- 2007. He handed over Ex.P-2 bonafide certificate to PW.14. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.3 on behalf of accused that he mentioned two admission numbers of the victim-girl in Ex.P-2 bonafide certificate, the victim-girl joined in 6th class with admission Number 2883 and later, she discontinued her studies and thereafter, she joined in their institution in 7th class with admission number 2985.

14.PW14, who is the second investigating officer in this case, in his evidence stated that he visited government Z.P.H.S., Kollampally village and collected Ex.P.2 bonafide certificate of the victim-girl from

PW.3-I/c Head Mistress, wherein the date of birth of the victim-girl is recorded as 14-01-2007. This part of testimony made by PW.14 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.3. On perusal of oral evidence of

Dt.17-04-2025 15 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

PWs.1, 2 read together with the evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.P2 bonafide certificate, it establishes that the victim-girl was aged 17 years 3 days as on 17-01-2024, when the victim-girl was kidnapped from the lawful custody of her mother. It was suggested to PW3 in his cross examination on behalf of the accused that he issued Ex.P2 bonafide certificate as per the request of the police concerned and also the police concerned furnished the date of birth of the victim-girl and the same was incorporated in Ex.P.2 and further,the victim-girl became major, but due to influence of the police concerned, he incorporated wrong date of birth of the victim-girl in Ex.P.2, bonafide certificate and the said suggestion was denied by PW.3 in his cross examination. Therefore, it can be concluded that the prosecution has established that the victim-girl is aged 17 years 3 days as on the date of kidnapping of the victim girl from the lawful custody of her mother.

Hence, the victim-girl is “child” and she is below the age of 18 years by the date of commission of offence as per Sec.2(d) of the POCSO

Act., 2012.

15.It is to be next seen whether the accused has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim-girl (PW2).

As per the prosecution, the accused has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim-girl, who is aged 17 years.

The Court expects from the prosecution to produce the evidence to prove the guilt of the accused in particular case. In my opinion, it depends upon case to case and according to the case and circumstances, expectation of producing the evidence from the side of

Dt.17-04-2025 16 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 prosecution be made. It is settled proposition of law that the single testimony is sufficient to hold the guilt for the offences under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012.

16.Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act., 2012 is quoted as under:- “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”.

Aggravated Sexual Assault is defined U/sec 5 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 is quoted as under:- “Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly”

17.“Penetrative sexual assault” defined U/Sec 3 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012. Sec.3 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences act., 2012 is quoted as under:-

A person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if-

(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any

Dt.17-04-2025 17 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, ure- thra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person.

18.Section 2(1)(a) and (f) of the Protection of Children from sexual Offences Act., 2012 is quoted as under:-

a) “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.,

f) “penetrative sexual assault” has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.,

19.According to Section 2(1)(a), Section 3, Section 5(l), and

Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012, a person commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault even on the child more than once or repeatedly, he penetrates his penis or inserts any object or manipulates any part of the body or applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, urethra, anus and shall be punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

as having done aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Hence, it is very clear that for the punishment under section 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act., penetration of penis in vagina is not necessary if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused penetrate his penis in her vagina or apply his mouth to the penis shall be convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act.

20.PW2, who is the victim-girl, in her evidence stated that while she was studying II year, Intermediate, she was taken away by

Dt.17-04-2025 18 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 the accused and as such, she stopped her further studies. She know the accused, who is a resident of her village. While she was studying 9th class, the accused came into contact with her. Her senior maternal uncle by name Anjaneyulu(PW.7) was running kiranam shop and hotel and herself and her mother were living in the house of her senior maternal uncle by name Anjaneyulu and the accused used to come to the shop of her senior maternal uncle where the accused came in to contact with her.

21.PW.2 in her evidence further stated that the accused used to follow her while she was going to the school and expressed that he fallen in love with her and promised to marry her, but she refused the said love proposal of the accused but the accused continuously followed her and she believed the words of the accused and accepted the love proposal of the accused while she was studying 10th class.

While she was alone in her house, the accused used to come to her house in the absence of her mother and had sexual intercourse with her twice or thrice on the pretend of love and marriage and she believed the words of the accused.

22.PW.2 in her evidence further stated that while she was studying I year, Intermediate, her mother started searching marriage alliances for her to perform her marriage and she communicated the same to the accused. In the morning hours at about 7.00 am, on 17- 01-2024, she left the house informing to her mother that she was going to the college and as per the pre-plan of the accused, she went to Pedda Jatram village where from the accused took her to

Narayanpet by Auto and there from she was taken to Hyderabad by the accused on Bus. From there she was taken to Bhadrachalam

Dt.17-04-2025 19 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 where, the accused married her in the Sri Rama temple and she was kept in a rented room at Bhadrachalam for a period of 15 days and during the said 15 days, the accused had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly.

23.PW.2 in her evidence further stated that thereafter, she was taken to Thirupathi from Bhadrachalam and she was kept in a rented room at Daminadu area of Thirupathi for a period of 5 months.

During those 5 months, the accused was earning by attending coolie work and during those 5 months, the accused had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly. Thereafter, they came to know that her mother lodged a missing case in the police concerned and the police concerned searching for them and then, the accused dropped her at

Kollampally gate on 28-06-2024 during evening time and he escaped from the said place and then, she return back to her house, then her mother enquired her, her where abouts all these about 6 months and then she narrated the aforesaid incidents to her mother.

24.PW.2 in her evidence further stated that on the same day, she was taken to P.S.Narayanpet Rural by her mother and produced

before S.I. of Police as it was night time, she was kept in Sakhi Centre,

thereafter, she was taken to Bharosa centre, Narayanpet where her statement was recorded by one lady S.I. of Police. After five days, she was summoned to the Lady Magistrate, Narayanpet, where her statement was recorded by one Lady Magistrate. After recording her statement at Bharosa Centre, she was referred to government hospital, Narayanpet for medical examination and accordingly, she was produced before the lady doctor by woman police constable where lady doctor examined her and collected her vaginal smears on glass slides.

25.It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.2 on behalf of the accused that the accused threatened her stating that if she failed to follow him, he would commit suicide and due to fear, she followed the accused from Pedda Jatram village. It was denied that when the

Dt.17-04-2025 20 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 accused took her to Narayanpet by Auto, she informed to the accused that she completed 18 years age and she became major. It was further suggested to PW.2 on behalf of the accused that at the instance of her mother, she gave false statement before Woman Sub-

Inspector of Police(PW.10), Lady Magistrate and also before this Court and further, the accused never kidnapped her from her village and the accused never had sexual intercourse with her and the said suggestions were denied by the PW.2 in her cross examination.

26.Apart from the evidence of PW2, the prosecution has also examined mother of the victim-girl, by name Neeli Govindamma, cousin of the victim girlby name Sallolla Anil Kumar as PW.4 and Senior maternal uncle of the victim-girl by name Neeli Anjaneyulu as PW.1, 4 and 7 respectively. PW1 – Neeli Govindamma, who is the mother of the victim-girl, in her evidence stated that about 1 year ago, on one day, as usual the victim girl left the house to go to the college at about 7.00 am and even in the evening, she did not return back to the house from the college. Then they started searching for the victim girl, but she was not traced out, they suspected that the accused might have been kidnapped the victim girl from their village, upon that she went to

P.S.Narayanpet Rural and lodged Ex.P.1- report alleging that her victim daughter was missing and they suspected the accused might have been kidnapped the victim girl.

27. PW.1 in her evidence further stated that after five months, on one day, the victim girl return back to the house and then they enquired where she was all these days, upon that the victim girl informed them that she was taken away by the accused from the village to Narayanpet bus stand by Auto where from she was taken

Dt.17-04-2025 21 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 away to Hyderabad by the accused by Bus and thereafter, she was taken way by the accused to Bhadrachalam, where he got married her and she was kept in a room at Bhadrachalam for a period of 15 days and during the said 15 days, the accused had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly. Thereafter, she was taken to Thirupathi by the accused and kept her in a rented room and the accused had sexual intercourse with her during those days repeatedly. Thereafter, they came to know about the missing case and the police concerned searched for them and as such the accused took her from Thirupathi and dropped her at

Kollampally village and fled away.

28.PW.1 in her evidence further stated that then, she took the victim girl to Narayanpet Rural P.S. and produced her before S.I. of

Police and she was referred to Bharosa centre, Narayanpet where her statement was recorded and further she was summoned to Narayanpet and her statement was recorded by one lady Magistrate. Itwas elicited in the cross examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused that she is an illiterate, her marriage was performed while she was 15 years old. The age of her younger daughter is 6 years. After three years of her marriage, the victim girl was born. After missing of the victim-girl they enquired with their neighbors and they were informed that the victim-girl was moving closely with the accused and as such, they suspected on the accused and lodged a report against him.

29.It was further suggested in the cross examination of PW.1 on behalf of the accused that the victim-girl completed her 18 years of age and she did not obey her advise that she searched marriage

Dt.17-04-2025 22 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 alliances for her to perform her marriage and that while admitting the victim-girl in the school her age furnished one year less than her real age and the victim-girl did not willing to marry the person, who was searched for her to perform her marriage and that the accused never kidnapped the victim-girl from their village and the said suggestions were denied by PW.1 in her cross examination.

30.PW4 – Sallolla Anil Kumar, who is the cousin of the victim- girl in his evidence stated that about one year ago, on one day, in the morning hours, as usual the victim girl left the house to go to the college and even in the evening, she did not return back to her house from the college, then PW-1 and they also started searching for the victim girl, but she was not traced out. PW-1 suspected that the accused might have kidnapped the victim girl from their village, upon that she went to P.S.Narayanpet rural and lodged a report. After six months, on one day, the victim girl return back to her house and then her mother enquired, where she was all these days, upon that the victim girl informed them that she was taken by the accused from the village and she was taken to Bhadrachalam where he got married and she was kept in a room at Bhadrachalam for a period of one week and the accused had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly during their stay at Bhadrachalam.

31.PW.4, in his evidence further stated that thereafter, PW.2 was taken to Thirupathi, where they stayed for a period of about 6 months and thereafter the accused came to know that a case was lodged against him in P.S.Narayanpet rural and the police concerned

Dt.17-04-2025 23 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 searched for him due to which, the accused dropped her at Kollampally gate and fled away.It was elicited in the cross examination of PW.4 on behalf of the accused that he came to know that the victim-girl was taken away by the accused from the village to Bhadrachalam and thereafter to Thirupathi through PW.1. He has no personal knowledge with regard to the incidents and he came to know that the victim-girl was taken away by the accused through PW.1.

32.PW7 – Neeli Anjaneyulu, who is the senior maternal uncle of the victim-girl, in his evidence stated that about one year ago, on one day, in the morning hours, as usual the victim girl left the house to go to the college and even in the evening, she did not return back to her house from the college, then PW-1 and they also started searching for the victim girl but she was not traced out. PW-1 suspected that the accused might have kidnapped the victim girl from their village, upon that she went to P.S.Narayanpet rural and lodged Ex.P1 report. After six months, on one day, the victim girl return back to her house and then her mother enquired, where she was all these days, upon that the victim girl informed them that she was taken by the accused from the village and she was taken to Hyderabad from there to Bhadrachalam where she was kept in room for period of 15 days and the accused had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly during their stay at

Bhadrachalam.

33.PW.7 in his evidence further stated that thereafter, PW.2 was taken to Thirupathi, where they stayed for a period of about 6 months and thereafter the accused came to know that a case was

Dt.17-04-2025 24 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 lodged against him in P.S.Narayanpet rural and the police concerned searched for him, due to which, the accused dropped her at

Kollampally gate and fled away. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW7 on behalf of the accused that he was informed by PW.1 that prior to the date of missing of the victim-girl, she witnessed the victim- girl was closely moving with the accused as such, they suspected the accused and the same was mentioned in Ex.P1 report. He was informed by PW.1 that the victim-girl return back to the house when

PW.1 enquired with the victim-girl that there was a possibility to escape from the hand of the accused during the said 6 months period, but as to why she did not escape from the hands of the accused for which, the victim-girl replied that the accused and herself fallen in love with each other and as such, she did not try to escape from the hands of the accused.

34.PW6 – Dr B.Sowjanya, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon,

District Head quarters Hospital, Narayanpet in her evidence stated that on 29-06-2024 at about 5.44 pm, the victim-girl who is aged 17 years was produced before her through WPC.No.3268 by name Anitha of

P.S.Narayanpet Rural along with requisition from Circle-Inspector of

Police, Narayanpet circle to examine the victim-girl and accordingly, on the same day at same time she has examined the victim-girl and found the victim-girl is conscious, coherent and cooperative, she did not find any external injuries on external genitalia, no fresh tears or bleeding on her private parts, P/V examination, admitting one finger loose.

Dt.17-04-2025 25 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

35.PW.6, in her evidence further stated that she collected vaginal smears of the victim-girl and handed over the same to the

Circle-Inspector of Police, Narayanpet Circle. in order to send the same to the State FSL, Hyderabad for chemical examination. She issued

Ex.P4-preliminary examination report, dt:29-06-2024,The Circle-

Inspector of Police, Narayanpet Circle forwarded the vaginal smears of the victim-girl to the State FSL, Hyderabad where, it is analyzed by

A.Raja Naik, Assistant Director, TSFSL, Hyderabd and issued Ex.P-5 report stating that semen and Spermatozoa were not detected in vaginal smears of the victim-girl. On receipt of copy of Ex.P.5 report from State FSL, Hyderabad, she issued her Ex.P.6 - final opinion.

Wherein, she opined that there is no medical evidence of recent sexual assault, however, there is no evidence to prove that she has not participated in sexual intercourse.

36.PW9 – Dr Anusha, the then Civil-Assistant Surgeon, District

Head quarters hospital, Narayanpet, in her evidence stated that on 01-07-2024 the accused was produced before her through P.C.No.714 of P.S.Narayanpet Rural at 05.40 pm along with requisition to conduct the potency test of the accused. Accordingly, on the same day, at the same time, she has examined the accused and found, his genital organs are normal, there is no evidence of disease of testies or epididymis, no history of exposure and had any veneral disease, there is no evidence of organic disease of nervous system, there are well marked secondary sex characters, there are no psychic causes. She issued a Ex.P8 - medical certificate stating that there is nothing to

Dt.17-04-2025 26 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 suggest that the accused is examined is not capable of performing sex act i.e., accused is portent.

37.PW.11, Dr A.Raja Naik, Assistant Director, TGFSL,

Hyderabad, in his evidence stated that on 04-07-2024, their laboratory received one sealed Gauze cloth parcel which is intact and tallying with the sample seal, through PC No.3059 of PS.Narayanpet Rural by name

Thirumalesu Goud from Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narayanpet Sub-

Division along with letter of advise in Cr.No.6 of 2024 of PS Narayanpet

Rural. A gauze cloth parcel contained i). Two glass slides with dried smears on each marked as item No.1. He conducted microscopic examination for identification of spermatozoa. He issued a report(Ex.P5) stating that semen and spermatozoa were not detected on item No.1-Vaginal smears of the victim girl and it was approved and forwarded by their Joint Director, T.G.F.S.L, Hyderabad by name K.Arun

Jyothi.

38.PW.10 - M.Sunitha, Woman Sub-Insepctor of Police, In- charge of Bharosa center, Narayanpet, in her evidence stated that on 29-06-2024 at about 10.30 am while, she was at DCRB office,

Narayanpet by discharging her duties, at that time she received a phone call from S.I of Police, Narayanpet Rural, with a request to record the statement of the victim-girl who was sent to Bharosa Centre,

Narayanpet. Accordingly, on the same day, she went to Bharosa

Centre, Narayanpet and reached at 02.00 pm and she recorded the statement of the victim-girl in the presence of her mother.

Dt.17-04-2025 27 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

39.PW.10, in her evidence further stated that the victim-girl stated before her that she is a resident of Kollampally village and she is the elder among two daughters of her parents and her father was expired about 3 years ago and she studied 1st class to 5th class at Sri

Keshav Shishumandhir, Kollampally village, 06th class to 10th class at

Government ZPHS, Kollampally village and intermediate at Govt.Junior college, Dhanwada. while, she was studying 9th class, the accused came in to contact with her, resident of her village and then and there the accused came to her house to meet her uncle and after some days, the accused expressed that he likes her, for which, she refused and inspite of it, the accused used to follow her and while, she was studying 10th class, the accused expressed that he fallen in love with her and promised to marry her, for which, she accepted the love proposal of the accused and they both fallen in love with each other and she used to talk the accused through her mother’s phone and further they both chat each other in the instagram and facebook.

While, she was studying 10th class on one day her mother found while, she was closely moving and talking with the accused upon that her mother warned her and subsequently also the accused contacted her over a phone and used to talk her.

40.PW.10, in her evidence further stated that PW.2 further sated before her later she was admitted in 1st year intermediate at

Govt. Junior college, Dhanwada and the accused then and there came to the said college to meet her. In the month of September, 2022 on one day while, she was alone in her house and knowing the same the

Dt.17-04-2025 28 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 accused came to her house and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. While, she was studying 2nd year intermediate, her mother started searching for marriage alliances to perform her marriage and the same was communicated to the accused, for which, the accused expressed that they would go to elsewhere to perform their marriage.

41. PW.10, in her evidence further stated the victim girl in her statementfurtherstatedthataccordingly,on 17-01-2024 at about 07.00am she left the house on the pretend of to go to college and she went to Peddajatram village on the Auto, where from the accused took her to bus stand, Narayanpet by Auto, from there she was taken to Hyderabad by bus and thereafter, on 18-01-2024, she was taken to Bhadrachalam by bus and on 19-01- 2024, the accused married her in Bhadrachalam Temple and kept her in rented room for a period of 15 days and during the said period, the accused had participated sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, she was taken to Thirupati and kept her in a room for a period of 4 months and during the said period, the accused eking out their livelihood by attending the coolie works and the said 4 months, the accused had participated sexual intercourse with her repeatedly and thereafter, the accused came to know that her mother lodged Ex.P.1 report in the police station concerned due to her disappearance from the village.

42.PW.10, in her evidence further stated that the victim-girl in her statement further stated before her that she was taken by the accused on 28-06-2024 to Mahabubnagar from Thirupati and from there took her to Kollampally gate dropped there and went away and then she went to her house and narrated the aforesaid incident to her mother, upon that, she was taken to P.S.Narayanpet Rural by her mother and due to dusk hours, she was kept in Sakhi centre,

Narayanpet by the police concerned. Thereafter, on 29-06-2024 at

Dt.17-04-2025 29 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 about 11.30 am she was taken to C.W.C. from there to Bharosa Centre,

Narayanpet at 03.00 pm.

43.PW12 – M.Sanjeevaiah, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S.Narayanpet Rural, who registered the Crime, in his evidence stated that on 18-01-2024, at about 4.00 PM, while he was discharging his duties, as Station House Officer, P.S.Narayanpet Rural, at that time

PW.1 came to the Police Station and lodged Ex.P-1 report, basing on the contents of the said report lodged by PW.1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.6 of 2024, u/Sec.363 of IPC and issued Ex.P-9 -F.I.R. He dispatched the original F.I.R. to the Court concerned and its copies to his higher officials. Later, he handed over the CD file to the S.I. of

Police, P.S.Narayanpet Rural by name Jaya Prasad for conducting investigation.

44.PW.13: S. Jaya Prasad, the then S.I. of Police Narayanpet

Rural, who is the first investigating officer in this case, in his evidence stated that on 18-01-2024, on return to P.S.Narayanpet Rural, he took up the investigation from PW.12 and during the course of Investigation, he has examined and recorded the statement of PW.1 at

P.S.Narayanpet Rural, he visited the house of PW.1, where, he has examined and recorded the statement of PW.7. He secured the presence of two mediators namely, A.Hanmanthu(PW.5) and Telugu

Raju(LW7) in their presence, he observed the first scene of offence, which is the house of PW.1 and their observations were incorporated in

Ex.P.3, Crime Detail Form and he has drawn rough sketch for the first scene of Offence in Col.No.11 of CDF and after read over the contents

Dt.17-04-2025 30 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 of Crime Detail Form to the mediators, obtained their signatures on it.

Thereafter, on his transfer, from P.S.Narayanpet Rural, he handed over the CD file to his successor in Office by name Krishna Deva(LW16).

45.The aforesaid testimony made by PW.13 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.5 with regard to his presence at the time of conducting panchanama for the first scene of offence at the house of

PW.1. PW.5 – A.Hanmanthu, in his evidence stated that about one year ago on one day, during evening time, he was called to the house of

PW.1 along with Telugu Raju by the S.I. of Police, P.S.Narayanpet Rural and accordingly, they went to the house of PW.1 and in their presence, the S.I. of Police,(PW.13) observed the first scene of offence and their observations were incorporated in Ex.P3 Crime Detailed Form and the

S.I. of Police drawn rough sketch for the first scene of offence in the relevant column of Ex.P3, Crime Details Form and after read over its contents obtained their signatures on it.

46.The final evidence before the Court is that of PW.14 –

B.Shiva Shankar, Circle Inspector of Police, Narayanpet Circle, who is the second investigating Officer in this case, in his evidence stated that on transfer of PW.13 from P.S.Narayanpet Rural, his successor in Office by name Krishna Deva(LW-16) took up further investigation in this case. While the investigation was in progress, on 28-06-2024, in the night hours, PW.1 along with the victim girl came to P.S.Narayanpet rural and appeared before S.I. of Police,by name Krishna Deva(LW-16) upon that the said S.I. of Police got record the statement of victim girl through PW.10, M.Sunitha, W.S.I. of Police, Bharosa Center,

Dt.17-04-2025 31 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

Narayanpet and the victim girl was referred for medical examination.

Basing on the contents of the statement of the victim girl, the said S.I.

of Police, altered the section of law from Sec.363 of IPC to Secs.366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.5(l) r./w Sec.6 of POCSO Act and issued

Ex.P.10 - Section alteration Memo to that effect. The original Section alteration memo was dispatched to the Court concerned and its copies to his higher officials. He received copy of Section alteration Memo, as the offence is grave in nature, he took up the further investigation in this case.

47.PW,14, in his evidence further stated that during the course of further investigation, he visited the house of the victim girl situated at Kollampally village, where, he has examined and re- recorded the statement of PW.1 and he has also examined and recorded the statement of PW.7, where the victim shown second scene of offence at her house, as such, he secured the presence of two mediators namely M.Narsimulu(PW-8) and B.Basappa(LW-9), in their presence he conducted panchanama for the second scene of offence and their observations were incorporated in Ex.P7-Crime Details Form and he has drawn rough sketch for the second scene of offence in

Col.No.11 of CDF and after read over its contents to the mediators, obtained their signatures on Ex,P7. Ex.P-7 is CDF. This part of testimony is made by PW.14 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.8 with regard to his presence at the time of conducting panchanama for the second scene of offence.

Dt.17-04-2025 32 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

48.PW8- Mekala Narsimulu, who is said to be mediator present at the time of conducting second scene of offence panchanama, in his evidence stated that about 6 months ago on one day, in the morning hours at 11.00 am, himself and B.Basappa(LW9) were called to the house of PW.1 situated at Kollampally village by the Circle-Inspector of

Police, Narayanpet circle (PW-14) and in their presence, PW.14 observed the second scene of offence and their observations were incorporated in Ex.P7 – Crime Detailed Form and PW.14 has drawn rough sketch for the second scene of offence in Col.No.11 of Ex.P-7

CDF and after read over its contents obtained their signatures on it.

49.PW.14, in his evidence further stated that he visited government Z.P.H.S. Kollampally village and collected Ex.P2 - Bonafide certificate of the victim girl from PW.3-S.Salman Raj I/c Head Master, wherein, the date of birth of the victim girl is recorded as 14-01-2007.

He has examined and recorded the statements of PW.3. He filed a requisition before Addl.JFCM, Narayanpet with a request to record the statement of the victim girl u/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, Smt Syed

Zakiyya Sulthana, ADDL. JFCM, Narayanpet recorded the statement of the victim girl u/Sec.164 of CR.P.C. PW.6- Dr Sowjanya has examined the victim girl and preserved her vaginal swabs on glass slides and handed over to him and he forwarded the same through S.D.P.O.

Narayanpet to the State FSL, Hyderabad for chemical examination.

50.PW14, in his evidence further stated that the lady medical

Officer(PW-6) issued Ex.P4 - Preliminary examination report. On receipt of vaginal swabs of the victim girl, PW.11- A Raja Naik, Assistant

Dt.17-04-2025 33 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

Director, TS FSL, Hyderabad analyzed the vaginal smears of the victim girl and furnished Ex.P5 report stating that semen and spermatozoa were not detected. On receipt of Ex.P-5 report, Lady Medical

Officer( PW.6) issued her final opinion(Ex.P-6), wherein, she opined that there is no medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse, however there is no evidence to prove that she has not participated in sexual intercourse.

51.PW.14, in his evidence further stated that while the investigation was in progress, to apprehend the accused, on 01-07-2024, on reliable information, the deputed ID Party rushed to

Kollampally village and apprehended the accused at his residence at 12 noon and brought him to his office at Narayanpet and produced the accused before him at 1.00 pm. He interrogated the accused, during the course of interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case. After completion of the said process, he effected the arrest of the accused and referred him to

Potency test and accordingly, Dr Anusha (PW9) CAS, District Hospital,

Narayanpet examined the accused and issued Ex.P8 report wherein, she opined that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is examined is not capable of performing sex act i.e., accused is potent.

After completion of the said process, he effected the arrest of the accused and got him remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure. He has examined and recorded the statements of Pws- 4 and 10. After collecting all the documents and after completion of his investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused.

Dt.17-04-2025 34 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

52.As per the prosecution, the accused developed close acquaintance with the victim-girl (PW2), who is aged about 17 years, on the name of love and marriage and subjected her to sexual intercourse repeatedly in her house in the absence of her mother, further on 17-01-2024, the accused kidnapped the minor victim-girl from the lawful guardianship of her mother from Peddajatram village and took her to Bhadrachalam and got married her and kept her in a rented room for a period of 15 days and had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly and later, she was taken to Thirupathi and kept her in a rented room for a period of 5 months and had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly.

53.The above said testimony made by PW.2 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 7, who are the mother, cousin and senior

Maternal uncle of the victim girl. PWs.1, 4 and 7 have no personal knowledge exploited the victim girl sexually in her house on the pretend of love and marriage and further about the kidnapping of the victim-girl by the accused from Peddajatram village, and took her to

Bhadrachalam and there from to Thirupathi and had sexual intercourse with her in the rented room at Bhadrachalam for a period of 15 days repeatedly and also had sexual intercourse with her in the rented room at Thirupathi for a period of 5 months repeatedly and they came to know about the aforesaid incidents through PW.2-Victim girl.

54.As can be seen from the evidence of PW1, she has no personal knowledge about the Accused exploited the victim girl sexually in their house on the pretend of love and marriage and

Dt.17-04-2025 35 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 further the accused kidnapped the victim-girl and exploited her sexually and also got married her, but she came to know the aforesaid version from the victim-girl (PW2). PW4, who is the cousin of the victim-girl stated in the similar manner as that of PW1 and thereby he supported the testimony of PW1 in all respects. PW4 has also no personal knowledge with regard to kidnapping the victim-girl by the accused and exploited her sexually, but he came to know about the aforesaid version through PW2 – victim-girl. PW.7 – who is the senior maternal uncle of the victim girl stated in the similar manner as that of

PWs.1 and 4 and thereby he supported the testimony of PWs.1 and 4 in all respects. PW7 has also no personal knowledge with regard to the kidnapping the victim-girl and got married her and exploited her sexually, but he came to know about the aforesaid version through

PW.2.

55.Unlike an Indian Penal Code, the Special enactment of prevention of children from sexual offences Act., 2012, provides a special provision for presumption as to certain offences. Section 29 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 provides:- “Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or admitting to commit any offence under sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act., the

Special Court shall presume that such person has committed the offence, unless the contrary is proved”. Sexual offences are usually being committed secretly that too on children, there may not be any eye witnesses in such cases. Therefore, Section 29 of the Act., aiding

Dt.17-04-2025 36 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 prosecution in establishing its case by invoking the statutory presumption.

56.It is to be next seen whether the prosecution adduced any acceptable evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt with regard to the foundational facts constitute the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act., 2012 and if so, whether the accused has proved his innocence on the principle of preponderance of probability. The evidence of victim-girl (PW2) that the accused developed close acquaintance with her and participated in sexual intercourse with her against her will in her house repeatedly, further at the rented room at

Bhadrachalam for a period of 15 days repeatedly and also at the rented room at Thirupathi for a period of about 5 months repeatedly.

57. PW2 in her evidence narrated the very same sexual assault she narrated before her mother (Pw 1) and also before this

Special Court and also before the learned Addl.Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Narayanpet, who recorded her statement Under Sec.164 of

Cr.P.C with regard to the various incidents of sexual assault, the nature, manner in which the accused had subjected her to sexual assault and further PW10 – Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of the victim-girl under section 161 of Cr.P.C with regard to various incidents of sexual assault, the nature, manner in which the accused had subjected her to sexual assault. The aforesaid testimony made by PW2 is corroborated by the evidence of

Dt.17-04-2025 37 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 her mother, cousin and senior maternal uncle of the victim-girl (Pws 1, 4 and 7).

58.Further the evidence of PW2 is corroborated by the evidence of Pws 1, 4 and 7 with regard to sexual assault committed by the accused on minor girl (PW2). The victim-girl was subjected to medical examination through PW6, who is the medical officer and after examination, she issued Ex.P4 preliminary examination report and she collected vaginal smears of the victim-girl on the glass slides in order to send the same to State FSL, Hyderabad, she handed over the vaginal smears of the victim-girl (PW2) to the Circle-Inspector,

Narayanpet circle (PW14), in turn he forwarded the same to the state

FSL, Hyderabad for chemical analysis. After analysis of the vaginal smears of the victim-girl, PW11 – DR A.Raja Naik, Assistant director,

State FSL, Hyderabad issued Ex.P5 report stating that human semen and spermatozoa were not detected in the vaginal smears of the victim-girl. On receipt of Ex.P5 report from State FSL, Hyderabad, the lady medical officer (PW6) issued her final opinion under Ex.P6 stating that there is no medical evidence of recent sexual assault, however, there is no evidence to prove that she has not participated in sexual intercourse.

59.The oral evidence of PW2 is corroborated with the medical evidence through PW6 and her given Ex.P4 preliminary examination report. As aforesaid, an ample support from the medical and ocular evidence is available in the instance case to the Prosecution. There are no material discrepancies, which can create any doubt over the

Dt.17-04-2025 38 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 case of the prosecution. The testimony of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 7 is quite reliable and I see absolutely no reason to disbelieve their evidence.

The cross examination of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 7 on behalf of the accused could not extract any material for them to speak false against the accused. The human semen and spermatozoa were not detected in the vaginal smears of the victim-girl on the ground that the accused might have sexual intercourse with the victim-girl three days prior to collecting vaginal smears from the victim girl and further, the observations made by PW6, in her Ex.P4 – preliminary Examination report reveals that the victim girl participated in sexual intercourse.

60.The case of the prosecution through reliable and trustworthy testimony of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 7 and other witnesses is more probable than the alleged possibility of falsely implicating the accused in this case. There are no material discrepancies which can create any kind of doubt over the case of prosecution or over the testimony of any of the material witnesses. The testimony of PW2-Victim-girl is quite reliable and I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve her testimony. The cross examination of the victim-girl on behalf of the accused could not extract any material for her to speak false or foist a false case against the accused. She is not the tutored witness, as such she is wholly reliable witness. Further, her solitary evidence is sufficient, which inspires confidence of the court as it is absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality. Further, the evidence of victim- girl (PW2) is corroborated by the evidence of Pws.1, 4 and 7.

Dt.17-04-2025 39 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

61.It is contended on behalf of the accused that mother of the victim-girl had falsely implicated him in this case. The said contention of the accused is not supported or substantiated by any acceptable evidence. There is absolutely, no reason as to why the mother of the victim-girl falsely implicated the accused in this case, if the accused did not do any sexual assault on the victim-girl. A perusal of oral evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 7, it reveals with regard to sexual assault committed by the accused towards the victim-girl. Further, the investigation conducted by Pws 13 and 14 have left no material lacunaes which can create doubt over the case of the prosecution.

62.A perusal of the oral evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 7, it reveals that with regard to the sexual assault committed by the accused towards the victim-girl when the said heinous crime committed by the accused came to the light of the family members of the victim girl , the mother of the victim-girl (PW1) lodged a report in PS Narayanapet

Rural alleging that her daughter was missing from the house and they suspected the accused might have been kidnapped her daughter.

Thus, there appears to be no possibility of investigating agency or mother of the victim-girl to develop the case against the accused at primary stage itself. PW1, who is the defacto complainant and mother of the victim-girl lodged Ex.P1 report with the police, Narayanpet

Rural, wherein she narrated that her daughter was missing from the village and they suspected the accused, that he might have been kidnapped her daughter and the same is corroborated by the evidence

Dt.17-04-2025 40 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

PW4, who is the cousin of the victim-girl and PW.7, who is senior maternal uncle of the victim-girl.

63.Ex.P1 is strong piece of corroborative evidence and it corroborates oral testimony of Pws.1, 2, 4 and 7. The cross examination of PWs.1 , 2, 4 and 7 could not extract any reason for making any such false statement against the accused. I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 7 as against the accused as there is any amount of support from the medical evidence through the evidence of PW6 and her given Ex.P4- Preliminary examination report.PW2-Victim-girl in her evidence categorically stated that the accused committed sexual assault on her in the house of the victim girl in the absence of her mother repeatedly, further the

Accused committed sexual assault on the victim girl at the rented room at Bhadrachalam for a period of 15 days and at Thirupathi for a period of about 5 months. After registering of the crime, the accused dropped the victim-girl at kollampally gate and then the victim-girl returned to their house and she was produced before the police concerned by her mother and the victim-girl was referred to the medical examination. Accordingly, PW6 has examined the victim-girl and issued Ex.P4 preliminary examination report and on receipt of

Ex.P5 report from state FSL, Hyderabad, she issued Ex.P6 - final report containing her final opinion that there is no medical evidence of recent sexual assault, however, there is no evidence to prove that she has not participated in sexual intercourse.

Dt.17-04-2025 41 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

64.Further, PW6, who examined the victim-girl and collected vaginal smears of the victim girl in glass slides and the same were handed to the CI of Police (PW14), who forwarded the same to the

State FSL, Hyderabad and received Ex.P5 report from PW11, stating that semen and spermatozoa were not detected in the vaginal smears of the victim girl, on the basis of Ex.P5 report from State FSL,

Hyderabad, PW6 issued Ex.P6 final opinion that there is no medical evidence of recent sexual assault, however, there is no evidence to prove that she has not participated in sexual intercourse. Therefore, the accused had participated in sexual intercourse with the victim-girl (PW2).

65.“Rape” is a dark reality in Indian society like in any other nation. This abnormal conduct is rooted in physical force as well as familiar and other power which the abuser uses to pressure his victim.

It transcends barriers of age, class, language, caste, community, sex and even family. The only commonality is power which triggers and feeds rape. Disbelief, denial and cover-up to “preserve the family reputation” are often then place above the interest of the victim and her abuse (Reliance on the material on internet).

66.It is settled principle of law that courts are expected to show great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape.

They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which are not of fatal nature to throw out allegations

Dt.17-04-2025 42 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 of rape. This is all the more important because of lately crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is a sad reflection and we must emphasize that the courts must deal with rape cases in particular with utmost sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the entire case and not in isolation.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the above observations in the decision rendered in the State of A.P V/s Gangula Satyamurthy reported in J.T.1996(10) SC 550. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while recording the evidence of victim-girl has been taken and her evidence had been recorded in camera.

67.The learned Public Prosecutor for the state has requested for convicting the accused for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 submitting that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges leveled against the accused by examining its witnesses, whose testimonies are corroborative and reliable. On the other hand, the learned Chief

Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the accused has requested acquittal of the accused submitting that there is nothing incriminating against the accused on the record.

68.The accused has only attempted unsuccessfully to mislead the court. He also failed to show any motive or malafide intention on the part of the victim girl or her mother to implicate him in a false case.

The defence of the accused does not appear to be probable. There is

Dt.17-04-2025 43 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 no dispute regarding the identity of the accused. He had been named in the FIR. It may be observed that the parties were known to each other even prior to the incident and therefore, there can be no question of doubt being raised with regard to the identity of the accused, who also been correctly identified in the court by the victim girl, her mother, cousin and senior maternal uncle.

69.At this juncture, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of the victim-girl does not suffer from any inconsistency and is blemish free, while the Learned Chief Legal Aid

Defence Counsel for the accused has argued that no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of the victim-girl as there are so many variations. It may be observed here that it is a general handicap attached to all material witnesses, if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if they speak to all events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed from broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards.

70.In a particular case material/eye witnesses may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvass of his/her mind in the sequences in which it occurred. He/she may be a person whose capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what he/she witnessed was not something

Dt.17-04-2025 44 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he/she is concerned. If he/she reproduces it in the same sequences as it registered in his/her mind the testimony cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone. Similar observations have also been made by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision referred in Bhag Singh and

Others V/s State of Punjab reported in 1997-VII AD SC 507.

71.When an eye witness is examined at length, it is quite possible for him/her to make some discrepancies. No true witnesses can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully made his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning/discarding his evidence. However, I find that the victim girl in her evidence before the court as well as her statement to the police concerned under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and also her statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class concerned under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C are consistent with regard to the manner of the accused committing sexual acts with her repeatedly. The victim-girl has categorically deposed the sexual assault committed by the accused on her in her house, rented room situated at Bhadrachalam and rented room situated at Thirupathi.

72.Further, the case of the prosecution through reliable and trustworthy testimony of witnesses is more probable than the alleged implication of the accused in the false case. It is no doubt true that the

Dt.17-04-2025 45 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 prosecution did not produce any eye witnesses to support the testimony of the victim-girl (PW2). It is already stated supra that the accused has committed sexual assault on the victim-girl in her house in the absence of her mother repeatedly, further in the rented room at

Bhadrachalam for a period of 15 days and rented room at Thiruapathi for a period about 5 months. It is already stated supra that the accused has committed sexual assault with the victim girl inside the four walls. In my considered view, in these type of cases, we cannot get eye witnesses to depose the sexual acts committed by the accused towards the victim-girl and we can get only circumstantial witnesses and on the basis of circumstantial evidence, besides evidence of victim, we can draw the inference of sexual assault committed by the accused repeatedly on the victim-girl. In these type of cases, precautions are to be taken by the accused from the view of others and the fact of sexual act committed the accused towards the victim-girl has to be inferred from the circumstantial evidence besides the evidence of the victim-girl.

73.It is settled principle of law that in criminal trial conviction can be based even on the strength of the deposition of a single witness, in case it is found trustworthy and reliable as it is quality and not quantity of the evidence that count and the said view is strengthened by the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Sheelam Ramesh and Another V/s State of A.P reported in

J.T.1999(8) SC 537, wherein it was observed that courts are concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence and in a

Dt.17-04-2025 46 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 criminal trial, conviction can be based on the sole evidence of witness if it inspires confidence. There is nothing on record to indicate that the evidence of the victim-girl (PW2) is false or motivated. Her evidence appears to be completely reliable and trustworthy.

74.The manner in which, the events have unfolded and the surrounding circumstances reflect truthful character of the deposition made by PW2. In the Judgment reported as State of Himachal

Pradesh V/s Lekhraj and Another reported in J.T.1999 (9) SC 43, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the depositions of the witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however,

honest and truthful they may be. Such, discrepancies are due to

normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and the like.

75.It is also settled principle of law that every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity. As far as minor inconsistencies or improvements are concerned in the evidence of the victim-girl or her mother or her cousin or her senior maternal uncle (Pws 1 , 2, 4 and 7) were comparatively of minor character and do not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. It is already stated supra that in the depositions of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be.

Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal

Dt.17-04-2025 47 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Therefore, there is no reason to throw out the testimony of material witnesses.

76.There is nothing on record to show that the testimony of PWs.13 and 14 are false or not reliable. It is evident that the evidence of the victim-girl is reliable, truthful and trustworthy and prosecution has established the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012. There is nothing on record, which can shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses are falsified the claim of the prosecution. The important witnesses of the prosecution have supported the prosecution case and their testimony do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative.

The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and the witnesses of the prosecution have been able to build up a continuous link. In view of the foregoing reasons, conscience of this court is completely satisfied with the prosecution has been able to successfully bring home the charge leveled against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act., 2012.

77.It is already stated supra that there is no corroboration to the testimony of the victim-girl with regard to exploited her sexually at

Dt.17-04-2025 48 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 her house further that the accused taken way the victim girl and kept her in the rented room situated at Bhadrachalam for a period of 15 days had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly and further taken away the victim girl to Thirupathi and kept her in a rented room for a period of about 5 months and had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly. On this aspect our Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down law in Karthik Maihar V/s State of Bihar reported in 1996(1)( ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC), wherein it was held that:- “Conviction can be based on the evidence of solitary witness provided that the evidence of that witness is reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved by only one eye witness, nor can it be insisted that he corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by other eye witnesses”.

78.The evidence of PW2, itself is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution in respect of Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act., 2012 against the accused, but there is an

additional evidence of mother, cousin and senior maternal uncle of the

victim-girl (Pws1, 4 and 7) and further, the evidence of PW10, who recorded her statement U/Sec 161 of Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court observed that courts are expected to show great responsibility while trying an accused on charge of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which are not of fatal nature to throw out allegations of rape.

Dt.17-04-2025 49 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

79.It has been argued on behalf of the accused that the victim-girl would have raised alarm and called inhabitants of the neighbours, when the accused had sexual intercourse with her in her house, further in the rented room in both occasions i.e., 15 days and 4 months by forcing her, but I am of the considered opinion that it is unusual for the neighbours to be obvious to the happenings in the rented room and it is to be noted that in the present case, the victim was facing sexual assault by the accused and in these circumstances, there can be any strangle when the accused has committed sexual assault by using force.

80.Further nothing material has come forth in the cross examination of the victim-girl and her mother on behalf of the accused. The evidence of the victim-girl has been more consistent in so-far as allegations against the accused is concerned. It is apparently clear from the above that the allegations are specific and consistent and there is no reason why the accused would have been falsely implicated in this case. No plausible explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the accused as to why the victim-girl and her mother would falsely implicated him in this case. The explanation of the accused during the course of cross examination of the victim-girl is highly improbable. It has been argued that the victim-girl had made false allegations of sexual assault against the accused, since there was sufficient opportunity for the victim-girl to have raised the alarm as there are number of persons are residing in neighboring houses and the testimony of the victim-girl cannot be relied upon.

Dt.17-04-2025 50 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

81.It may be observed in this regard, the victim-girl has explained the circumstances and specifically deposed that the accused used physical force and committed rape on her, the manner in which the events unfolded and the surrounding circumstances reflecting the truthful character of the deposition made by the victim-girl. In India, the woman has tendency to conceive such sexual offences because it involves their prestige as well as prestige of their family. Only in few cases, the victim-girls or the family members of the victim have carried to go before the P.S and lodge a report. There was no apparent reason for the parents of the victim girls to falsely implicate accused persons after taking their own prestige and honour.

82.It is settled principle of law that the courts must while evaluating the evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self respecting woman/girl would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases of involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the victim should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal in nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

83.As seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it reveals that the accused, who is having evil desire in his mind developed close acquaintance with the victim girl (PW2) and had sexual intercourse with her in her house in the absence of her mother,

Dt.17-04-2025 51 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 further in the rented room situated at Bhadrachalam for a period of 15 days and rented room at Thirupathi for a period of about 5 months by using force on her without her consent. The said fact was deposed by

PW2-victim girl in her evidence before the court and also before PW10, who recorded her statement U/Sec 161 of Cr.P.C and further before the learned Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpe, who recorded her statement under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. The said evidence of victim girl (PW2) is corroborated by the evidence of the mother, cousin and senior maternal uncle of the victim girl (Pws 1, 4 and 7) and thereby, Pws 1, 4 and 7 in their evidence categorically stated that sexual assault committed by the accused towards victim girl in a repeated manner.

84.The conduct of the accused to develop close acquaintance with the victim girl and kidnapped the victim-girl from the lawful custody of her mother and kept her in rented room at Bhadrachalam and Thirupathi for a period of 15 days and for a period of about 4 months respectively and committed sexual assault on her repeatedly inside of four walls as deposed by the victim-girl (PW2) is undoubtedly shows the intention and implementation of evil plan of the accused. As the aforesaid act of the accused constitute an offence punishable

U/Sec 6 of POCSO Act., 2012. Having considered the nature and circumstances of the case, irrespective of minor discrepancies, I am holding that the accused committed penetrate assault on the victim- girl (PW2) repeatedly and as such the accused is liable for the punishment for the offence punishable U/Sec 6 of POCOS Act., 2012.

Dt.17-04-2025 52 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

85.Section 375 of IPC defines “rape” which is quoted as under:-

A man is said to commit “rape”. If he (a) penetrates his penis to any extent into vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, or

(b)inserts to any extent, any object or a part of the body, nor being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

(c)manipulates any part of the body of the woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person.

(d)applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person.

86.Under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:-

First:- Against her will,

Secondly:- Without her consent

Thirdly:- Wither her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly:- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

Fifthly:- With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind of intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any

Dt.17-04-2025 53 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Sixthly:- With or without her consent when she us under eighteen years of age.

Seventhly- When she is unable to communicate consent.

87.Sec.375 of IPC defines offence of rape and enumerates seven description of the offence. The description sixthly speaks of woman with or without her consent , when she is under eighteen years of age. Thus sexual intercourse by a man with a woman with or without her consent under the age of 18 years will constitute the offence of rape. The victim in this case has deposed that the accused had sexual intercourse with her against her will by using force.

88.The above definition under Section 375 of IPC in respect of “rape” which is similar to the definition of sexual assault under POCSO

Act., it is already analyzed the evidence of the victim-girl (PW2) in detailed manner as stated above and so also the evidence of her mother, cousin and senior maternal uncle (Pws.1, 4 and 7). Pws.1, 4 and 7 in their evidence categorically stated that the accused sexually assaulted the victim girl repeatedly in her house, further in the rented room at Bhadrachalam for a period of 15 days and in the rented room at Thirupathi for a period of about 5 months. PW2 the victim-girl in her evidence categorically stated that the accused assaulted sexually with her by using force. In the aforesaid circumstances the sexual assault committed by the accused towards her.

Dt.17-04-2025 54 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

89.On analyzing the entire evidence on record, which is discussed above, more particularly the evidence of PW2, which is rightly corroborated by the evidence of Pws.1, 4 and 7. The prosecution proved the charges leveled against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 376(2)(n) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been proved by the prosecution through cogent evidence that the accused participated in sexual intercourse with the victim girl without her consent by using force more than once and as such, he committed the offence of rape as defined U/Sec 375 of IPC.

Further, the prosecution established with cogent evidence that the accused committed rape on PW2 who is less than 18 years as such the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec 376(2)(n) of IPC.

Further, the prosecution proved through the cogent evidence that the accused more than once committed rape on PW2, as such, the accused is liable or punishment for the offence punishable U/Sec 376(2)(n) of

IPC.

90.Sec.366 of IPC provides for kidnapping, abduction or inducing woman to compel her marriage. It states that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment

91.Whether the facts and circumstances of the instant case warranted prosecution of the accused under section 366 of IPC. In order to constitute the offence of “abduction”, a person must be

Dt.17-04-2025 55 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 carried off illegally by force or deception, that is to compel a person by force or by deceitful means to induce to go from one place to another.

The intention of the accused is the basis and the gravamen of an offence under this section. The violation, the intention and the conduct of the accused determine the offence. They can only bear upon the intent with which the accused kidnapped or abducted the woman and the intent of the accused is the vital question for determination in each case. Once the necessary intent of the accused is established, the offence is complete, whether or not, the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose and whether or not the woman consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse.

92.To constitute an offence under section 366 of IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced a woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, such abduction took place with the intent that the victim may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the victim may be seduced to illicit sexual intercourse as a result of her abduction. Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal section. To establish an offence under section 366 of IPC, mere finding that a woman abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced

Dt.17-04-2025 56 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 to illicit intercourse. Unless, the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purpose mentioned in section 366 of IPC, the court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under section 366 of IPC.

93.If the girl was 18 years old or over, she can only be abducted and not kidnapped, but she was under 18 years, she could be kidnapped as well as abducted if the taking was by force or the taking was by deceitful means. In order to establish the offence under section 366 of IPC, it must first be established that the offence of kidnapping under section 361 of IPC has been proved and after that it has to be in compliance with the conditions provided under section 366 of IPC. The victim was a minor at the time when she was taken away from her lawful guardian. In the instant case, the prosecution has established that PW2, who is a minor child was kidnapped by the accused with the intent that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her kidnapping. Unless the prosecution proves that the kidnapping was for the purpose mentioned in section 366 of IPC, the courts cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under section 366 of IPC.

94.The question of law that is brought forth him in this case, whether all the conditions of section 366 of IPC were met and if not, then which provision shall be applied here. It is already stated supra that the ingredients of section 366 of IPC are attracted in the given facts. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.01.2024 at about 7.00 AM the accused kidnapped the victim-girl from the lawful custody of her mother from Peddajatram village took her to Bhadrachalam and

Dt.17-04-2025 57 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 got married her and kept her in a rented room for a period of 15 days, where he subjected her to sexual intercourse forcibly, in the same manner subjected her to sexual intercourse repeatedly and further she was taken to Thirupathi and kept her in a rented room for a period of about 5 months and subjected her to sexual intercourse repeatedly.

95.The aforesaid version of the prosecution is corroborated by the evidence of PW2-victim-girl. The testimony of the victim-girl (PW2) is further corroborated by the evidence of Pws 1, 4 and 7 who are mother, cousin and senior maternal uncle of the victim-girl. The prosecution has proved through the evidence of Pws 1, 2, 4 and 7 that the accused kidnapped the victim-girl and got married her and kept her in rented room at Bhadrachalam and Thirupathi and subjected her sexual intercourse repeatedly and the said facts are attracted the offence punishable under section 366 of IPC.

96.In the given facts of the case, the accused exploited the victim girl repeatedly in her house on the pretend of love and marriage, further kidnapped the victim-girl from the lawful guardianship of her mother and got married her and kept her in rented room at Bhadrachalam and Thirupathi and subjected her to sexual intercourse with her repeatedly against her will. Having considered nature and circumstances of the case, irrespective of minor discrepancies, I am holding that the accused kidnapped the victim-girl from the Peddajatram village on 17.01.2024 with intend to procure her and seduce her for sexual intercourse and the accused got married her and kept her in the rented room at Bhadrachalam and subjected her

Dt.17-04-2025 58 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 sexual intercourse repeatedly for a period of 15 days and thereafter, she was taken to Thirupathi and kept her in a rented room for a period of about 5 months and subjected her to sexual intercourse repeatedly.

Therefore, the accused is liable for the punishment for the offence punishable under section 366 of IPC.

97.From the foregoing reasons, I am holding that the prosecution successfully bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.6 of

POCSO Act.,2012. Further, the accused is charged for substantial offences i.e., both under the IPC and special enactment under POCSO

Act., 2012. In the event when the accused found guilty for the offence, punishable under provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as under the

Special enactment of POCSO Act., 2012 for the same criminal acts.

Section 42 of the POCSO Act., provides for alternative punishment which indicates that if an offender is found guilty for the offence punishable under this Special enactment and also under provisions of

Indian Penal Code, the offender shall be liable to punishable only under the Special enactment or provisions of IPC, which provides a greater punishment.

98.It is already stated supra that the accused is liable for punishment for the offences punishable U/Sec 376(2)(n) of IPC and also

Sec.6 of POCSO Act., 2012 for the very same criminal acts as the punishment awarded in the special enactment of POCSO, 2012 is similar to the provisions of IPC. The accused shall be liable for punishment only under Sec.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Dt.17-04-2025 59 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

Offences Act 2012 instead of U/Sec.376(2)(n) of IPC, besides Section 366 of IPC. Accordingly, these points are answered.

RESULT:-

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 and accordingly, he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 17th day of April, 2025.

PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE-CUM- SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT

NARAYANPET

Dt.17-04-2025 60 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

Order of Sentence/Quantum of Sentence: Dt. 17 -04-2025:

It is not the case where invoke the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act or Section 360 of Cr.P.C. When the accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be awarded on him, he represented that he got mother and she is depended upon him and pleaded mercy of the Court.

Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also the learned counsel for the accused.

The offence proved against the accused is sexual assault against the victim girl (PW2), whose age is less than 18 years by the date of commission of offence and further it is heinous crime and dark reality in the Indian society like in any other nation and required to be dealt by awarding a suitable punishment. Therefore, showing mercy against the accused is unwarranted.

Further, section 42 of the POCSO Act-2012 provides for alternative punishment, which indicates that, if an offender is found guilty for the offence punishable under this special enactment of

POCSO and under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, the offender shall be liable for punishment only under the provisions of the special enactment of POCSO act or the provisions of Indian Penal Code, which provides for greater punishment. Further, the offence proved against the accused is section 376(2)(n) of IPC and section 6 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act-2012 besides Section 366 of IPC for the same criminal act done by the accused. But, the punishment provided in section 376(2)(n) of IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act are

Dt.17-04-2025 61 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024 similar. In these circumstances, I intend to punish the accused under the provisions of Special enactment i.e., section 6 of POCSO Act 2012 instead of section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

Further, due to the sexual assault of the accused on the victim girl (PW2), the physical and mental trauma was caused to her and therefore a suitable compensation has to be awarded to the victim-girl under the relevant provisions i.e., sections 357(A)(2) or 357(A)(3) of

Cr.P.C r/w section 33(8) of POCSO Act, 2012 and the Telangana Victim compensation scheme, 2015.

Having considered the nature and circumstances of the case and representation of the accused, I have passed the following sentence:- "Thus, the Accused is sentenced to undergorigorous

imprisonment for a period of five years and shall pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 366 of IPC.

The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of 20 years and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees Ten thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

Both substantial sentences imposed against the accused shall be run concurrently. The remand period of the accused from 01.07.2024 to 03.09.2024 shall be set off as against the term of imprisonment as per section 428 of Cr.P.C. The total fine amount is that of Rs.15,000/-.

Dt.17-04-2025 62 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

A sum of Rs.5,00,000-00 (Rupees Five Lakhs only) is awarded to the victim girl (PW2) towards compensation under section 357-A(2)/357-A(3) of Cr.P.C, r/w section 33(8) of POCSO Act-2012, r/w the Telangana victim compensation scheme, 2015. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The Accused is informed the appeal provision and also facility of the Legal Aid for filing an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.

{Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 17th day of April, 2025.}

PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE-CUM-SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT

NARAYANPET

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

PW.1: Neeli Govindamma – Defacto Complainant-cum- mother of the victim-girl.

PW.2 : Victim-girl.

PW.3:S.SalmanRaj,In-ChargeofHeadMaster, Z.P.H.S.Kollampally. issued bonafide certificate of the victim-girl.

PW.4: Anil Kumar – Cousin of the victim-girl.

PW.5: Abhangapur Hanmanthu - Mediator, said to be present at the time of conducting panchanama for the first scene of offence.

PW.6: Dr Sowjanya – Civil Assistant Surgeon, District headquarters hospital, Narayanpet - examined the victim-girl, collected and preserved her vaginal smears on the glass slides.

PW.7: Neeli Anjaneyulu – Senior Maternal uncle of the victim girl.

PW.8: M.Narsimulu – mediator, said to be present at the time of conducting panchanama for the second scene of offence.

PW.9: Dr Anusha - mediator, Civil Assistant Surgeon, district headquarters hospital, Narayanpet - examined the potency of the accused.

Dt.17-04-2025 63 S.C.(POCSO).No.44 of 2024

PW.10: M.Sunitha, Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, In-charge of Bharosa center, Narayanpet - recorded the statement of the victim- girl.

PW.11: A.Raja Naik, Assistant Director, State FSL, Hyderabad - analyzed the vaginal smears of the victim-girl at State FSL, Hyderabad.

PW.12: Sanjeevaiah, A.S.I. of Police, PS Narayanpet Rural - Registered the crime and issued F.I.R.

PW.13: Jaya Prasad - S.I. of Police, P.S.Narayanpet Rural, who is the first Investigating Officer in this case.

PW.14: B.Shivashankar, Circle-Inspector of Police, Narayanpet Circle - second investigating officer in this case, laid a charge sheet against the accused

FOR DEFENCE: - -None-

-EXHIBITS MARKED -

FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P1 is the report dated 18.01.2024 lodged by PW1 to the police concerned. Ex.P2 is bonafide certificate of the victim-girl dated 29.06.2024 issued by PW3. Ex.P3 is the Crime Details Form dated 18.01.2024 conducted by PW.13 with regard to first scene of offence. Ex.P4 is preliminary examination report of PW2 dated 29.06.2024 issued by PW6. Ex.P5 is the FSL report, dt.29.06.2024 issued by PW.11. Ex.P6 is the final opinion, dt.23.07.2024, issued by PW.6. Ex.P7 is the Crime Details Form dated 29.06.2024 conducted by PW.14 with regard to second scene of offence. Ex.P8 is potency test report of the accused dated 01.07.2024 issued by PW9. Ex.P9 is the F.I.R. dt.18-01-2024, issued by PW12. Ex.P10 is the Section Alteration Memo.

FOR DEFENCE:- Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED, IF ANY:--Nil-

PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE-CUM-SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT

NARAYANPET

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

NARAYANPET.

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025.

Present: Mohd.Abdul Rafi, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Narayanpet.

SESSIONS CASE No. 63 OF 2024

========================================

1.Complainant::State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Makthal Circle.

2.Name of the accused:: Gopi Mallesh S/o Gopi Kashanna, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, N/o Aloor village of Jadcherla Mandal of Mahabubnagar district now at Pasupula village of Makthal Mandal, Narayanpet district.

3.Crime No.::150/2023 of P.S. Makthal.

4.P.R.C.No.::21 of 2023.

5.Name of the Officer, who :: Smt Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana, committed the case.Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet.

6.Prosecution conducted By::Sri Akula Balappa, Public Prosecutor, Narayanpet.

7.Defence conducted by::Chief Legal aid Defence Counsel Sri. K.Laxmipathi goud.

8.Charges::U/Sec.302 of IPC against the accused.

9.Plea of the accused:: Not guilty

10.Finding of the Court::Found guilty

11.Result:: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-II of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. Thus, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

2 period of Ten (10) years and he shall pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of IPC. The remand period of the accused from 17.07.2023 to 12.10.2023 shall be set off as against the term of imprisonment as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The case property of M.O.s 1 to 6, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The Accused is informed the appeal provision and also facility of the Legal Aid for filing an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this Court. ====================================================

This Sessions case came before me on 07.04.2025 for final hearing; after hearing the arguments of Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri K.Laxmipathi Goud, Chief Legal aid Defence Counsel for the accused; upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Makthal

Circle has laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.150/2023 of P.S. Makthal, charged under Section 302 of IPC with the following allegations:

i) That the deceased by name Boddanolla Laxmappa was a resident of Pasupula village of Makthal Mandal and his marriage was performed with Ningamma and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters namely Boddanolla Renuka (PW2) and Sirisha.

About 10 years ago, the wife of the deceased by name Ningamma has

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

3 died, due to ill-health. The deceased performed the marriage of his daughter by name Renuka (PW2) with the accused, who is a resident of Aloor village of Jadcherla Mandal. About 4 years ago, prior to July, 2023, the deceased adopted the accused and the accused started residing in the house of the deceased as illatom son-in-law. Out of the wedlock, PW2 was blessed with one daughter through the accused.

The accused was not doing any work, due to which, the deceased by name Laxmappa rebukes/criticise him, sometimes, the deceased scolded the accused in petty matters and underestimated, due to which, the accused developed grudge against the deceased thinking that if the deceased would be died nobody can question him.

Sometimes, Boddanolla Narsimulu (PW1), who is younger brother-in- law of the deceased, intervened and convinced the deceased and the accused.

ii)It is further alleged that in this connection on 14.07.2023 during morning hours, the deceased Laxmappa (PW2), her paternal grandmother by name Boddanolla Usenamma (PW3) along with coolies namely Kancharakuntla Sony (LW4), Thikkayellapolla Puja (PW4), Thikkayellapolla Jamuna (PW5) and the accused, altogether went to the agriculture land of the deceased for weeding, while they were doing work in the field, in the meantime, the accused sat under the tree and PW2 left the place for getting drinking water, in the meantime, the deceased Laxmappa went to the accused, scolded him as he sat idle under the tree stating that do any work and questioned

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

4 the act of the accused as he was sitting under the tree idle. Upon which, the accused got angry and decided to kill the deceased and picked up the stick, beat the deceased over his head, ears, back and face indiscriminately, as a result of which, the deceased went to under unconscious, in the meantime, the coolies namely Kancharakuntla

Sony (LW4), PWs4 and 5 tried to rescue the deceased from the hands of the accused, but due to fear of the accused, they fled away from the scene of offence.

iii) It is further alleged that PW1 along with Tappa Pollappa (PW9) came there, while shifting the deceased to the hospital, the deceased has died with that injuries. On 15.07.2023 at 11:00 AM, PW1 went to

PS Makthal and lodged a report narrating the aforesaid incident.

Basing on the contents of the report lodged by PW1, a case in Crime

No.150/2023 under section 302 of IPC was registered at PS Makthal and investigated into. As the offence is grave in nature, K.Ramlal,

Circle-Inspector of Police, Makthal circle (PW12) took up the investigation in this case. He accompanied with PW1 proceeded to the government hospital, Makthal, visited mortuary room and found the dead body of the deceased, taken the photo snaps. He secured the presence of two mediators namely C.M.Anjaneyulu (PW6) and

Bargadda Parsharamulu (LW9), in their presence, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in between 12:00 noon to 02:00 PM and subjected the dead body for postmortem examination.

At the time of inquest, PW12 has examined and recorded the

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

5 statements of Pws 1 to 3 and seized i) white colour shirt having blood stains, ii) white colour dhothi having bloodstains and iii) red colour underwear.

iv)It is further alleged that Dr.Rajesh, Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Community Health Center, Makthal (PW7) conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem examination report, wherein, he opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to “Traumatic injury of thorax leading to intrahepatic bleed which lead to cardiac arrest”. Later, the Circle-

Inspector of Police (PW12) visited the scene of offence, which is located at the agriculture land of the deceased in Sy.No.96/AA at outskirts of Pasupula village of Makthal Mandal, where he secured the presence of two mediators namely C.M Anjaneyulu (PW6) and Gaddam

Narsimulu (LW11), in their presence, he conducted panchanama for the scene of offence and seized control earth and blood stained earth from the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch for the scene of offence in the presence of the aforesaid mediators in the relevant column of crime details form. Then he has examined and recorded the statements of Kancharakuntla Sony (LW4), Thikkayellapolla Puja (PW4), Thikkayellapolla Jamuna (PW5) and Tappa Pollappa (PW9), among them LW4, PWs 4 and 5 are coolies, doing coolie work at the time of offence and they are the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident.

v)It is further alleged that while the investigation was in progress to apprehend the accused, on 17.10.2023 at 08:00 AM on reliable

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

6 information, the Circle-Inspector of Police (PW12) along with his staff apprehended the accused near Karne road, Kanyakaparmeshwari temple, Makthal town and interrogated him thoroughly by securing the presence of two mediators namely Uppari Shivashankar (PW8) and

Gaddam Narsimulu (LW11), in their presence, the accused has confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case. In pursuance of the confession of the accused, he lead the police party and the mediators to the scene of offence located at the fields of the deceased by name Laxmappa at outskirts of Pasupula village of

Makthal Mandal, where he took the stick from thorny bushes and the same was seized under the cover of seizure panchanama and the said stick was used by the accused in the commission of offence. Further, the accused was brought to PS Makthal at 12:20 PM and PW12 effected the arrest of the accused and got him remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure.

vi)It is further alleged that the Circle-Inspector of Police (PW12) forwarded the cloths of the deceased and bloodstained stick to the director, State FSL, Hyderabad, where A.Raja Naik, Assistant director,

State FSL, Hyderabad (PW10) analysed the cloths of the deceased and bloodstained stick and issued report and the entire case property was deposited before the committal court through Form No.60 vide CPR

No.85/2023. After collecting all the documents, after completion of the investigation, PW12 laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. Hence, the charge.

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

7

2. This case was taken on file under section 302 of IPC against the accused vide PRC No.21/2023 by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Narayanpet. On appearance of the accused before that

court, all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On 08.10.2024 a committal order was pronounced in the open court in

PRC No.21/2023 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Narayanpet, wherein, the case was committed to the Sessions

Division, Narayanpet as the offence under section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions at Narayanpet.

3. On receipt of the case record from the committal court, this

Principal Sessions Court, Narayanpet registered the case as S.C No.63

of 2024 and proceeded with the case against the accused. On 10.12.2024, the accused was examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation made against him, wherein he denied the commission of offence, upon consideration of the case record and documents submitted therewith and after hearing submissions of both sides, it was opined that, there is a ground for presuming that, the accused has committed the offence, whereupon, a charge under

Section 302 of I.P.C was framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 documents and M.O.s 1 to 6. The

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

8 prosecution has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses namely Kancharakuntla Sony (LW4), Bargadda Parshramulu (LW9) and

Gaddam Narsimulu (LW11).

5.On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, he denied the incriminating circumstances and did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record.

7. Now the points for determination are :

(i)Whether the accused inflicted the injuries on the body of the deceased by name Boddanolla Laxmappa leading to his death ?

(ii)Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

8. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, the accused with an intend to kill his father-in-law by name Boddanolla Laxmappa on the ground that the deceased used to rebukes/criticise him over his laziness, due to which, he developed grudge against the deceased in his mind, on 14.07.2023 around 03:30 PM the accused beat the deceased in his agriculture land with a stick indiscriminately on his head, ears and back, resulting the deceased Laxmappa sustained bleeding injuries leading to his death and as such the accused is liable for punishment for the offence punishable u/sec.302 of IPC. On the

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

9 other hand, the defence of the accused is one of total denial of the prosecution case.

9. In order to establish the charge leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as (12) witnesses, out of them, the defacto complainant and younger brother-in-law of the deceased by name Boddanolla Narsimulu was examined as PW1. Daughter of the deceased by name Boddanolla Renuka was examined as PW2. The mother of the deceased by name Boddanolla Usenamma was examined as PW3. The coolies namely Thikkayellappolla Pooja and

Thikkayellappolla Jamuna, who are said to be eye-witnesses to the alleged incident were examined as Pws 4 and 5. The mediator by name C.M.Anjaneyulu, who is said to be present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased was PW6. Dr.K.Rajesh Kumar, Civil

Assistant Surgeon, government area hospital, Makthal, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased was examined as PW7. The mediator by name Uppari Shiva Shankar, who is said to be present at the time of interrogation of the accused was examined as PW8. Auto driver by name Tappa Pollappa, who shifted the injured from the scene of offence in his auto was examined as

PW9. A.Raja Naik, Assistant director, State FSL, Hyderabad, who analysed the material objects i.e., bloodstained cloths, bloodstained stick, bloodstained earth and controlled earth was examined as PW10.

A.Parvathalu, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Makthal, who registered crime was examined as PW11 and K.Ramlal, the then Circle-

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

10

Inspector of Police, Makthal Circle, who is investigating officer in this case, was examined as PW12.

10.In support of oral evidence, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the following documents and material objects. Ex.P1 is the police report, dated 15.07.2023 lodged by PW1 to the police concerned.

Ex.P2 is inquest report of the deceased dated 15.07.2023. Ex.P3 is

Crime Details Form dated 15.07.2023. Ex.P4 is postmortem examination report over the dead body of the deceased dated 15.07.2023 issued by PW7. Ex.P5 is relevant portion in the confession panchanama of the accused dated 17.07.2023 in respect of discovery of M.O.1 stick. Ex.P6 is seizure panchanama dated 17.07.2023, wherein the Circle-Inspector of Police seized M.O.1-stick from the possession and at the instance of the accused. Ex.P7 is State FSL report dated 07.08.2023 issued by PW10. Ex.P8 is FIR issued by PW11.

Ex.P9 is seven positive photographs covered the dead body of the deceased. M.O.1 is stout stick. M.O.2 is bloodstained full sleeves white shirt of the deceased. M.O.3 is white pancha of the deceased. M.O.4 red colour underwear of the deceased. M.O.5 is bloodstained earth and

M.O.6 is controlled earth.

11.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 12, among them, Pws.2, 4 and 5 are the main witnesses on whose testimony the entire case of the prosecution is relied upon. In addition to the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 12, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the documentary evidence (Exs.P1

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

11 to P9) and M.O.s 1 to 5. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 12 and the documentary evidence (Exs.P1 to P9 and M.O.s 1 to 5) is to be appreciated by the court. No material discrepancies going to the root of the case have been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses, therefore, there is no reason for these witnesses is coming- forth to speak falsehood as against the accused. Thus, there is nothing to discredit the testimony of these witnesses and their evidence is consistent throughout and inspires the confidence of the court.

Therefore, these witnesses can be believed and can be dependent upon in adjudicating the matter.

Point No.(i):-

12. In order to prove the case Under Section 300 of IPC, the prosecution, First, it must establish that the bodily injury is present.

Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury that is to say, that it was not accidental or un-intentional or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these averments are established by the prosecution, the offence is ‘Murder” Under Section 300 of IPC. Culpable homicide is murder, if the following conditions are satisfied.

a) That the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury, and

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

12

b) That the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death viz., that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted.

13.A perusal of Ex.P8 FIR, it reveals that the incident took place on 14.07.2023 at 03:30 PM and on the following day, i.e., on 15.07.2023 at 11:00 AM, it was reported to the police concerned. Thus there appears to be no possibility for investigating agency or the defacto complainant (PW1), who is brother-in-law of the deceased, to develop the case against the accused at primary stage itself. The brother-in- law of the deceased by name Boddanoolla Narsimulu (PW1) lodged

Ex.P1 report to the police concerned. He narrated the incident as in his

Ex.P1 report, while giving evidence before the court.

14. Regarding the reason for inflicting bodily injuries on the

person of the deceased namely Laxmappa by the accused is

concerned, as per the prosecution, the deceased by name Laxmappa, frequently rebukes/criticise the accused over his laziness, due to which, he keep the same in his mind and on 14.07.2023 in the morning hours, the deceased, his daughter (PW2), coolies (Pws 4, 5 and K.Sony (LW4) went to the agriculture field for weeding and the accused also joined them, while they were doing work in the field, but the accused sat under the tree, upon that the deceased Laxmappa

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

13 went to the accused scolded him stating that to do any work and questioned as to why he was sitting idle, upon that the accused grew wild decided to kill the deceased and picked up the stick and beat the deceased. In this regard, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 5.

PW1-Boddanolla Narsimulu, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, in his evidence stated that when he enquired with PW2 about causing injuries to the deceased by the accused, the he was informed by PW1 that when the deceased by name Laxmappa asked the accused to remove unwanted plants from the cotton crop, for which the accused grew wild and beat the deceased indiscriminately with stout stick (M.O.1).

15.PW2 – Boddanolla Renuka, who is the daughter of the deceased, in her evidence stated that the accused did not attend any work, due to the laziness of the accused, there were disputes in between her father and the accused, who is her husband. About 1½ year ago, at about 10:30 AM, herself along with coolies went to their agricultural land, where cotton crop was raised and her deceased father by name

Laxmappa also accompanied them, after sometime, the accused also reached their agricultural land. At about 3:00 pm, the quarrel started in between the accused and her father, when her father asked the accused to attend the agricultural works, questioning his laziness, due to which, the accused grew wild and beat the deceased with stick. The aforesaid testimony made by PWs 1 and 2 is corroborated with the version of the prosecution.

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

14

16.PW4 – Thikkayellappolla Pooja, who is said to be coolie, attended the field of the deceased for coolie work, in her evidence stated that about 1½ year ago, in between 09:30 AM and 10:00 AM herself, Sony (LW4) and Jamuna (PW5) accompanied PW2 and the deceased by name Laxmappa to the agricultural land of the deceased Laxmappa for attending agricultural works. The deceased raised cotton crop and they the three coolies, went to the land of the deceased for putting fertilizer to the cotton crop. After one hour, the accused came to the said agricultural land of the deceased and he sat under the tree without attending any work. After lunch hour, there was a quarrel in between the deceased Laxmappa and the accused as the deceased questioned his laziness and asked the accused to attend the agricultural work by removing unwanted plants from the cotton field, for which, the accused refused to attend the said work. In the meantime, the accused grew wild and beat the deceased with a stick.

This part of testimony made by PW4 is corroborated by the evidence of PW5 – Jamuna with regard to motive part of the offence concerned.

17.As could be seen from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who are brother-in-law and daughter of the deceased by name Boddanolla

Laxmappa, the deceased frequently questioned the laziness of the accused, due to which, the accused keep the same in his mind and on 14.07.2023 afternoon, the deceased found the accused was sitting under the tree idle without doing any work, upon that the deceased questioned the act of the accused and asked him to remove the

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

15 unwanted plants from the cotton field, for which, the accused refused to do the said work and grew wild, upon that the deceased picked up a stout stick available in the vicinity and beat the deceased and caused injuries to him. This part of testimony made by PWs 1 and 2 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, who are said to be coolies, attended the agriculture work of the deceased in the cotton field on the date and time of the incident. Therefore, PWs 2, 4 and 5 in their evidence categorically stated that that the incident took place in the field of the deceased when the accused was sitting idle under the tree and refused the request of the deceased to remove the unwanted plants from the cotton field and on the other hand, the accused grew wild picked-up a stout stick available in the vicinity and beat the deceased and caused injuries to him.

18.The motive part of the offence is concerned there is clear evidence of the brother-in-law and daughter of the deceased (PWs 1 and 2) that the accused beat the deceased and caused injuries to him when the deceased questioned the laziness of the accused sitting idle under the tree without attending any agricultural works and asked him to remove the unwanted plants from the cotton field, for which, the accused grew wild and caused injuries to the deceased. This part of testimony made by PWs 1 and 2 is further corroborated by the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 that the accused beat the deceased with a stout stick and caused injuries to him when the deceased asked the accused to remove the unwanted plants from the cotton field.

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

16

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has established the motive part of the offence that the deceased frequently scolded the accused in petty matters, due to which, the accused developed grudge against the deceased and on 14.07.202 afternoon when the accused was sitting idle under the tree without attending any agricultural works and on seeing the same, the deceased questioned the said act of the deceased and asked him to remove the unwanted plants from the cotton field, for which, the accused refused and grew wild and picked up a stick and beat the deceased and caused injuries to him leading to his death.

19.It is to be next seen whether the accused inflicted bodily injuries to the deceased in order to cause his death. As per the prosecution on 14.07.2023 at about 03:30 PM, the accused with intend to kill the deceased, on the ground that the deceased frequently rebuke/criticize him over his laziness, due to which, he kept the same in mind, beat the deceased, resulting the deceased Laxmappa sustained bleeding injuries leading to his death. In order to prove the actual incident, the prosecution has examined the younger brother-in-law and daughter of the deceased as PWs 1 and 2 respectively. PW1 – Boddanolla

Narsimulu, who is younger brother-in-law of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on 14-07-2023, at about 3.30 pm, while he was in Narayanpet Court, at that time, he received a phone call from

B.Renuka (PW-2) stating that the deceased by name Boddanolla

Laxmappa was beaten by the accused at their agricultural land,

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

17 resulting, the deceased sustained injuries on his both ears, back and head and he was informed that the deceased was lying in the agricultural land with bleeding injuries and asked him to come to their agricultural land immediately. On receipt of the phone call from

Renuka, he rushed to the place of offence on his bike and he reached the Agriculture land of Laxmappa and found the deceased by name

Laxmappa was lying unconscious with bleeding injuries, B.Renuka (PW-2) was present in the said land by weeping, then he contacted the

Auto driver by name Polappa (PW9) and asked him to come to the agricultural land of Laxmappa along with auto and accordingly, PW9 reached the scene of offence along with his Auto and the deceased

Laxmappa was shifted in the auto of PW9 and started from the said place in order to go to the Government hospital, Makthal and on their way, after some distance, the deceased lost his breath. The accused was present in the Agriculture land of Laxmappa and the accused sat in the said land silently.

20.PW2 – Boddanolla Renuka, who is daughter of the deceased, in her evidence stated that the accused is her husband and the deceased is her father. Herself and Sirisha are the daughters of her parents.

About 6 years ago, her parents performed her marriage with the accused, who is a resident of Alooru nearby Jadcherla. Since her parents have no sons and as such, the accused came to her house as illitam son-in-law. The accused did not attend any work, due to which, there were disputes in between her father and the accused frequently.

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

18

About 1½ year ago, on one day, at about 10:30 am, herself and coolies namely Sony (KW4), Pooja (PW4) and Jamuna (PW5) went to their agricultural land, where cotton crop was raised and her deceased father Laxmappa also accompanied them, after sometime, the accused also reached their agricultural land. At about 3:00 pm, the quarrel started in between the accused and her father, when her father questioned the accused about his laziness and asked the accused to attend the agricultural works, due to which, the accused grew wild, in the meantime, she went to the bore-well for fetching drinking water. While she was returning from the bore-well, she found from some distance that the accused was beating the deceased with a stick. On seeing the same, she came to the scene of offence by running and question the accused as to why he was beating the deceased with stout stick, but the accused continued to beat the deceased resulting, the deceased sustained injuries on his both ears, back and head and he fell down unconsciously, then, she contacted

PW-1 over a phone and informed him about the incident, wherein, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and asked him to come to the place of incident as soon as possible. Accordingly, PW-1 rushed to the scene of offence from Narayanpet on his bike. At the time of incident, agricultural coolies namely Sony (LW4), Pooja (PW4) and Jamuna (PW5) were present and witnessed the incident.

21.PW2 in her evidence further stated that after PW-1 reached the place of offence, he contacted the Auto driver by name Polappa (PW9)

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

19 and asked him to come to the place of incident along with his Auto, accordingly, PW9 came to their agricultural land along with his Auto and the deceased was shifted in the Auto of PW9 in order to take the deceased to the government hospital, Makthal and after reaching some distance, the deceased lost his breath, due to which, the dead body of the deceased was taken to their house and later, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to the government hospital, Makthal for postmortem examination.

22.Further the prosecution has also examined coolies, who are said to be attended coolie work in the field of the deceased on the date of the incident and witnessed the incident and they are crucial witnesses to prove the alleged incident. PW4 – Thikkayellappolla Renuka, who is said to be an eye witness to the alleged incident, in her evidence stated that about 1½ year ago, on one day in between 09:30 am and 10:00 am, herself, Sony (LW-4) and Jamuna (PW5) accompanied PW.2 and the deceased by name Laxmappa to the agricultural land of the deceased Laxmappa for attending agricultural works. The deceased raised cotton crop and they the three coolies, went to the land of the deceased for putting fertilizer to the cotton crop. After one hour, the accused came to the said agricultural land of the deceased and he sat under the tree without attending any work. They attended the work till the lunch, and after having lunch, there was a quarrel in between the deceased Laxmappa and the accused as the deceased asked the accused to attend the agricultural work by removing unwanted plants

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

20 from the cotton field, for which, the accused refused to attend the said work. In the meantime, PW2 went to the bore-well for fetching drinking water.

23.PW4 in her evidence further stated that they the three witnessed the incident, while the accused revolted against the deceased stating that as to why he was entrusted the work. In the meantime, the accused grew wild against the deceased and picked up a stout stick available there and beat him on his back, head, both ears resulting the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and fell down unconsciously. PW- 2 reached the scene of offence and she witnessed the same and she contacted PW1 over a phone and asked him to come to the said place and accordingly PW1 reached place of incident. Thereafter, they the three, left the place and went to their respective houses and they came to know that the injured was shifted to the hospital on the Auto.

M.O.1 is the same stick, which was used by the accused in the commission of offence.

24.PW5 – Thikkayellappolla Jamuna, who is said to be another eye- witness to the alleged incident, in her evidence stated that in the similar manner as that of PW4 and she supported the aforesaid testimony of PW4 in all aspects. She also identified M.O.1 stick, with which, the accused beat the deceased and caused injuries. PW3 –

Boddanolla Usenamma, who is the adoptive mother of the deceased, in her evidence stated that the accused is the husband of PW2.

PW-2 and Sirisha are the daughters of her adopted son by name

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

21

Laxmappa. About 6 years ago, her adopted son by name Laxmappa performed the marriage of PW.2 with the accused, who is a resident of Alooru nearby Jadcherla. Since, the deceased have no sons and as such, the accused came to his house as illitam son-in-law. About 1½ year ago, on one day, the accused beat the deceased with a stick and caused his death at the agricultural land of the deceased. She was informed the same by Sony (LW4), Pooja (PW4) and Jamuna (PW5), who attended agricultural coolie works at the land of the deceased. As seen from the evidence of PW3, she has no personal knowledge with regard to the incident, she was informed by PWs 4, 5 and Sony (LW4) with regard to the incident, wherein the accused beat the deceased and caused injuries leading to his death.

25.It was elicited in the cross examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused that Ningamma is his elder sister and wife of the deceased and she is no more and she got two daughters namely Boddanolla

Renuka (PW2) and Sirisha. The marriage of Renuka (PW2) was performed with the accused, resident of Aloor near by Jadcherla and the accused came to the house of parents of PW2 as illitam son-in-law.

The deceased Laxmappa and the accused used to quarrel with each other. It was suggested to PW1 in his cross examination on behalf of the accused that there was heated conversation in between the accused and the deceased and the accused did not beat the deceased on the date and time of the incident except verbal heated

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

22 conversation and the said suggestions were denied by PW1 in his cross examination.

26.It was further elicited in the cross examination of PW1 on behalf of the accused that he has no personal knowledge with regard to the incident and he came to know about the incident through PW2 and others. By the time he reached the scene of offence, he found PW2 was weeping and the accused sat at some distance calmly. After verifying the deceased, he was taking breath, the deceased was shifted into the auto of PW9 and later the deceased lost his breath in the auto. He got prepared Ex.P1 report through known person. It was suggested to PW1 on behalf of the accused that in order to avoid to give the property to the accused, the accused was falsely implicated in this case and that the accused never caused death of the deceased and that they created false story against the accused in order to implicate him in this case and the said suggestions were denied by

PW1 in his cross examination.

27.It was elicited in the cross examination of PW2 on behalf of the accused that as her parents have no male issues and as such, her parents brought the accused as illitam son-in-law. The accused has also share in the property of her parents after her parents demise. At the time the quarrel was started in between the accused and the deceased, she was not there, went to the bore-well for fetching drinking water. She witnessed the incident from some distance and on seeing the same, she reached the place of incident by running along

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

23 with water pot in her arms. She witnessed, while the accused was beating the deceased and then, she reached the place of incident by running and questioned the act of the accused as to why he was beating her father with stout stick, but the accused did not stop to beat her father and he continued to beat him. Due to fear, Sony (LW4), Pooja (PW4) and Jamuna (PW5), who are coolies, were witnessing the incident by standing from some distance and they did not come to the rescue of her father, as the accused threatened them.

28.It was elicited in the cross examination of PW2 on behalf of the accused that after receiving her phone call, PW-1 reached the scene of offence within two hours. After the arrival of PW1, he contacted Auto driver (PW9) from the scene of offence and the Auto driver by name

Pollappa reached the scene of offence within one hour. Herself and agriculture coolies were at the injured till PW1 reached the scene of offence. PW1 informed her that while the deceased was taking to the hospital, after reaching some distance, the deceased lost his breath.

The accused also followed the injured in the Auto and thereafter, in the same Auto, the accused came to the house along with the dead body and on the following day, the accused was missing from the house.

29.It was denied by PW2 in her cross examination that the injured was taken to the hospital in time, the injured might have been out of danger and his life would have been saved. On the same day of the incident, they could not go to the Police station, due to their sorrow position. PW1 went to the P.S.Makthal on the following day of the

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

24 incident and lodged Ex.P1 report, then the police concerned came to their house. She has seen the said M.O.1-stick with the accused, while he was beating her father and as such, she easily identified M.O.1 stick. On the following day of the incident, at about 11:00 am, the police concerned came to her house and recorded her statement. It was denied by PW2 in her cross-examination on behalf of the accused that the deceased has died as they did not take him for treatment in the right time and the death of the deceased was not caused with the injuries sustained in the hands of the accused and they colluded with each other and as per the instructions of PW1, the accused was falsely implicated in this case, in order to avoiding to give the share in their property after demise of her father.

30.It was elicited in the cross examination of PW4 on behalf of the accused that on the date of the incident, she was aged 17 years and she was minor. It was denied that being minor, she would not attend any coolie works. The land of the deceased is located at some distance from the main road. The cotton plants were at the height of 2 to 3 feet.

After finishing their work, they had lunch, at the time of quarrel in between the accused and the deceased, they were standing at some distance, due to fear. The incident was lost for 15 minutes. They would not come to the rescue of the deceased from the hands of the accused on the ground that the accused armed with stout stick. After the incident, she and other two coolies would not wait in the land of the deceased and left the scene of offence to their respective houses. It

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

25 was suggested to PW4 in her cross-examination on behalf of the accused that she did not witness, while the accused was beating as she was far away from the incident place and she could not identify

M.O.1 stick and that she did not witness any incident concerned to this case and the said suggestions were denied by PW4 in her cross examination.

31.It was elicited in the cross examination of PW5 on behalf of the accused that while they were having lunch, at that time, the incident took place, due to which, they stopped to eat their lunch and witnessed the incident from some distance and after incident, they left the said place. She has no idea when PW1 reached the scene of offence after the incident. She witnessed while the accused was beating to the deceased with M.O.1 stick. It was denied that nothing was happened in her presence and that she is speaking falsehood.

32.As could be seen from the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, who are crucial witnesses, they categorically stated that during the lunch hour, there was quarrel in between the deceased Laxmappa and the accused as the asked the accused to attend the agricultural work by removing unwanted plants from the cotton field, for which, the accused refused to attend the said work and the accused revolted against the deceased stating that as to why he was entrusted the work. In the meantime, the accused grew wild against the deceased and picked up the big stick available there and beat him on his back, head, both ears resulting the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

26 fell down unconsciously. The accused is responsible for the death of the deceased Laxmappa. The presence of PWs 4 and 5 being coolies attended the agriculture work in the cotton field of the deceased is quite natural.

33.As could be seen from the evidence of PW2, who is daughter of the deceased, on the date of incident at about 3:00 pm, the quarrel started in between the accused and her father, when her father asked the accused to attend the agricultural works without sitting idle, due to which, the accused grew wild, in the meantime, she went to the bore- well for fetching drinking water. While she was returning from the bore-well, she found from some distance that the accused was beating the deceased with a stick. On seeing the same, she came to the scene of offence by running and questioned the accused as to why he was beating the deceased with stout stick, but the accused continued to beat the deceased resulting, the deceased sustained injuries on his both ears, back and head and he fell down unconsciously. The presence of PW2 being daughter of the deceased attended the agriculture work in the cotton field of the deceased is quite natural.

34.It is already stated supra that the presence of PWs 4 and 5 is also not doubtful as they happened to attend the coolie work in the cotton field of the deceased. PW1 even though he did not witness the actual incident, wherein the accused beat the deceased with stout stick and caused injuries to both ears, back and head and leading to his death. But after receiving phone call from PW2, he reached the

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

27 scene of offence and found the deceased lying on the ground with bleeding injuries and he contacted PW9 to come with his auto.

35.PW9 – Tappa Polappa, who is auto driver, in his evidence stated that about 1½ year ago, on one day at about 03:30 pm while, he was in his village at Panchadevphad, at that time, he received a phone call from PW1 stating that in a quarrel in between the accused and the deceased wherein, the deceased was beaten by the accused and the deceased sustained severe injuries and asked him to come along with the Auto and the deceased has to be taken to the Hospital and accordingly, he reached at about 04:00 pm at the agricultural land of the deceased situated at the outskirts of Pasupula village along with his Auto and he found the deceased was lying on the ground with the severe injuries on his ears and the blood was oozed from his both ears and nose and he did not notice other injuries on his body. He also found PWs 1 and 2 and the accused in the said agricultural land. Soon after his arrival along with his auto, immediately the injured by name

Laxmappa was shifted in his auto and while, the deceased was shifting to Makthal Govt. Hospital on his way after they reached half KM from the scene offence, the deceased lost his breath. Since, the deceased has died and his dead body was taken to his house at Pasupula village.

As could be seen from the evidence of PW9, even though he has no personal knowledge with regard to incident, but on the request of

PW1, he reached the scene of offence along with his auto and found

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

28 the deceased with bleeding injuries on his ears and other parts of the body.

36.Further, PW6 – C.M.Anjaneyulu, who is said to be present as mediator at the time of inquest conducting over the dead body of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on 15-07-2023, the C.I. of

Police, Makthal circle called him and B.Parashuramulu (LW9) to the

Government hospital, Makthal accordingly, they reached the said hospital at 12:00 noon and the C.I. of Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased by name Laxmappa at mortuary room of the said hospital in their presence and in the presence of blood relatives of the deceased and they noticed bleeding injuries on the ears, head and back and during the course of inquest, they the mediators opined that the deceased might have been died due to the injuries sustained on his body. The C.I. of Police collected the wearing cloths from the dead body of the deceased. In this regard, Ex.P2 inquest report was reduced into writing in their presence and after read over its contents, obtained their signatures on Ex.P2 inquest report. He can identify clothes collected from the dead body of the deceased i.e., M.O.2 - Blood stained full sleeves white shirt of the deceased. M.O.3 - is blood stained white pancha of the deceased.

M.O.4-Red and pink colour drawer of the deceased.

37.PW6 in his evidence further stated that after completion of the inquest report, they were taken to the agricultural land of the deceased situated at the outskirts of Paspula village and they found

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

29 standing cotton crop in the said land and the C.I. of Police observed the scene of offence in their presence and their observations were incorporated in Crime Detailed Form and they noticed blood stains in the scene of offence and the C.I. of Police drawn rough sketch for the scene of offence in Ex.P3 – Crime Details Form and after read over its contents, obtained their signatures on Ex.P3 – crime details form. The

C.I. of Police seized blood stained earth (M.O.5) and control earth (M.O.6) from the scene of offence under Ex.P3 – Crimed details form.

As could be seen from the evidence of PW6, during the course of inquest over the dead body of the deceased, he and other mediator found injuries on the ears, head and back of the deceased.

38.Further, PW7 – Dr.Rajesh Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Government area hospital, Makthal, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on 15-07-2023, at about 04.00 PM, he received a requisition from C.I. of Police, Makthal circle through P.C.No.3013 of

P.S.Makthal with a request to conduct Postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased by name Boddanolla Laxmappa.

Accordingly, on the same day at 05.00 pm he commenced postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and concluded by 06.00 PM and found the following external injuries.

1.cut abrasion near right orbital region.

2.Abrasion on lower back measuring 03 cms x 2 cms.

3.Bruice on left arm measuring 04 cms x 02 Cms.

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

30 4.Abrasion on right shoulder measuring 03 cms x 01 cm.

5. Bruicing on right thigh measuring 03 cms x 01 cm

6. Fracture at right posterior wrist (first five ribs)

7. Fracture of right anterior ribs(first 03 ribs)

8. Bleeding from right ear.

The above injuries are antemortem in nature.

39.PW7 in his evidence further stated that he found following

Internal Injuries:

Chest Wall:

On dissecting chest wall haemorrage (blood was noticed). Haemorrage was seen on mediastinum.

Pleural cavities:

50 ml of blood was seen on right pleural cavity.

Lungs Right:

Petechial haemarrage was seen on right lung.

Liver and Gall Bladder:

echymosis was found on liver measuring 02 cms. The time of death of the deceased is 16 to 18 hours prior to his postmortem examination.

The cause of death of the deceased to the best of his knowledge and belief due to traumatic injury of thorix leading to intrathoricic bleed which leads to cardiac arrest. He issued Ex.P4 postmortem examination report. The above external injuries could be possible with blunt objects.

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

31

40.The testimony of PWs 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 9 is supported by medical evidence through the testimony of PW7 and his given Ex.P4 postmortem examination report with regard to cause of death of the deceased Laxmappa. The aforesaid part of evidence reveals with regard to existence of antermortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased, there is no dispute from the side of the accused also. It was suggested to the witnesses, that the accused was not responsible for the said injuries and that the injured was not taken to the hospital for the right time, due to which, his death was caused and the said suggestions were denied by the witnesses in their cross examination.

The accused has also agreed that the deceased by name Laxmappa has died due to injuries and there is positive evidence of PWs 2, 4 and 5 that the said injuries were caused to the deceased Laxmappa by the accused by beating him with a stout stick on his head and other parts of the body. The evidence of PWs 2, 4 and 5 is amply corroborated with the medical evidence of PW7 and his given Ex.P4 postmortem examination report with regard to cause of death of the deceased with regard to injuries caused to the deceased Laxmappa. The case of the prosecution through reliable and trust-worthy testimony of PWs 2, 4 and 5 is more probable than in other way.

41. As aforesaid, an ample support from the medical and ocular evidence is available in the instant case for the prosecution, there are no material discrepancies, which can create any kind of doubt over the case of the prosecution or over testimony of any of the witnesses. The

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

32 testimony of all the witnesses is quite reliable and I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the testimony of any of the witnesses. The cross- examination on behalf of the accused of all the witnesses could not extract any material for any of the witnesses to speak false or foist a false case against the accused. I have absolutely, no reason to doubt the presence of PW2 being the daughter of the deceased, PWs 4 and 5 being collies attended coolie work in the cotton field of the deceased on the date and time of the incident.

42.It is contended on behalf of the accused that PW1 and others have falsely foisted this case against him in order to avoiding to give share in the property of the deceased. The said stand taken by the accused was suggested to PWs 1 and 2 in their cross-examination and the same was denied by them in their cross-examination. There is absolutely no reason as to why PWs 1 and 2 should involve the accused in this case, if the deceased received severe injuries in any other manner. The incident took place in the agriculture land of the deceased on 14.07.2023 at about 03:30 PM and there could not have any difficulty with regard to the identification of the assailant of the deceased Laxmappa, as the assailant no other than the husband of

PW2 and son-in-law of the deceased and as such there could not be any mistake in the identity of the accused.

43.PW11 – A.Parvathalu, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, PS

Makthal, in his evidence stated that on 15-07-2023, at about 11:00 am, While he was discharging his duties as S.H.O. P.S. Makthal at that

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

33 time, PW.1 came to the Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 report and basing on the contents of the report, he registered a case in Cr.No.150 of 2023 u/Sec.302 of IPC and issued Ex.P8 F.I.R. He dispatched the

Original F.I.R. to the Court concerned and its copies to his higher officials. As the offence is grave in nature, he handed over the CD file to the C.I. of Police, Makthal circle by name K.Ramlal (PW12) for conducting investigation in this case. As seen from the evidence of

PW11, his evidence is useful only for the limited purpose of registration of the case on the basis of report lodged by PW1.

44.PW12 – K.Ramlal, the then Circle-Inspector of Police, Makthal circle, who is investigating officer in this case, in his evidence stated that on 15-07-2023, at about 11.30 am, he received copy of F.I.R. from

PW.11 as the offence is grave in nature, he took up the investigation in this case and he proceeded to the Government hospital, Makthal along with PW-1 and visited the mortuary room and found the dead body of the deceased by name Laxmappa in supine position and he observed the dead body of the deceased and noticed the injuries on his head, face and back side. He has taken photo snaps covering the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P-9 are 7 positive photographs of the dead body of the deceased. He secured the presence of two mediators namely

C.M.Anjaneyulu (PW6) and B.Parashuramulu (LW9), in their presence, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in between 12:00 noon and 2:00 pm and during the course of inquest, the mediators opined that the death of deceased might have been caused

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

34 due to the injuries sustained by him. In this regard, Ex.P2 inquest report was reduced into writing in their presence and after read over its contents to the mediators obtained their signatures on Ex.P2 inquest report.

45.PW12 in his evidence further stated that he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3 during the course of inquest.

He seized wearing cloths of the deceased i.e., 1. White colour shirt having blood stains (MO2), 2.White colour Dhothi having blood stains (MO3) and red colour under wear (MO4) under the cover of Ex.P-2, inquest report in the presence of the mediators. This part of testimony made by PW12 is corroborated by the evidence of PW6, who is mediator said to be present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW12 in his evidence further stated that he submitted a requisition to the medical officer concerned with a request to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, PW-7-Dr Rajesh, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P4 Postmortem examination report, wherein, he opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is due to Traumatic injury of thorax leading to intra hepatic bleed which lead to Cardiac arrest. This part of testimony made by PW12 is corroborated by the evidence of PW7 – Dr.Rajesh, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P4 report, wherein he opined that the cause of the death of

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

35 the deceased is due to Traumatic injury of thorax leading to intra hepatic bleed which lead to Cardiac arrest.

46.PW12 in his evidence further stated that he visited the scene of offence, which is located at the agricultural land of the deceased situated outskirts of Paspula village of Makthal mandal, where, he secured the above two same two mediators, in their presence, he observed the scene of offence minutely and taken the photo snaps of the crime scene. Their observations were incorporated in Ex.P3 - Crime

Details form, he seized blood stained earth (M.O.5) and control earth (M.O.6) from the scene of offence under Ex.P3 Crime Details Form. He has drawn rough sketch for the scene of offence in Col.No.11 of Crime

Details Form. After read over its contents obtained the signatures of the mediators on Ex.P3 crime details form. He has examined and recorded the statements of PWs.4, 5, 9 and K.Sony (LW-4). This part of testimony made by PW12 is further corroborated by the evidence of

PW6, who is said to be present at the time of conducting panchanama for the scene of offence under Ex.P3 crime details form and seizure of

M.O.5 – bloodstained earth and M.O.6 - controlled earth under Ex.P3 crime details form.

47.PW12 in his evidence further stated that while the investigation was in progress, on reliable information, on 17-07-2023, at about 8:00 am, he along with his staff, apprehended the accused at

Kanyakaparameshwari temple, Karne Road, Makthal town and he secured the presence of two mediators namely Uppari Shiva Shankar

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

36 (PW-8) and G.Narsimulu (LW-11) in their presence he interrogated the accused. During the course of interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case and he further confessed that he would show the stout stick used in the commission of offence at the agricultural land of the deceased. In this regard, a confession panchanama was reduced into writing in the presence of the mediators. Ex.P-5 is the same relevant portion of discovery of the stick. In pursuance of the confession of the accused, the accused led the police party and mediators to the scene of offence, which is the agricultural land of the deceased situated at outskirts of Paspula village, where the accused picked up M.O.1 stick and handed over to him and he seized the same from the possession and at the instance of the accused under the cover of Ex.P6 - seizure panchanama.

48.The aforesaid testimony made by PW12 is corroborated by the evidence of PW8 – Uppari Shiva Shankar, who is said to be present at the time of interrogation of the accused. PW8 – Uppari Shivashankar, in his evidence stated that on 17-07-2023 at about 09:00 am the C.I.

of Police, Makthal circle called him and Gaddam Narsimulu near Karne

Road, Kanyaka Parameshwari Temple, Makthal Town and accordingly, they both reached the said place and found the accused in the custody of the Circle-Inspector of Police and on the request of C.I. of Police, they both acted as mediators for interrogation of the accused. The accused was interrogated in their presence and during course of

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

37 interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case that the deceased Laxmappa, who is father-in-law, used to irritate him, due to which, he beat the deceased with stick and caused injuries to him leading to his death and the said incident took place at the agricultural land of deceased situated at the outskirts of Pasupula village. After commission of the offence, he thrown the stout stick (M.O.1) used in the commission of offence in the land of the deceased. Ex.P.5 is the relevant portion in the confession panchanama of the accused dated 17-07-2023 in respect of discovery of M.O.1 stick. In pursuance of confession of the accused, the accused lead the mediators and police party to the agricultural land of the deceased situated at outskirts of Pasupula village, where, the accused picked-up the stout stick (M.O.1) from the cotton filed of the deceased and handed over the same to the Circle-Inspector of Police, who seized the same under the cover of seizure panchanama and obtained our signatures on Ex.P6 seizure panchanama.

49.PW12 in his evidence further stated that after completion of the said process, he effected the arrest of the accused and got him remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure. He forwarded the control earth (M.O.5), blood stained earth (M.O.6) clothes of the deceased and stick to the State FSL, Hyderabad for analysis. Accordingly, PW-10, A.Raja Naik, Assistant Director FSL,

Hyderabad analyzed the material objects and issued Ex.P7 report to that effect. After completion of the investigation and after collecting

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

38 all the documents, he filed a charge sheet against the accused before the Committal Court and deposited the case property before

Committal Court. The aforesaid testimony made by PW12 is corroborated by the evidence of PW10 – A.Raja Naik, Assistant director, State FSL, Hyderabad, who analysed Material Objects at State

FSL, Hyderabad and issued Ex.P7 report.

50. PW10 – A.Raja Naik, Assistant director, State FSL, Hyderabad, in his evidence stated that on 25-07-2023, their laboratory received one sealed card board box and sealed cloth parcel which are intact and tallying with the sample seal, through PC No.3071 of PS. Makthal by name MD Kabir from Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narayanpet Sub-

Division, along with letter of advise in Cr.No.150 of 2023 of PS Makthal.

A card board box contained paper cover which contained i) Soil etc., with dark brown stains marked as item No.1, ii) Soil, etc., marked as item No.2, iii) A torn white colour cotton full sleeved shirt with dark brown stains marked as item No.3, iv) A white colour cotton dhothi with dark brown stains marked as item no.4., v) A torn merun colour mill made under wear with dark brown stains marked as item no.5.

and vi) A broken wooden stick measuring 149 cms in length with dark brown stains marked as item no.6. He conducted O-Tollydine examination for identification of blood stains and gel diffusion method for identification of Origin of Species and absorption elution method for identification blood group of blood stains. Item Nos.1 to 6 were examined, human blood was detected on item nos.1, 3 to 6, but, their

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

39 blood group could not be determined. Blood was not detected on item no.2, which is received as control for item no.1. He issued Ex.P7 report that effect. As seen from the evidence of PW12, who is investigting officer in this case, has left no material lacunaes, which can create any doubt over the case of the prosecution.

51.As far as recovery of Stout Stick (M.O.1) - crime weapon is concerned, PW12 in his evidence stated that on 17.07.2023 at about 08:00 AM he along with his staff apprehended the accused at

Kanyakaparameshwari temple and he secured the presence of two mediators namely Uppari Shiva Shankar (PW-8) and G.Narsimulu (LW11) in their presence he interrogated the accused, during the course of interrogation, the accused has confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case and he further confessed that he would show the stout stick used in the commission of offence at the agricultural land of the deceased. In this regard Ex.P5 confession panchanama was reduced into writing in the presence of the mediators. In pursuance of the confession of the accused, the accused lead the police party and mediators to the scene of offence, which is the agricultural land of the deceased situated at outskirts of Paspula village, where the accused picked up M.O.1 stick and handed over the same to him upon that he seized the same from the possession and at the instance of the accused under the cover of Ex.P6 - seizure panchanama.

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

40

52.The admission of guilt by the accused before PW12, who is investigating officer in this case, is inadmissible in evidence, for the simple reason that it is a confession made to the police official therefore, it is liable to be excluded from consideration. The only admissible evidence against the accused on record is that the accused in pursuance of his confession, lead the police party and the mediators to the agriculture land of the deceased and picked-up M.O.1 – stick used in the commission of offence and handed over the same to PW12 and the same was seized by PW12 from the possession of the accused under Ex.P6 seizure panchanama. This part of testimony made by

PW12 is corroborated by the evidence of PW8 with regard to seizure of

M.O.1 stout stick from the agriculture land of the deceased situated at the outskirts of Pasupula village.

53.In the instant case, PWs 2, 4 and 5, who are crucial witnesses, in their evidence categorically stated that they witnessed the incident, wherein the accused beat the deceased with stout stick (M.O.1) on his back, head and both ears, resulting, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and fell down unconsciously. When there is direct evidence with regard to aforesaid incident, wherein the accused beat the deceased with M.O.1 stick and inflicted bodily injuries, resulting, the death of the deceased in such circumstances, the seizure of weapon is not must, even though the weapon is said to have been used in the commission of offence was seized, it will be lent some more corroboration to the evidence of the eye-witnesses (PWs 2, 4 and 5).

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

41

54.At this juncture, the learned chief legal aid defence counsel for the accused has vehemently contended that the presence of PWs 2, 4 and 5 was doubtful and except the evidence of PWs 2, 4 and 5 there is no other evidence to prove the incident. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned chief legal aid defence counsel has relied upon the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of

Haryana vs Mohd.Yunus and others passed in Crl.Appeal

No.1307/2012 dated 12.01.2024 reported in 2024 INSC 34 wherein it was held that:- “In the trail against Akhtar Hussain (A4), the fact remains that both the star witnesses of the prosecution namely Deenu (PW7) and Ahmad (PW8) are disbelieved in the second trial by clearly stating that their statements are contradictory, the facts are twisted and improvements are made. For trial under section 302 of IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy having allegedly twisted the facts and made contrary statement, it is not safe to impose conviction on the basis of statement made by such witness. When there is an effort to falsely implicate one accused person, statement made by such an eye- witness cannot be relied without strong corroboration. Moreover, there is material on record proving previous enmity between the parties as mentioned in paragraph 25 of the trial court judgment.

55.Keeping in view of the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned chief legal aid defence counsel for the accused and in the light of the aforesaid decision rendered by our Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by him. I have perused the relevant record. It is already stated supra that the presence of daughter of the deceased by name

Boddanolla Renuka (PW2) and coolies namely Puja (PW4), Jamuna (PW5) at the scene of offence is not doubtful. However, PWs 1 and 9, who reached the scene of offence after the incident, they found the

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

42 presence of PW2 at the scene of offence. Therefore, the aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned chief legal aid defence counsel for the accused have no application in the present facts of the case.

Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned chief legal aid defence counsel for the accused as there was no support from the medical evidence.

56.Moreover, our Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the law in Karthik Malhar vs State of Bihar reported in 1996 (1) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC), wherein it was held that “conviction can be based on the evidence of solitary witness provided that the evidence of that witness is reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved by only one eye witness, nor can it be insisted that the corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by other eye-witnesses.”

The evidence of PWs 2, 4 and 5, who are eye witnesses to the alleged incident, go to show that the accused inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased Laxmappa with M.O.1 stick, beat him on his head, back and other parts of the body.

57.As aforesaid, an ample support from the medical and ocular evidence is available in the instant case for the prosecution. There are no material discrepancies, which can create any kind of doubt over the case of the prosecution or over the testimony of any of the witnesses.

The testimony of aforesaid witnesses is quite reliable and trustworthy.

I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of any of the aforesaid witnesses. During the cross-examination of these witnesses

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

43 on behalf of the accused could not extract any material for them to speak false or foist a false case against the accused. Incident took place in the agriculture land of the deceased at the bright day light, it is no difficulty to identify the offender by the witnesses, who inflicted the bodily injuries to the deceased leading to his death. Further, the accused was well acquaintance with the witnesses even prior to the incident and futher the accused is the son-in-law of the deceased and husband of PW2. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the casee, it is clear that the accused caused death of the deceased Laxmappa, when the deceased asked the accused to remove the unwanted plants from the cotton field instead of sitting idle under the tree.

58.At this juncture, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State has requested for convicting the accused for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC submitting that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge leveled against the accused by examining its witnesses, whose testimonies are corroborative and reliable. On the other hand, the learned chief legal aid defense counsel

for the accused has requested for the acquittal of the accused

submitting that there is nothing incriminating against the accused on record. It is already stated supra that the prosecution adduced positive oral as well as documentary evidence with regard to the commission of offence. The accused has not led any evidence in his defence to substantiate his claim that he was falsely implicated in this case.

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

44

59.Further, the accused has failed to show any motive or malafide intention on the part of the family members of the deceased for implicating him in a false case. The accused failed to assign any malafide motive on the part of the family members of the deceased that they would got him falsely implicated in this murder case. The defence of the accused does not appear to be probable. It may be observed that when the parties were known to each other even prior to the incident, therefore, there can be no question of doubt being raised with regard to the identity of the accused who has also been correctly identified in the court by the witnesses.

60.At this juncture, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 does not suffer from any inconsistency and is blemish free, while the learned chief legal aid defense counsel for the accused has argued that no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 as there are so many variations. It is apparently clear from the above that the allegations are specific and consistent. There is no reason why the accused would have been falsely implicated. There is nothing on record to indicate that the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 is false or motivated. Their evidence appears to be completely reliable and trustworthy.

61.The investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case has been substantially proved by PW12. He clearly deposed that he was informed the murder of the deceased, he visited mortuary room of government hospital, Makthal, held inquest over the

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

45 dead body of the deceased, examined material witnesses, he visited scene of offence, prepared crime details form and submitted a requisition for conducting postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased to the medical officer concerned and he seized blood stained cloths of the deceased (M.O.s 2 to 4) and blood stained earth (M.O.4) and controlled earth (M.O.5) from the scene of offence under crime details form in the presence of the mediators and he collected postmortem examination report and he forwarded the Material Objects to the State FSL, Hyderabad for chemical examination, he collected report from State FSL, Hyderabad. There is nothing on record to show the testimony of PW12 is false or not reliable.

62.It may also be observed that the accused has also failed to show that he is not the person, caused the death of the deceased by inflicting bodily injuries with M.O.1 – stout stick. He has failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim or falsify the prosecution version or show that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not reliable and credible. It is evident that the evidence of the prosecution particularly Pws 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 is reliable, believable and trustworthy and the prosecution has established the case of murder. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.

63.Further, the prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of offence, the investigation including documents

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

46 prepared. Some of the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and their testimonies do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and witnesses of the prosecution have been able to build up a continuous link. In view of the foregoing reasons, the conscience of this court is completely satisfied with the prosecution has been able to successfully bring home the charge leveled against the accused regarding the commission of offence under section 302 of IPC.

64.Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the accused caused the death of the deceased by name

Laxmappa, when the deceased questioned the laziness of the accused and asked to remove the unwanted plants from the cotton field, for which, the accused refused and grew wild against the deceased and caused his death by beating with M.O.1-stick. On careful scrutiny of the case, in its entirety and aforesaid reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has established the charge leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Further the prosecution is able to prove the crucial link in the chain of circumstances leading to the death of the deceased Laxmappa. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is able to prove the links in the chain of circumstances, motive, participation of the accused in the commission of offence through circumstantial

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

47 evidence and therefore, the case against the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, this point is answered.

65.The difference between Murder and culpable homicide is

Intention. If the intention is present, the crime is said to be committed under section 300 of IPC. If the intention is absent, then the crime is dealt under section 304 of IPC. The thin line is the intention behind the act. All murders are culpable homicide, but the vice-versa is not true. Further, if the deceased is killed without pre- planning in sudden fight or in sudden anger because of somebody’s provocation or instigation, then such a death is called culpable homicide. Hence, whether the act done is culpable homicide or murder is a question of fact. The distinction between the two was aptly set-forth in the decision rendered by our Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P Vs. R.Punnayya, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 382), wherein it was held that, “In the scheme of the penal code, ‘culpable homicide’ is genus and ‘murder its specie. All ‘murder is ‘culpable homicide’ but not vice versa”.

66.It is settled principal of law that the court while determining the question whether it is culpable homicide or murder has to keep in focus key words used in sections 299 and 300 of IPC. It is the degree of probability of death which determines that whether a case would fall under the ambit of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

48 murder. But, when there is question as to decide that whether the particular offence would come within the scope of Part I or Part II of the culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the Court would check two important elements mentioned in the Section 304 of IPC.

The first element is intention and another one is knowledge. When there is a case which involves pure intention to cause death with the knowledge that the performed act is likely to cause death, then the accused would be convicted under the first part of section 304 of IPC.

But, if the element of intention for causing death is missing and the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death of the person, then in such a case, the accused would be punished under

Part II of section 304 of IPC.

67.In instant case, as per the prosecution, the deceased used to quarrel with the accused, questioned his laziness not doing any work and on 13.07.2023 at about 03:30 PM the deceased found the accused was sat under the tree without doing any work, upon that the deceased asked the accused to remove the unwanted plants from the cotton field, for which, the accused refused and grew wild and picked- up a stout stick available there and beat the deceased on his head, back and other parts of the body, resulting, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries, leading to his death.

68.It is already stated supra that the deceased is killed without pre planning in sudden anger because of somebody’s provocation or instigation, then such a death is called culpable homicide. In the

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

49 instant case, the act was done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injuries as is likely to cause death. The punishment is under Part-II of Sec.304 of IPC. Therefore the prosecution has established section 304 Part-II of

IPC against the accused.

RESULT:-

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-II of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C for the said offence.

{Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of April, 2025}

PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

NARAYANPET

Order of Sentence/Quantum of Sentence: Dt. 17-04-2025:

It is not the case where invoke the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act or Section 360 of Cr.P.C. When the Accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be awarded on him, he represented that he got daughter and she is depended upon him and pleaded mercy of the court.

Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned chief legal aid defence counsel for the accused.

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

50

The offence proved against the accused is grave and serious in nature against the public morale and it is required to be dealt with by awarding suitable punishment. Therefore, showing mercy against the accused is unwarranted. Having considered the nature and circumstances of the case and representation of the accused, I have passed the following sentence:

Thus, the accused is sentenced to undergoRigorous imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) years and he shall pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of IPC. The remand period of the accused from 17.02.2023 to 12.10.2023 shall be set off as against the term of imprisonment as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The case properties of

M.O.s 1 to 6, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The Accused is informed the appeal provision and also facility of the Legal Aid for filing an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by this Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this, the 17th day of April, 2025.

PRL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NARAYANPET.

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

51

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1: Boddanolla Narsimulu – defacto complainant cum junior brother-in-law of the deceased.

PW.2: Boddanolla Renuka – daughter of the deceased.

PW.3: Boddanolla Usenamma - mother of the deceased.

PW.4: Thikkayellappolla Pooja – said to be an eye-witness to the alleged incident.

PW.5: Thikkayellappolla Jamuna – said to be another eye-witness to the alleged incident.

PW.6: C.M.Anjaneyulu – said to be present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

PW.7: Dr.K.Rajesh Kumar - Civil Assistant Surgeon, government area hospital, Makthal, conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased.

PW.8: Uppari Shiva Shankar - said to be mediator present at the time of interrogation of the accused.

PW.9 : Tappa Pollappa - Auto driver - shifted the deceased from the scene of offence in his auto

PW10 : A.Raja Naik, Assistant director, State FSL, Hyderabad - analysed the material objects i.e., bloodstained cloths, bloodstained stick, bloodstained earth and controlled earth

PW11 : A.Parvathalu, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Makthal - registered the crime in this case.

PW12: K.Ramlal, Circle-Inspector of Police, Makthal Circle - investigating officer in this case.

FOR DEFENCE:

-None-

Dt.17.04.2025 S.C No.63 of 2024

52

-EXHIBITS MARKED -

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the police report, dated 15.07.2023 lodged by PW1 to the police concerned.

Ex.P2 is inquest report of the deceased dated 15.07.2023.

Ex.P3 is Crime Details Form dated 15.07.2023.

Ex.P4 is postmortem examination report over the dead body of the deceased dated 15.07.2023 issued by PW7.

Ex.P5 is relevant portion in the confession panchanama of the accused

dated 17.07.2023 in respect of discovery of M.O.1 stick.

Ex.P6 is seizure panchanama dated 17.07.2023, wherein the Circle- Inspector of Police seized M.O.1-stick from the possession and at the instance of the accused.

Ex.P7 is State FSL report dated 07.08.2023 issued by PW10.

Ex.P8 is FIR issued by PW11.

Ex.P9 is seven positive photographs covered the dead body of the deceased.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED, IF ANY:

M.O.1 is stout stick.

M.O.2 is bloodstained full sleeves white shirt of the deceased.

M.O.3 is white pancha of the deceased.

M.O.4 is red colour underwear of the deceased.

M.O.5 is bloodstained earth

M.O.6 is controlled earth.

PRL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NARAYANPET.

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, AT

NARAYANPET

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025

Present:- Mohd.Abdul Rafi, Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Narayanpet FAC:Fast Track Sessions Court for expeditious disposal of cases of rape and protection of children against sexual offences (POCSO) Act, Narayanpet.

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) No.65 OF 2024

==========================================

1.Complainant::The State represented by the Circle- Inspector of Police, Narayanpet Circle.

2.Names of the accused :: 1] Jogu Shivappa @ Shiva S/o Hanmanthu, Age: 27 years, Occ: persons Driver, R/o Chinnajatram village of Narayanpet Mandal.

2] Malekari NarsimuluS/o Kathalappa, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kollampally village of Narayanpet Mandal.

3] Malekari MangammaW/o Narsimulu, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kollampally village of Narayanpet Mandal.

4] Jogu HanmanthuS/o Hanmappa, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture,R/oChinnajatram village of Narayanpet Mandal.

5] Jogu RamulammaW/o Hanmanthu, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,R/oChinnajatram village of Narayanpet Mandal.

Dt.17-04-2025 2 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024

3.Crime No.::111/2024 of PS Narayanpet Rural.

4.Prosecution conducted By::Sri Akula Balappa, FAC of Spl.Public Prosecutor, Narayanpet.

5.Defence conducted by::Sri K.Narsimulu, Advocate for accused Nos.1 to 5.

6.Charges::U/Sec 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023, Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 against Accused No.1 and Section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 agasint Accused Nos.2 to 5.

7.Plea of the accused persons::“Not guilty”

8.Finding of the Court::“Found not guilty”

9.Result :: In the result, accused no.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023, Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Accused Nos.2 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and accordingly, accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted under Section 255 of BNSS for their respective offences. The bail bonds of accused nos.1 to 5 shall be in force for a period of six months from this date. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

==========================================

This Sessions case came before me on 07.04.2025 for final hearing; after hearing the arguments of Sri Akula Balappa FAC of

Special Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri

Dt.17-04-2025 3 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024

K.Narsimulu, Advocate for accused nos.1 to 5; upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. That the State represented by the Circle Inspector of Police,

Narayanpet circle has laid a charge sheet in Crime No.111/2024 of PS Narayanpet Rural charged U/Sec 65(1) of BNS 2023,

Sec.5(l)(j)(ii) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 against Accused

No.1 and charged under sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act, 2006 against Accused Nos.2 to 5 with the following allegations:-

i) That Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the victim-girl and they are residents of Kollampally village of Narayanpet

Mandal. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are parents of Accused No.1 and they are residents of Chinnajatram village of Narayanpet Mandal.

The victim-girl (PW2) is minor, attained the age of 16 years and she studied up to 6th class in Keshava Shishu Mandir at

Kollampally village and stopped her further studies due to financial problems. In the month of July, 2023 on one day, accused No.1 came to her village from Chinnajatram village to attend function held in the house of her younger father and got

Dt.17-04-2025 4 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 acquaintance with her, in turn both fallen in love with each other.

The victim-girl used to talk with accused no.1 on cell-phone

No.7207872314 belongs to her grandfather to the cell-phone no.

of accused no.1 bearing No.6281910348.

ii)It is further alleged that in the month of August, 2023 on one day, accused no.1 visited the house of the victim-girl in the absence of her family members and subjected her to sexual intercourse, in the same manner twice or thrice accused no.1 subjected her to sexual intercourse in her house, knowing the said information accused nos.2 to 5 performed the marriage of the victim-girl with accused no.1 on 23.11.2023 in the temple of

Lord Kanakarayudu at Abhangapur village, knowing the said information through 1098 call, Lingamalla Sarojamma (PW1) who is Supervisor, Integrated Child Development Services,

Narayanpet rescued the victim-girl and produced before

Gavinolla Narsimulu, Child Helpline Coordinator, Narayanpet (PW5) and Nakka Vijaykumar, Councilor for District Child

Protection Unit (LW6) and accordingly, they given counselling to the victim-girl and accused nos.1 to 5, where accused nos.2 to 4 gave an undertaking in the form of affidavit stating that until completion of 18 years of the victim age, they would not allow the victim-girl to meet the accused no.1 sexually and on the

Dt.17-04-2025 5 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 basis of said undertaking in the form of affidavit, the victim-girl was handed over to her parents and in turn the victim-girl went to her parents in law house.

iii)It is further alleged that accused no.1 subjected the victim- girl to sexual intercourse repeatedly in his house by violating the undertaking given before the Child rescue committee, resulting, the victim-girl conceived pregnancy of 7 months. On 21.09.2024 at 04:00 PM, Lingamalla Sarojamma, Supervisor, ICDS,

Narayanpet (PW1) went to PS Narayanpet Rural, and lodged a report narrating the undertaking given by accused persons and its violation and requested to take necessary legal action against accused no.1 to 5. Basing on the contents of report lodged by

PW1, a case in crime no.111/2024 under section 65(1) of BNS, 2023, Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 5(l)(j)(ii) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 was registered at PS Narayanpet Rural and investigated into.

iv)It is further alleged that during the course of investigation,

B.Shiva Shankar, Circle-Inspector of Police, Narayanpet circle (LW18) visited Narayanpet Rural Police Station, where he has examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and he collected copy of letter No.16/CWC/NRPT/2024 dted 05.09.2024 of CWD and copy of affidavit from PW1, which was given by accused

Dt.17-04-2025 6 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 nos.1 to 5 and produced the victim-girl before M.Sunitha, Woman

Sub-Inspector of Police, In-charge of Bharosa center, Narayanpet (LW16) with instructions to record the statement of the victim- girl under section 180 of BNS, 2023 as per the provisions laid in

POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, she has examined recorded the statement of the victim-girl.

v)It is further alleged that the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW18) along with the victim-girl visited first scene of offence at

Kanakarayudu temple of Abhangapur villgae, where the victim- girl shown 1st scene of offence and as such the Circle-Inspector of

Police (LW18) secured the presence of two mediators namely

Kotha Hanmanthu (LW9) and Lakpathi Karreppa (LW10), in their presence, he conducted panchanama for the 1st scene of offence and drawn its rough sketch by preparting crime details form.

Further he visited second scene of offence, situated in the house of the victim-girl at Kollampally village along with the same mediators and the victim-girl, where the victim-girl shown 2nd scene of offence. Accordingly, he conducted panchanama for the 2nd scene of offence and drawn its rough sketch by preparting crime details form. After that the victim-girl was referred to the district headquarters hospital, Narayanpet for medical examination.

Dt.17-04-2025 7 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 vi)It is further alleged that the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW18) visited ICDS office, Narayanpet, where he has examined and recorded the statement of D.Venkatamma, Additional Child

Development Project Officer, Makthal (PW3) and submitted a requisition to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet with a request to record the statement of the victim- girl and he visited Keshav Shishumandir, Kollampally village and collected bonafide certificate of the victim-girl from T.Laxmi

Narayana, headmaster, Keshav Shishumandir, Kollampally village (PW4), wherein the date of birth of the victim-girl is mentioned as 13.03.2009. While the investigation was in progress to apprehend accused no.1, on reliable information on 30.09.2024, the deputed I.D party rushed to Kollampally village and apprehended accused no.1 at his residence at 11:00 AM and brought him to Circle-Inspector office, Narayanpet circle and produced before the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW18) at 12:00

Noon. On interrogation, accused no.1 has confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case and as such the

Circle-Inspector of Police (LW18) effected the arrest of accused no.1 and referred him to the district headquarters hospital,

Narayanpet for potency test.

Dt.17-04-2025 8 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 vii)It is further alleged that after completion of potency test of accused no.1, the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW18) got accused no.1 remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure. The Circle-Inspector of Police (LW18) visited Child

Welfare Office, Narayanpet, where he has examined and recorded the statements of Gavinolla Narsimulu, Child helpline

Coordinator, Narayanpet (PW5) and Nakka Vijaykumar, Councilor,

District Child Protection Unit (LW6), Bachumalla Santhosha,

Social worker (LW7) and Md.Jilani, Out-reach worker in DCPU, who are the members of District Welfare committee, Narayanpet.

viii)It is further alleged that on 01.10.2024 the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW18) served the notice under section 35(3) BNSS, 2023 to accused nos.2 to 5 with instruction to appear before him on 02.10.2024 along with I.D proofs. In compliance of notice under section 35(3) BNSS, 2023 on 02.10.2024 accused nos.2 to 5 came to office of Circle-Inspector, Narayanpet circle and appeared before the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW18) and produced their ID proofs, acknowledgement of notice under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 and admitted their guilt in the commission of offence, as such the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW18) let off them with instructions to appear before the court

Dt.17-04-2025 9 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 concerned after receiving summons from the court for answering the charges.

ix)It is further alleged that Dr.Akshitha, Civil Assistant

Surgeon, district headquarters hospital, Narayanpet (LW11) has examined the victim-girl and preserved her vaginal smears and forwarded the same to the State FSL, Hyderabad for analysis.

Accordingly, A.Raja Naik, Assistant director, State FSL,

Hyderabad (LW13) analysed the vaginal smears of the victim-girl and furnished a report, stating that human semen and spermatozoa were detected in the vaginal smears of the victim- girl. Further, Dr.G.Pandu, Assistant director, State FSL,

Hyderabad (LW14) analysed DNA in vaginal smears of the victim- girl furnished a report, stating that “a male DNA profile has been generated”. After receiving report from State FSL, Hyderabad, the lady medical officer (LW11) furnished her final opinion, wherein she opined that “there is recent evidence suggestive of recent sexual intercourse”.

x)It is further alleged that Dr.Srikanth, Civil Assistant

Surgeon, district headquarters hospital, Narayanpet (LW12) has examined the potency of accused no.1 and furnished his report stating that it can be concluded that there is nothing to suggest

Dt.17-04-2025 10 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 that accused no.1 examined is not capable of performing sex act.

On requisition, Smt. Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana, Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet (LW15) has examined and

recorded the statement of the victim-girl under section 183 of

BNSS, 2023. After collecting all the documents and after completion of the investigation, the Circle-Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet against accused nos.1 to 5. Hence the charge.

2. This case was taken on file vide SC (POCSO) No.65 of 2024

Under sections 65(1) of BNS, 2023, Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 against accused no.1 and under section 10 of Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act, 2006 against accused nos.2 to 5 by the

Prl.Sessions Judge-cum- Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under POCSO Act, 2012 at Narayanpet and made over the same to this Fast track Special Sessions Court for Expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 at Narayanpet for disposal of the case as per law. On receipt of the case record from Prl.Sessions Court-cum-

Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under POCSO Act, 2012 at Narayanpet, this Fast tract Special Sessions Court proceeded with the case against accused nos.1 to 5. On appearance of

Dt.17-04-2025 11 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 accused nos.1 to 5 before this Court, all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to them as required under Section 230 of BNSS.

3.On 14.02.2025, accused nos.1 to 5 were examined under section 251 of BNSS by explaining the accusation made against them, wherein they denied the commission of offence, whereupon charges under sections 64(2)(m) of BNS 2023,

Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of

Child Marriage Act 2006 were framed against accused no.1 and a charge under section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 was framed against accused nos.2 to 5 read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, accused nos.1 to 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 documents. The prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses namely Nakka

Vijaykumar, Councilor, district child protection unit (LW6),

Bachumalla Santhosha, Social Worker (LW7), Md.Jilani, Out-reach worker in DCPI (LW8), Kotha Hanmanthu (LW9), Lakpathi

Karreppa (LW10), Dr.Akshitha, Civil Assistant surgeon, district headquarters hospital, Narayanpet (LW11), Dr.Srikanth, Civil

Dt.17-04-2025 12 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024

Assistant Surgeon, district headquarters hospital, Narayanpet (LW12), A.Raja Naik, Assistant director, State FSL, Hyderabad (LW13), G.Pandu, Assistant director, State FSL, Hyderabad (LW14), Smt Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana, Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet (LW15), M.Sunitha, WSI of

Police, I/c of Bharosa center, Narayanpet (LW16), Chakali

Ramudu, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Narayanpet Rural (LW17) and B.Shiva Shankar, Circle-Inspector of Police, Narayanpet circle (LW18) in view of the hostile evidence of the victim-girl and other material witnesses.

5. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the examination of accused nos.1 to 5 were examined U/Sec 351 of

BNSS by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them found in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, they denied the incriminating circumstances and did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

6. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of accused no.1 for the offences punishable U/Secs 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023, Section 6 of the Protection

Dt.17-04-2025 13 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and accused nos.2 to 5 for the offence punishable under section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 beyond all reasonable doubts ?

POINT:-

8.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is thataccused no.1 got acquaintance with the minor victim-girl on the name of love and marriage with his deceitful words, in the month of August, 2023 on one day, accused no.1 came to the house of the victim- girl in the absence of her family members and subjected her to sexual intercourse, in the same manner, accused no.1 two to three times subjected her in sexual intercourse with her in her house, knowing the said information, accused nos.2 to 5 performed marriage of the victim-girl with accused no.1 on 23.11.2023 in the temple of Lord Kanakarayudu at Abhangapur village, due to repeated penetrative sexual intercourse, the victim-girl conceived pregnancy of 7 months, upon that

Lingamalla Sarojamma, Supervisor, ICDS, Narayanpet (FPW1) resecured the victim-girl and produced before the Child Welfare

Committee, Narayanpet and accused nos.1 to 5 gave undertaking in the form of affidavit stating that they would not allow the victim-girl to meet sexually with accused no.1 until completion of her 18 years age, but they violated the said

Dt.17-04-2025 14 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 undertaking given by them as accused no.1 subjected the victim- girl sexually, resulting, the victim-girl got pregnancy and as such accused no.1 is liable for the offences punishable under section 64(2)(m) of BNS 2023, Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and accused nos.2 to 5 are liable for the offence punishable under section 10 of

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

9. In order to establish charges leveled against accused nos.1 to 5, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and their evidence is to be appreciated by the court. PW1 – Lingamolla Sarojamma, who is working as Supervisor, Integrated Child Development

Services, Narayanpet, in her evidence stated that on 05-09-2024, they received a letter from Child Welfare Committee Office,

Narayanpet stating that a child marriage was held on 23-11-2023 at Kanakarayudu temple, Abhangapuram village and instructed them to lodge a report in the police station concerned.

Accordingly, being a supervisor of ICDS, on 21-09-2024 at 04:00 pm, she went to P.S.Narayanpet Rural and lodged a report and the child, whose marriage was rescued and produced before

Child Welfare Committee, Narayanpet, where made counseling to the child and her parents, upon that Accused No.1 with whom, the marriage was held with the victim girl gave under taking by

Dt.17-04-2025 15 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 the accused No.1 and father of the victim girl stating that till the victim girl attains the majority i.e. completion of 18 years, the victim-girl would live separately from accused no.1, but Accused

No.1 violated the conditions in the affidavit and had sexual intercourse with the victim girl, resulting, the victim girl became pregnant.

10.PW1 in her evidence further stated that on 30-08-2024, the victim girl was again summoned to the Child Welfare Committee and accordingly, the victim girl came to CWC Committee and at that time, the victim girl was carrying pregnancy and the victim girl was enquired about her pregnancy and then she narrated what was happened with her. Then, as per the instructions of

CWC committee, she lodged Ex.P1 report against the accused persons in PS Narayanpet Rural as accused nos.1 to 5 violated their under taking.

11.PW2 – who is the victim-girl, in her evidence stated that for the last two or three years, herself and accused no.1 fell in love with each other and after attaining her majority, her marriage was performed with accused no.1. One Police constable of PS

Narayanpet Rural came to her house and took her to the Court at

Narayanpet and obtained her signatures on already written papers. She has identified her Ex.P2 – eight signatures on the

Dt.17-04-2025 16 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 statement recorded under section 183 of BNSS, 2023. She denied her knowledge with regard to contents of the said statement.

12.PW3 – D.Venkatamma, Additional, Child Development

Project Officer, Makthal, in her evidence stated that on 06.09.2024, their office received a letter from CWC, Narayanpet stating that the marriage of victim girl (PW2) was held on 23.11.2023 at Kanakarayudu Temple, Abhangapur. Thereafter, the victim girl was rescued and in that regard, the parents of the victim girl and the husband of the victim girl (Accused No.1) gave undertaking and later the said undertaking was violated and as such, instructed them to lodge a report in the police station concerned and accordingly PW1 lodged a report in P.S.Narayapet

Rural. Ex.P-5 is the letter of the CWC, dated 05-09-2024.

13.PW4 – T.Laxmi Narayana, Headmaster, Keshav Shishumand- hir, Kollampally village, in his evidence stated that on 30-09-2024 the Circle-Inspector of Police, Narayanpet Circle approached him with a request to issue bonafide certificate of the victim-girl.

Accordingly, he verified the relevant admission register and found the victim-girl studied to 1st class to 5th class during the academic years 2014 to 2019 and admission Number is 1326. He issued Ex.P6 bonafide certificate of the victim-girl wherein, her date of birth mentioned as 13-03-2009.

Dt.17-04-2025 17 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024

14.The final evidence before the court is that of PW5 –

Gavinolla Narsimulu, Child Helpline Coordinator at Balarakshak

Bhavan, Narayanpet, in his evidence stated that on 06-12-2023 at about 11:00 AM while he was discharging his duties at

Balarakshak Bhavan, Narayanpet, he received a phone call 1098 from Control Room, Hyderabad, stating that the a child marriage was held at Kanakarayudu Temple, Abhangapur village on 23.11.2023 and the victim-girl (child) was at the house of her husband by name Jogu Shivappa(A.1) at Chinnajatram village.

Upon that himself and his staff consisting of Nakka Vijay Kumar,

Counselor, District Child Protection Unit (LW6), D.Santhosha,

Social Worker(LW7), Md.Jilani, Outreach worker in DCPU (LW8) went to the house of Accused No.1 situated at Chinnajatram village and brought the victim-girl to their office i.e., Balarakshak

Bhavan and produced the victim-girl before Child Welfare

Committee, Narayanpet and on the instructions of CWC, the victim-girl was kept at Sakhi Centre, Narayanpet for counseling.

15.PW5 in his evidence further stated that the parents of the victim-girl i.e., Accused Nos.2 and 3 and the parents of Accused

No.1 i.e., Accused Nos.4 and 5 were called to Balarakshak

Bhavan, Narayanpet and accordingly, accused Nos. 2 to 5 came to Balarakshak Bhavan, Narayanpet and they attended

Dt.17-04-2025 18 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024

before Child Welfare Committee and they were explained

prohibition of Child Marriage Act, upon that Accused Nos.2 to 5 gave undertaking before CWC that the victim-girl kept separately from Accused No.1 till she attained majority. Accused Nos.2 to 5 gave written undertakings to that effect before CWC. As per the instructions of CWC, the victim-girl was handed over to her parents i.e., Accused Nos. 2 and 3.

16.PW5 in his evidence further stated that thereafter, they came to know that accused Nos. 2 to 5 violated the undertaking given before CWC and the victim-girl joined the society of accused No.1 and they are living together and accused No.1 participated in sexual intercourse with the victim-girl repeatedly, resulting the victim-girl became pregnant. Then, the victim-girl was under went medical check-up and they confirmed her preg- nancy and thereafter, as per the instructions of CWC

L.Sarojamma, ICDS Supervisor, Narayanpet (PW1) lodged Ex.P1 report against accused Nos. 1 to 5.

17.As could be seen from the evidence of PW1, that as per the instructions of CWC, Narayanpet through the letter No.16/CWC/

NRPT/2024 dated 05.09.2024, being Supervisor, Integrated Child

Development Services, Narayanpet went to PS Narayanpet Rural and lodged Ex.P1 report alleging that child marriage was held

Dt.17-04-2025 19 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 and resecured the victim-girl from the child marriage and obtained undertaking from accused nos.2 to 5, who are parents of the victim-girl and accused no.1, stating that they would she tht the victim-girl would not meet accused no.1 sexually till she attained majority, but instead of the said undertaking, accused no.1 subjected the victim-girl repeatedly, resulting, the victim-girl became pregnant. PW1 has no knowledge with regard to child marriage of the victim-girl and her evidence is useful only for the limited purpose that as per the instructions of CWC, Narayanpet vide letter No.16/CWC/NRPT/2024 dated 05.09.2024, she lodged a report in PS Narayanpet Rural against accused nos.1 to 5 for violating the undertaking given by them.

18.PW2, who is the victim-girl, did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned in-charge Special Public Prosecutor declared PW2 as hostile, subjected to cross examine them. Even- after, her cross examination, nothing incriminating was elicited as against accused nos.1 to 5. PW2, who gave incriminating statement against accused nos.1 to 5 before the police concerned, when she was examined U/Sec 180 of BNSS turned hostile while she was giving evidence before the court. At the instance of the learned in-charge Special Public Prosecutor, PW2 was declared as hostile and her Sec.180 of BNSS statement was

Dt.17-04-2025 20 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 marked as Ex.P3. PW2 has identified her Ex.P2 – eight signatures on the statement recorded under section 183 of BNSS, 2023.

19.As could be seen from the evidence of PW3 - Additional

Child Development Project Officer, Makthal, as per the instructions of Child Welfare Committee, Narayanpet, she got lodged Ex.P1 report through PW1 as accused persons violated the conditions in the agreeement filed in the form of affidavit. As could be seen from the evidence of PW3, she has no knowledge with regard to the marriage of the victim-girl was held on 23.11.2023 at Kanakarayudu temple of Abhangapur village and further she has also no knowledge with regard to rescue the victim-girl from the child marriage and further she has also no personal knowledge with regard to the undertaking given by the accused persons before child welfare committee.

20.As could be seen from the evidence of PW4, his evidence is useful only for the limited purpose as on the request of the police concerned, he issued Ex.P6 – bonafide certificate of the victim- girl, wherein the date of birth of the victim-girl was mentioned as 13.03.2009. There is no dispute from the side of accused persons with regard to date of birth of the victim-girl.

21.As could be seen from the evidence of PW5, he has no personal knowledge with regard to the child marriage of the

Dt.17-04-2025 21 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 victim-girl at Kanakarayudu temple of Abhangapur village on 23.11.2023, but as per the instructions of police control room,

Hyderabad himself and his staff went to the house of accused no.1 situated at Chinnajatram village and brought the victim-girl to their office i.e., Balarakshak Bhawan, Narayanpet and produced the victim-girl before CWC, Narayanpet and on the instructions of CWC, Narayanpet, the victim-girl was kept at

Bharosa center, Narayanpet for counseling. Accused Nos.2 to 5, who are the parents of the victim-girl and accused no.1 were called to Balarakshak Bhawan, Narayanpet and accordingly accused nos.2 to 5 came to Balarakshak Bhawan, Narayanpet and they gave undertaking before CWC that the victim-girl was kept separately from accused no.1 till she attained majority.

Accused Nos.2 to 5 gave written undertaking to that effect before

CWC, Narayanpet. The victim-girl was handed-over to her parents (Accused Nos.2 and 3) as per the instructions of CWC.

22.It is also in the evidence of PW5 that they came to know that Accused Nos.2 to 5 violated the undertaking given before

CWC as the victim-girl joined society of accused no.1 and they are living together and accused no.1 participated in sexual intercourse with the victim-girl repeatedly, resulting the victim- girl became pregnant.

Dt.17-04-2025 22 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024

23.The proseuction did not put-forth the undertaking given by accused nos.1 to 5 before CWC in the form of affidavit stating that responsibility was taken by them that the victim-girl would not live with accused no.1 and participate in sexual intercourse till she attained her majority. The prosecution did not put-forth any acceptable evidence before the court tht accused nos.1 to 5 violated the undertaking given by them in the form of affidavit

before CWC that they failed to restrained accused no.1 to

participate in sexual intercourse with the victim-girl.

24.There is neither direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence to prove guilt of the accused nos.1 to 5. There is no proof or evidence on record to show that accused nos.1 to 5 gave undertaking in the form of affidavit before CWC that responsibility would be taken by them restrained the accused no.1 to participate in sexual intercourse with the victim-girl till the victim-girl attained majority. Since the victim-girl has not supported the prosecution case and after declaring her as hostile except suggestions and confronting Ex.P3, which is her statement recorded under section 180 of BNSS, 2023, nothing substantial was extracted in her cross examination to discredit her testimony.

Dt.17-04-2025 23 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024

25.There is no iota of evidence on record to believe the prosecution case. The prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the medical officers, who have examined the victim-girl and the accused no.1 and the police officers who investigated into the case in view of the hostile evidence of the victim-girl and other material witnesses.

Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the case of the prosecution.

26.From the foregoing reasons, I am holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against the accused nos.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubts as such accused nos.1 to 5 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

RESULT:-

In the result, accused no.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023, Section 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage

Act, 2006 and Accused Nos.2 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 10 of Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act, 2006 and accordingly, accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted under Section 255 of BNSS for their respective offences. The bail bonds of accused nos.1 to 5 shall be in force

Dt.17-04-2025 24 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024 for a period of six months from this date. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

{Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 17th day of April, 2025}

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE, NARAYANPET

FAC FAST Track SESSIONS JUDGE For

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF

RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO)

ACT AT NARAYANPET

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

PW1 : Lingamalla Sarojamma - defacto complainant cum Supervisor, ICDS, Narayanpet.

PW2 : Victim-girl.

PW3 : D.Venkatamma – Additional Child Development Project Officer, Makthal.

PW4 : T.Laxmi Narayana – Head-Master, Keshava Shishumandhir, Kollampally village.

PW5 : Gavinolla Narsimulu – Child Helpline Coordinator, Balarakshak Bhawan, Narayanpet.

FOR DEFENCE: - -None-

-EXHIBITS MARKED -

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1: is the report dated 21.09.2024 lodged by PW1 to the police concerned

Dt.17-04-2025 25 S.C.(POCSO) No.65 of 2024

Ex.P2: eight signatures of PW2 on the statement recorded under section 183 of BNSS, 2023.

Ex.P3: Section 180 BNSS statement of PW2 recorded by the police concerned.

Ex.P4: Section 183 BNSS statement of PW2 recorded by Judicial

Magistrate concerned.

Ex.P5: is the letter of CWC dated 05.09.2024

Ex.P6: is the bonafide certificate of the victim-girl dated 30.09.2024 issued by PW4.

FOR DEFENCE:- Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED, IF ANY:- -Nil-

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE, NARAYANPET

FAC FAST Track SESSIONS JUDGE For

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF

RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO)

ACT AT NARAYANPET

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SESSIONS JUDGE FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT, AT

NARAYANPET

Monday, this the 24th day of March, 2025

Present:- Mohd.Abdul Rafi, Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Narayanpet FAC:Fast Track Sessions Court for expeditious disposal of cases of rape and protection of children against sexual offences (POCSO) Act, Narayanpet.

SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) No.31 OF 2024

==========================================

1.Complainant::The State represented by the Circle- Inspector of Police, Kosgi circle.

2.Names of the accused :: 1] Gandham Thirupathi @ Thirupathi S/o Suthari Laxmappa, persons Age: 26 years, Occ: Tractor driver, R/oDuppatigattuvillageof Kothapally Mandal.

2] Peddamle ChandraiahS/o Sayappa, Age: 64 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Duppatigattu village of Kothapally Mandal.

3] Peddamale Laxmidevamma W/o Chandraiah, Age: 59 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Duppatigattu village of Kothapally Mandal.

4] Suthari Ramulamma W/o late Laxmappa, Age: 69 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Duppatigattu village of Kothapally Mandal.

5] Venktappa S/o Laxmappa, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Duppatigattu village of Kothapally Mandal.

Dt.24-03-2025 2 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024

3.Crime No.::85/2024 of PS Maddur.

4.Prosecution conducted By::Sri Akula Balappa, FAC of Spl.Public Prosecutor, Narayanpet.

5.Defence conducted by::Sri Kurmanna Goud, Advocate for accused nos.1 to 5.

6.Charges::U/Secs 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 6 of POCSO, Act 2012 against accused no.1 and Section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 r/w Section 511 of IPC against accused nos.2 to 5.

7.Plea of the accused persons::“Not guilty”

8.Finding of the Court::“Found not guilty”

9.Result :: In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Accused Nos.2 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 r/w Section 511 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C for their respective offences. The bail bonds of accused nos.1 to 5 shall be in force for a period of six months from this date. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

==========================================

This Sessions case came before me on 17.03.2025 for final hearing; after hearing the arguments of Sri Akula Balappa FAC of

Special Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Advocate for accused persons; upon perusing the material available on record

Dt.24-03-2025 3 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. That the State represented by the Circle-Inspector of Police,

Kosgi circle has laid a charge sheet in crime no.85/2024 of PS

Maddur charged under sections 376 (2)(n) of IPC, Section 5(l) r/w section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act, 2006 against accused no.1 and charged under section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act r/w Sec.511 of IPC against accused nos.2 to 5 with the following allegations:-

I)That the victim-girl (PW2) and accused no.1 both are residents of Duppatigattu village of Kothapally Mandal. The defacto complainant by name K.Kavitha (PW1) was legal cum probation officer, Bala Rakshak Bhavan of Narayanpet. On 16.04.2024, SHO, PS Maddur has given information to Child

Development Protection Officer (CDPO), Maddur as that one child marriage was being performed at Duppatigattu village on 16.04.2024 i.e., on the same day, in turn the CDPO, Maddur has given information to DCPO, Narayanpet and on the information, the DCPO visited and rescued the victim Minor girl with the co- ordination of ICDS Supervisor and Police, Maddur, after that the

Dt.24-03-2025 4 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 victim girl was produced before CWC Bench, Narayanpet on 16.04.2024.

ii)It is further alleged that as per the orders of CWC, the said

Victim girl (PW2) was kept in Sakhi center at Narayanapet. The victim girl is younger among two children of her parents and she studied 1st class to 5th class at Government Primary School at

Duppatigattu village and 6th class to 10th class at KGBV,

Pediripadu village. The victim girl appeared 10th class exams in the month of March-2024. When she was studying 10th class in the year 2023, she came to Duppatigattu village on the occasion of Dasara holidays, meantime, accused no.1, who is her brother- in-law, came into contact with her and proposed her, for which, she accepted his love proposal.

iii)It is further alleged that after completion of the Dussehra holidays, she return back to hostel. In the month of January- 2024, she again came to Duppatigattu village for Sankranthi holidays, during holidays, accused no.1 and the victim-girl were moving very closely and it was noticed by their family members agreed to perform their marriage. Later she return back to hostel. On 30.03.2024 the victim girl completed her 10th class examinations, on the same day she was brought by her brother

Dt.24-03-2025 5 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 to her village. On next day ie. on 01.04.2024 at night about 11:00 PM, she came out of the house for nature calls, by taking the same as advantage, accused no.1 took her to his old house and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her with his deceitful words on the name of love and marriage. Again on 08.04.2024 in the night about 11:00 PM, accused no.1 had sexual intercourse with her at the same place by using same deceitful words.

iv)It is further alleged that on 09.04.2024, accused nos.2 to 5 fixed the marriage of accused no.1 with the victim-girl and tried to perform their marriage, knowingly the victim is minor. Upon that on 02.05.2024 at 08:00 PM K.Kavitha (LCPO) DCPO-ICPS,

Narayanpet (PW1) came to PS Maddur and lodged a report alleging that it is brought to the notice of SHO, PS Maddur by name Ramlal (LW15) on 16.04.2024, that child marriage was being performed to the victim-girl aged 16 years, upon that SHO,

PS Maddur has given information to CDPO, Maddur on the same day i.e., on 16.04.2024, in turn, CDPO, Maddur has given information to DCPO, Narayanpet, on the information, DCPO visited and rescued the victim minor girl with the coordination of

ICDS Supervisor and Police produced the victim-girl before CWC

Bench, Narayanpet on 16.04.2024. As per the orders of CWC the said victim-girl was kept in Sakhi center at Narayanpet.

Dt.24-03-2025 6 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024

v)It is further alleged that on 17.04.2024, the Sakhi center officials caused enquiry with the victim-girl, who informed that she is in physical relation with accused no.1, the same report was given by Sakhi center, Narayanpet to CWC. On 18.04.2024,

Ashok Shamala, Chairperson brought the said victim-girl before

CWC bench and enquired, upon that the said victim-girl before them stated that she is in physical relation with accused no.1.

The CWC bench, Narayanpet brought the same to the notice of

DCPO, on 27.04.2024, in turn brought the same matter to the notice of Kavitha, Legal cum Probation officer, Bala Rakshak

Bhavan, Narayanpet on 30.04.2024. According to the orders of

CWC, the incident was reported to the SHO, PS Maddur with a request to conduct investigation and take action.

vi)It is further alleged that basing on the contents of the report lodged by PW1, a case in crime no.85/2024 under section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act was registered at PS Maddur and CD file handed over to

J.Somanarsaiah, Circle-Inspector of Police, Kosgi circle (LW16) as the offence is grave in nature. During the course of investigation, he visited PS Maddur, has examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at PS Maddur. Further, he along with the victim girl visited the scene of offence situated at the house of accused

Dt.24-03-2025 7 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 no.1 Duppatigattu village of Kothapally Mandal, where the victim showed the scene of offence. As such the Circle-Inspector of

Police (LW16) secured the presence of two mediators namely

Bobbili Mohan Reddy (LW8) and Pedda Maibanna (LW9), in their presence, he conducted panchanama for the scene of offence by preparing crime details form.

vii)It is further alleged that the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW16) has examined and recorded the statements of

Nandarapuram Venkatramulu (PW3) and Bobbili Janardhan Reddy (PW4) at Duppatigattu village. Later, he collected 10th class Hall ticket Xerox copy of the victim-girl, as per the hall ticket of the victim-girl, date of birth of the victim-girl is 06.09.2008 and referred the victim girl for medical examination. Accordingly,

Dr.Akshitha, Civil Assistant Surgeon, district headquarters hospital, Narayanpet (LW10) has examined the victim-girl and preserved her vaginal swabs in glass slides in order to forward the same to State FSL, Hyderabad for analysis. On the basis of requisition submitted by Circle-Inspector of Police (LW16), Smt

Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana, Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Narayanpet (LW13) has recorded the statement of the victim-girl under section 164 of Cr.P.C.

Dt.24-03-2025 8 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 viii)It is further alleged that on 03.05.2024, the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW16) got recorded the statement of the victim-girl through M.Sunitha, Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, In-charge of

Bharosa center, Narayanpet (LW14) as per the provisions laid down in POCSO Act, 2012. While the investigation was in progress, on 21.05.2024 at 10:00 AM on receipt of reliable information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Maddur by name

A.Ramlal (LW15) rushed to Duppatigattu village and apprehended accused no.1 and brought him to the office Circle-

Inspector, Kosgi circle at 12:00 Noon and produced before the

Circle-Inspector of Police (LW16). On further investigation, he interrogated accused no.1 by securing the presence of two mediators namely Bobbili Mohan Reddy (LW8) and Pedda

Maibanna Goud (LW9), during the course of interrogation, accused no.1 has confessed to have committed the offence pertaining to this case.

ix)It is further alleged that the Circle-Inspector of Police effected the arrest of accused no.1 and referred him to the potency test. Accordingly, Dr.Anudeep, Civil Assistant Surgeon, government Civil hospital, Kosgi (LW11) has examined accused no.1 and issued a certificate, wherein he opined that it can be concluded that there is nothing to suggest that accused no.1 is

Dt.24-03-2025 9 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 examined is not capable of performing sex act. After completion of the said process, the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW16) got accused no.1 remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure. During the course of further investigation, the

Circle-Inspector of Police (LW16) visited Kasthurbha Gandhi

Balikala Vidyalaya at Pediripadu and collected bonafide certificate of the victim-girl from Gouramma, Special Officer,

KGBV, Pediripadu village (LW5), wherein the date of birth of the victim-girl is mentioned as 06.09.2008.

x)It is further alleged that the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW16) forwarded the vaginal smears of the victim-girl to the

State FSL, Hyderabad for analysis. On receipt of vaginal smears of the victim-girl at State FSL, Hyderabad, A.Rajanaik, Assistant director, State FSL, Hyderabad (LW12) analysed the vaginal smears of the victim-girl and issued a report stating that semen and spermatozoa were not detected in the vaginal smears of the victim-girl. On receipt of the report from State FSL, Hyderabad, the lady medical officer (LW10) issued her final opinion, wherein she opined that there no medical evidence on recent sexual intercourse, however nothing is suggestive of that sexual intercourse has not happened.

Dt.24-03-2025 10 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 xi)It is further alleged that during the course of further investigation, the Circle-Inspector of Police summoned Ura Maipal (LW6) and Munnuru Ramakrishna (LW7) to the office of Circle-

Inspector, Kosgi circle and he has examined and recorded their statements. Based on the statement of the witnesses, altered the section of law of by adding Section 9 of Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act r/w section 511 to the existing section 376(2)(n) IPC

Sec.5(l) r/w section 6 of POCSO Act. On 22.06.2024, the Circle-

Inspector of Police (LW16) served the notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C to accused nos.2 to 5 with instructions to appear before him along with ID proofs on 24.06.2024. On 24.06.2024 accused nos.2 to 5 in pursuance of notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C came to the office of

Circle-Inspector and admitted their guilt and produced their ID proofs. Hence, the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW16) served notice u/s 41-A (3) Cr.P.C and let off them with instructions to appear

before the Court concerned after receiving the summons from

the Court. After completion of the investigation, after collecting all the documents, the Circle-Inspector of Police (LW16) filed a charge sheet against accused nos.1 to 5. Hence, the charge.

2.This case was taken on file vide SC(POCSO) No.31 of 2024

Under sections 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act r/w 511 of IPC

Dt.24-03-2025 11 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 against accused no.1, under section 10 of Prohibition of child marriage act r/w 511 of IPC against accused nos.2 to 5 by the

Prl.Sessions Judge-cum- Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under POCSO Act, 2012 at Narayanpet and made over the same to this Fast track Special Sessions Court for Expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 at Narayanpet for disposal of the case as per law. On receipt of the case record from Prl.Sessions Court-cum-

Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under POCSO Act, 2012 at Narayanpet, this Fast tract Special Sessions Court proceeded with the case against accused nos.1 to 5. On appearance of accused nos.1 to 5 before this court, all the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

3.On 06.02.2025 accused nos.1 to 5 were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation made against them, wherein they denied the commission of offence. Upon consideration of the case record and documents submitted there with, after hearing the arguments on both sides, it was opined that there is a ground for presuming that accused nos.1 to 5 have committed the offence, whereupon charges U/Sec 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against

Dt.24-03-2025 12 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 accused no.1 and Section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 r/w Section 511 of IPC was framed against accused nos.2 to 5 read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 documents. The prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses namely

Gouramma, Special Officer, KGBV, Pediripadu village (LW5), Ura

Maipal (LW6), Munnuru Ramakrishna (LW7), Bobbili Mohan Reddy (LW8), Pedda Maibanna (LW9), Dr.Akshitha, Civil Assistant

Surgeon, district headquarters hospital, Narayanpet (LW10),

Dr.Anudeep, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Civil hospital,

Kosgi (LW11), A.Rajanaik, Assistant director, State FSL,

Hyderabad (LW12), Smt Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana, Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet (LW13), M.Sunitha,

Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, In-charge of Bharosa center,

Narayanpet (LW14), A.Ramlal, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Maddur (LW15) and J.Somanarsaiah, Circle-Inspector of Police, Kosgi circle (LW16) in view of the hostile evidence of the victim-girl and other material witnesses.

Dt.24-03-2025 13 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024

5. On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused nos.1 to 5 were examined U/Sec 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, they denied the incriminating circumstances and did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

6. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of accused no.1 for the offences punishable U/Sec 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 and accused nos.2 to 5 for the offence punishable under section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 r/w Section 511 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ?

POINT:-

8.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused no.1 had developed close acquaintance with victim-girl, with his deceitful words in the name of love and marriage, he had sexual assault on the victim-girl at his house at Duppatigattu village and further he continued sexual assualt by using same deceitful words on the minor girl and later accused nos.2 to 5 tried to perform the marriage of the victim-girl with accused no.1 and as such accused no.1 is liable for the offence punishable under

Dt.24-03-2025 14 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act., 2012 and accused nos.2 to 5 are liable for the offence punishable under section 10 of

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 r/w Section 511 of IPC.

9. In order to establish the charges leveled against accused nos.1 to 5, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 4 and their evidence is to be appreciated by this court. PW1 – Kammari

Kavitha, who is working as Legal cum Probation Officer at Bala

Rakshak Bhavan, Narayanpet, in her evidence stated that on 16.04.2024 at about 12:00 Noon, their office received a phone call i.e., Child Help line 1098 from S.I of Police, PS Maddur stating that one child marriage was going on at Duppatigattu village of

Kothapally Mandal. Upon that they passed the said information to the Anganwadi supervisor and child development officer, Maddur with a request to stop the said child marriage. Accordingly,

Anganwadi supervisor and CDPO, Maddur went to Duppatigattu village and stopped the said child marriage. On the same day,

Shravan Kumar, Social worker and Karishma, Protection Officer,

Non institution care went to Duppatigattu village along with

Police Aid and they rescued the victim-girl from the child mar- riage and took the victim-girl and produced before Child Welfare committee, Narayanpet. On the same day, the victim-girl was

Dt.24-03-2025 15 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 kept in Sakhi center, Narayanpet for counselling and her stay as per the orders of Child Welfare committee, Narayanpet.

10.PW1 in her evidence further stated that the counsellor by name Navya Bharathi counseled the victim-girl at Sakhi center,

Narayanpet, the victim-girl stated to her that she was in physical relationship with accused no.1 and further, the victim-girl stated to her that accused no.1 had sexual intercourse with her twice or thrice and in that regard, the said Navya Bharathi, Counselor prepared a report and submitted the same to the child welfare committee, Narayanpet on 18.04.2024. After perusal of the said report, the Chairperson of CWC by name Ashok Shyamala opined that a criminal case should be lodged with the police, Maddur. On 27.04.2024, she informed the same to incharge district child protection officer, Narayanpet by name A.Thirupathaiah. As per the instructions of the said DCPO, she lodged Ex.P1 report in PS

Maddur on 02.05.2024. As can be seen from the evidence of

PW1, she has no personal knowledge with regard to aforesaid facts. Her evidence is useful for the limited purpose that on the instructions of District Child Protection Officer (DCPO), she lodged

Ex.P1 report in PS Maddur.

11.PW2, who is the victim-girl, in her evidence stated that she did not give any statement against the accused persons. Police

Dt.24-03-2025 16 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 concerned due to suspicion, implicated the accused persons in this case. One police constable of PS Maddur took her to the court at Narayanpet and obtained her signatures on already written papers. She has identified her Ex.P2 – eight signatures on the statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. She denied her knowledge with regard to contents of the said statement. As seen from the evidence of PW2, she did not speak any incriminating circumstances against the accused persons and thereby she did not support the prosecution case. PW3 – Nadarapuram

Venkatramulu and PW4 - Bobbili Janardhan Reddy, who are said to be known fixing the child marriage of the victim-girl, in their evidence denied their knowledge with regard to case facts and thereby they did not support the prosecution case.

12. Therefore, the learned in charge Special Public Prosecutor declared PWs 2 to 4 as hostile, subjected to cross examine them.

Even-after, their cross examination, nothing incriminating was elicited as against the accused persons. PWs2 to 4, who gave incriminating statements against the accused persons before the police concerned, when they were examined U/Sec 161 of Cr.P.C turned hostile while they were giving evidence before the court.

At the instance of the learned in-charge Special Public Prosecutor,

Dt.24-03-2025 17 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024

PWs.2 to 4 were declared as hostile and their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements were marked as Exs.P3, P5 and P6 respectively.

13.There is neither direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence to prove guilt of accused nos.1 to5. There is no proof or evidence on record to show that accused no.1 developed close acquaintance with the victim-girl and had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly on the pretend of love and marriage and the same was brought to the notice of their parents and on 09.04.2024, accused nos.1 to 5 fixed their marriage and tried to perform their marriage knowingly the victim-girl is minor.

14.Since Pws 2 to 4, who are the victim-girl and other material witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case and after declaring them as hostile except suggestions and confronting Exs.P3, P5, and P6, which are alleged statements made under section 161 of Cr.P.C nothing substantial was extracted in their cross examination to discredit their testimony.

There is no iota of evidence on record to believe the prosecution case. The prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the medical officers, who have examined the victim-girl and the accused no.1 and the police officers who investigated into the case in view of the hostile evidence of the

Dt.24-03-2025 18 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 victim-girl and other material witnesses. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the case of the prosecution.

15.From the foregoing reasons, I am holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts as such accused nos.1 to 5 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

RESULT:-

In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 and Accused Nos.2 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 10 of Prohibition of Child

Marriage Act, 2006 r/w Section 511 of IPC and accordingly, accused nos.1 to 5 are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C for their respective offences. The bail bonds of accused nos.1 to 5 shall be in force for a period of six months from this date. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dt.24-03-2025 19 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024 {Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 24th day of March, 2025.}

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE, NARAYANPET

FAC FAST Track SESSIONS JUDGE For

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF

RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO)

ACT AT NARAYANPET

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

PW1: Kammari Kavitha - defacto complainant and Legal cum Probation Officer at Bala Rakshak Bhavan, Narayanpet.

PW2 : Victim-girl.

PW3 : Naradapuram Venkatramulu – said to be known fixing the date of the child marriage of the victim-girl.

PW4 : Bobbili Janardhan Reddy - said to be known fixing the date of the child marriage of the victim-girl.

FOR DEFENCE: - -None-

-EXHIBITS MARKED -

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1: report dated 02.05.2024 lodged by PW1 to the police concerned. Ex.P2: eight signatures of PW2 on the statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 recorded by police concerned. Ex.P4: Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 recorded by the police concerned.

Dt.24-03-2025 20 S.C.(POCSO) No.31 of 2024

Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 recorded by police concerned. Ex.P6: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 recorded by police concerned.

FOR DEFENCE:- Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED, IF ANY:- -Nil-

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE, NARAYANPET

FAC FAST Track SESSIONS JUDGE For

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF

RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

AGAINST SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO)

ACT AT NARAYANPET