IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS
TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, SURYAPET
(DAETD, THIS, THE 08 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024)
PRESENT: Ms. N. Amaravathi,
I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet.
FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for
Expeditious Trial and Disposal of
Rape and POCSO Act Cases,
Suryapet.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 119 of 2022
1.Name and description of :The State of Telangana through the Complainant.Sub Inspector of Police, PS Suryapet I Town.
2.Name and description of : Kudimalla Eshwar, S/o. Srinivas, the accusedAge: 21 years, Occ: Degree 2nd year student, R/o. Jammigadda, Suryapet Town.
3.Offences with which charged:U/Sec., 341, 354, 354-D, 509 of IPC and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, against the accused.
4.Plea of the accused :Not guilty
5.Finding of the Judge:Found guilty
6.Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/sec. 341, 354 and 509 of IPC and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and the accused is convicted U/sec 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The case property MO1 i.e. motor cycle bearing no.TS-29- L-9905, which was given to Kudimalla Sathish for interim custody shall be retained by him, after appeal time is over.
- 2 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
7.Prosecution conducted by :Spl. Public Prosecutor.
8.Defence defended by:Sri. A. Yellaiah, Advocate for accused.
This case coming on 07.02.2023 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana and in the presence of Sri. A. Yellaiah , Advocate for the accused and after having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The accused stand charged for the offences punishable U/Secs. 341, 354, 354-D, 509 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC for brevity) and sec. 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act (herein after referred as POCSO Act for brevity).
2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Suryapet I Town filed final report against the accused U/sec.173 Cr.P.C. in Cr. No. 84/2022 with the following allegations in brief are as follows:
i.For the last two years, the accused harassing the victim girl in the name of love. Then, she informed the same to her parents, then her parents warned him. On that, he was not harassed the victim girl for a period of one year. One month back, he went to the house of the victim girl in drunken state of mind and created nuisance, on hearing the same, her paternal uncle by name Naresh went to him and by seeing him, the accused went away.
- 3 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
Last few days back, the accused created rumors in locality by stating that “Aa Pilla Naa Pillara”. On 10.04.2022, around 06.45 p.m. victim girl and her cousin sister (Sai Pranavi) went to Sai Ram Kiranam Shop, while returning back to home, on the way, the accused wrongfully restrained them and stopped his bike infront of them and caught hold the hand of the victim girl/LW1 with an intent to insult her modesty, her sister raised hues and cries, then he leave her hand and went away. Thereafter, the victim girl/LW1 gave report to the police against the accused and the police registered it as a case in Cr. No. 84/2022 for the offences punishable
U/Secs. 341, 354, 354-D, 509 of IPC and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, against the accused and investigated into. After the completion of investigation, final report is filed. Hence, the charge.
3.After filing the final report by the police, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/sec., 341, 354, 354-D, 509 of IPC and Sec., 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, against the accused and numbered as SC no. 119/2020 by the Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Court, Nalgonda and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law.
4. On appearance of the accused, case copies furnished to the accused as contemplated U/sec., 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard both sides. Charges framed for the offences punishable U/sec. 341, 354, 354-D, 509 of IPC and Sec. 11 - 4 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
r/w 12 of POCSO Act, against the accused, readover and explained to him in vernacular, for which, the accused, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the victim girl and the informant who set the criminal law into motion LW1 as PW1, the father of the victim girl LW2 as PW2, the circumstantial witness LW4 and LW5 as PW3 and PW4, the eye witness
LW6/V. Ramakrishna Reddy as PW5, the Head Master of City High school at
Suryapet LW8/Tekumadla Muralidhar, who issued Study and conduct certificate of the victim girl as PW6, the panch witness for the confession panchanama of the accused LW13/Rachakonda Saidulu as PW7, the investigation officer LW14/E. Saidulu as PW8 and the Woman Assistant Sub-
Inspector, Bharosa Centre, Suryapet, who recorded the statement of the victim girl LW15/Sk. Saidabee as PW9 and the documents marked i.e.,
Exs.P1 to P7 and material objects marked i.e. MO1 on its behalf.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of the prosecution witnesses LW3, LW7, LW9 to LW12 i.e., LW3, LW7/Pagilla
Anjaneyulu, LW9/M. Sai Kumar, LW10/Kotha Srinivas, LW11/Lingampally
Sriharsha and LW12/Pangarekka Sanjeeva.
- 5 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
7. After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was called for examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating material evidence in the evidence of PW1 to PW9 and the accused denied the incriminating material evidence against him and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.
8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.
9.Now the points for determination are:
1 Whether victim girl is minor as on the date of the alleged incident as contemplated U/sec. 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act? 2 Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 341 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?
3 Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 354 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?
4 Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 354-D IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?
5 Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 509 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?
6 Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable U/sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, beyond reasonable doubt?
10. POINT NO.1: Perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e.
PW1 to PW9 and documents marked i.e., Ex. P1 to P7 and material objects - 6 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
marked i.e. MO1. In order to prove the case of the prosecution that the accused committed the offence punishable U/sec. 341, 354, 354-D, 509 of
IPC and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, it is just and necessary to prove the age of the victim. PW6/T. Muralidhar, who is Headmaster, City High
School, Suryapet testified that he issued study and conduct certificate of the victim girl under Ex.P3, as per Admission register (extract) marked as
Ex. P2 and the date of birth of the victim girl is 12.09.2004. Though, the defence denied the study and conduct certificate of the victim girl issued under Ex.P3, but the defence failed to disprove the date of birth of the victim girl is 12.09.2004 under Ex.P3. Hence, the sole testimony of PW6/T.
Muralidhar is sufficient to prove that the study and conduct certificate of the victim girl issued under Ex. P3 disclose the date of birth of the victim girl is 12.09.2004 and the age of victim girl is 17 years 7 months old and she was minor as on date of incident U/sec. 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act. Accordingly, the point no.1 is answered.
11. POINT NO. 2: Now the court has to be decided that the accused committed the offences punishable U/sec. 341, 354, 354-D, 509 of IPC and
Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act. PW1/victim girl testified that about two years back, the accused used to follow her, while she was going to school and coming from school and used to harass her in the name of love, then, she informed the same to her parents. When her parents questioned him then - 7 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
the accused answered that he will not trouble her in future and he kept quiet, which is corroborated with the version of her father PW2.
12. The victim girl /PW1 further testified that one month prior to the filing of this case, the accused went to her house in drunken state of mind and made nuisance by saying that “Aa pilla naadi”(she is mine) and by seeing her junior paternal uncle he went way, which is corroborated with the version of her father PW2 and her junior paternal uncle PW3.
13. According to PW1/victim girl and her cousin sister PW4, on 10th April- 2022, the day of Sri Ramanavami, herself and her cousin PW4 went to grocery shop and while returning back, the accused went on his bike in speed and stopped infront of them and caught hold of her right hand and pulled her and misbehaved with her. Then, she and her cousin made hue and cries and the accused went away and they informed the same to her parents. On the next day, the victim girl/PW1 gave report under Ex.P1 to police against the accused, which is also corroborated with the version of her father PW2, her junior paternal uncle PW3, her cousin sister PW4 and the eye witness PW5.
14. The prosecution examined PW5 as the eye witness, who testified that on 10.04.2022, between 6.30 to 6.45 pm, while he was present near Sai
Ram Kirana shop in the meantime, PW1 and PW4 went to kirana shop and - 8 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
while they were going away to their house, the accused went from their back on bike and stopped his bike infront of them and caught hold of the hand of PW1/victim girl, when PW1/victim girl and PW4/cousin sister of victim girl raised hue and cries, then the accused went away and he informed the same to her parents.
15. At this junction, it is necessary to read the contents of Sec.339 IPC i.e.
Sec.339 IPC: wrongfully restraint:
"whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent
that person from proceeding in any direction in which that
person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain
that person”
It is also necessary to read the contents of Sec.341 IPC i.e.
Sec.341 IPC: punishment for wrongfully restraint:
“whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished
with simple imprisonment for a term which may extent to one
month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees,
or with both" 16. Though, the victim girl/PW1 and her father PW2 failed to give report to police, when the accused followed the victim girl/PW1 in the name of love one year prior to the incident i.e. dt. 10.04.2022 and also when the accused went nearby the house of victim girl/PW1 one month prior to the incident dt. 10.04.2022 in drunken state of mind and made nuisance that “Aa pilla naadi”. But the evidence of PW1/victim girl and her father PW2 is clear that the said incident two year prior to 10.04.2022 and one month - 9 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
prior to 10.04.2022, lead to the mens rea of the accused to commit the offence on 10.04.2022.
17. PW1 to PW5 were cross examined by the defence. There are no disputes between the families of the accused and victim girl and they belongs to same village. In cross examination of PW1 to PW5, the defence did not illicit any adverse version of the prosecution. Then it is clear that the defence taken by the accused that the accused did not commit any offence is false. Hence, the evidence of PW1 to PW5 is reliable and trustworthy. In this regard, it is relied on decisions 1. Vijay @ Chinee Vs.
State of M.P. reported in (2010) SCC 191 and another decision 2. Ganesan
Vs. State represented by Inspector of police decided by our Hon’ble Apex
Court in Crl. Appeal No. 680 of 2020, wherein it was held that“ Conviction can be based on sole testimony of victim if reliable and trust-worthy”.
18. The testimony of the victim girl/PW1 and the father of victim girl
PW2, junior paternal uncle of victim girl PW3, cousin sister of the victim girl PW4, who is present along with victim girl at the time of incident took place on 10.04.2022 and the eye witness PW5 is sufficient to prove the contention of the prosecution that the accused wrongful restraint the victim girl/PW1 on 10.04.2022 attract the ingredients of the offence punishable U/sec. 341 IPC, against the accused.
- 10 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
19. POINT NOs.3 to 6: The evidence of the victim girl/PW1 is clear that while she along with her cousin PW4 returning back to their house from grocery shop, the accused went on bike and stopped infront of them and caught hold of her hand, pulled her and misbehaved with her, which is also corroborated with the version of PW4, who is the cousin of victim girl/PW1, father of victim girl/PW1, junior paternal uncle of victim girl
PW2 and PW3 and the eye witness PW5.
20. A charge was framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 354, Sec.
354-D and Sec.509 IPC are as follows:
It is also necessary to read the contents of Sec. 354 IPC i.e.
Sec.354 IPC Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrate
her modesty:
“whoever, assaults or uses criminal force to any woman,
intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby outrage her modesty(shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be
less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall
also be liable to fine”
It is also necessary to read the contents of Sec. 354-D IPC i.e.
Sec.354-D IPC Stalking: (1) Any man who:
(i) Follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman: or
(ii) Monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, - 11 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who perused it proves that:
(i) It was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State, or
(ii) It was pursed under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) In the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) “ whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished
on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable
to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction,
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec.509 IPC Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman:
“Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman (shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years, and also with fine”
21. The Investigation Officer PW8/E.Saidulu testified that on 11.04.2022, at 10.00 pm, he received report under Ex.P1 and registered the case and issued First Information Report under Ex.P5. Later, he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P6 and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P7 in presence of the - 12 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
panch witnesses LW10/Kotha Srinivas and LW11/Lingamapally Sriharsha.
But the prosecution failed to examine both the said panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama LW10/Kotha Srinivas and
LW11/Lingamapally Sriharsha. Though, the prosecution failed to examine the panch witnesses LW10/Kotha Srinivas and LW11/Lingamapally
Sriharsha, but the evidence of PW1 to PW5 is clear that the accused wrongfully restrained PW1/victim girl and PW4/cousin sister of the victim girl at scene of offence and caught hold of the hand of PW1/victim girl, pulled her and misbehaved with her.
22. The Investigation Officer PW8/E. Saidulu further testified that on 16.04.2022, the accused voluntarily went to Police station and confessed the commission of offence and the PW8/E.Saidulu conducted the confession-cum-seizure panchanama and seized one motor cycle bearing no. TS-29-L-9905 i.e. MO1 from the possession of the accused under the cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama in presence of the panch witnesses LW12/Pangarekka Sanjeeva and PW7/Rachakonda Saidulu, which is supported by the version of that panch witness PW7/R. Saidulu.
23. A charge was framed for the offence U/sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.
At this stage, it is necessary to read the contents of Sec. 11 of POCSO Act i.e.
- 13 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
Sec. 11 of POCSO Act Sexual harassment:
“ A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child
when such person with sexual intent”
(i) utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any
gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the
intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such
gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child, or
(ii) makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person, or
(iii) shows any object to a child in any form or media for pornographic purposes; or
(iv) repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a
child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other
means; or
(v) threatens to use, in any form of media, a real or fabricated
depiction through electronic, film or digital or any other mode,
of any part of the body of the child or the involvement of the
child in a sexual act, or
(vi) entices a child for pornographic purposes or gives gratification therefore.
It is also necessary to read the contents of Sec. 12 of POCSO Act i.e.
Sec. 12 of POCSO Act Punishment for sexual harassment:
A charge was framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 12 of POCSO
Act i.e. the contention of Sec.12 of POCSO Act are as follows:
"Whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine” - 14 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
24. The testimony of PW1/victim girl and her cousin PW4 corroborated with the version of father of victim girl /PW1, junior paternal uncle of victim girl/PW1 and the eye witness PW.5. No infirmity, as such could be found in the evidence of PW1 to PW5 nor the evidence of the victim girl/PW1 and her cousin PW4 smacks tutoring by their family or anybody else to them. The evidence of PW1 to PW5 not shaken by the evidence of the defence. The court concluded that the statement of the victim girl /PW1 as if sterling quality. The combined evidence of the prosecution lays down foundation facts which disclose the accused committed the offence and this court find no reason to disbelieve or discredit the statement of the victim girl/PW1 and other witnesses PW2 to PW5. The evidence of the victim girl/PW1 and cousin sister of victim girl PW4 and the evidence of other witnesses PW2, PW3 and PW5 is very clear, reliable and trustworthy.
As such, the evidence of the victim girl /PW1, cousin sister of victim girl
PW4, father of the victim girl PW2, junior paternal uncle of the victim girl
PW3 and the eye witness PW5 is sufficient to believe that the accused followed the victim girl/PW1 in the name of love, though the victim girl shown disinterest upon him and the accused went nearby the house of victim girl/PW1 and made nuisance in drunken state of mind and said that “Aa pilla nadi” and also made rumor and later the accused restraint the
Vitim girl and caught hold of her hand, pulled her and misbehaved with the victim girl/PW1 intend to insult the modesty of her, who is minor age of 17 years 7 months old, attract the ingredients of the offences - 15 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
punishable U/sec. 341, 354, 354-D, 509 IPC and also attract the ingredients of the offence U/sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.
25. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 11 (iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act. Therefore, this court has taken presumption under secs. 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. The ingredients of Sec 29 of the POCSO
Act and Sec.30 of the POCSO Act are as under.
Sec. 29 - Presumption as to certain offences: Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special
Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.
Sec.30 - Presumption of culpable mental state 1. In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state, but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
- 16 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
2. For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
In this present case, the prosecution prove the culpable mental state of the Accused. Hence, the accused has committed the offence under section 11 (iv) r/w. Sec.12 of POCSO Act.
26. Under Sec 29 and Sec. 30 of POCSO Act, there is also presumption regarding the guilt of an accused. As a result, the prosecution has to lay down to prove the fundamental facts regarding the guilt of the accused. But the prosecution not of beyond reasonable doubt. Once facts are proved, the onus is on the accused to lead evidence to rebut the presumption under section 29 and Sec.30 of the POCSO Act.
27. On considering the above discussion this Court safely concluded that the accused committed rape of victim who is under the age of 16 years 6 months repeatedly. Therefore, the accused is committed the offence U/Sec.
354, 354-D, 509 of IPC.
28. Sec.42 of the POCSO Act deals: Alternative punishment:
The contents of Sec. 42 of POCSO Act is as follows:
- 17 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
“where an act or omission constitute an offence punishable under this
Act and also under Sections 166-A, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D, 370, 370-A, 375, 376 (376A, 376 AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB) (376E, Sec.509 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 67-B of Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)) then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment only this act or under Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree. Hence, the punishment prescribed for the offence punishable U/Sec. 354-D of IPC is equivalent to the offence
U/sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act. Therefore, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act. Further, the punishment prescribed for the offence U/sec. 354 IPC is more than the offence U/sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act. Further, the punishment prescribed for the offence U/sec.509 IPC is equivalent to the offence U/sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.
29. The offence took place initially two years prior to 10.04.2022, one month prior to 10.04.2022 and on 10.04.2022 and the report given on 11.04.2022. By virtue of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (amendment) Act, 2019 (Ac.25 of 2019) which come into force w.e.f.
16.08.2019. Sec.12 of POCSO Act originally the punishment prescribed for the offence punishable U/sec. 12 of POCSO Act as:
- 18 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
Sec. 12 of POCSO Act Punishment for sexual harassment:
"Whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine”
Prior to amendment Sec. 12 of POCSO Act is same as after amendment i.e.
Sec. 12 of POCSO Act Punishment for sexual harassment:
"Whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine”
30. The above amendment 16.08.2019 is applicable in this case on hand as the offence took place two years prior to 10.04.2022, one month prior to 10.04.2022 and on 10.04.2022.
31. Sec.354 IPC: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty:
“whoever, assaults or uses criminal force to any woman,
intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby outrage her modesty(shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be
less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall
also be liable to fine”.
Hence, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.
354 IPC as the act provided punishment greater in degree then Sec. 12 of
POCSO Act.
- 19 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
32. There is no record available with respect to the material object MO1 i.e. motor cycle bearing no.TS-29-L-9905 except the Xerox copy of RC which stand in the name of Kudimalla Sathish as registered owner. The prosecution filed memo at the time of arguments stating that the case property MO1 given to owner of the same i.e. Kudimalla Sathish for interim custody and the accused received the same and endorsed as the said case property MO1 received by his elder brother namely Kudimalla
Sathish for interim custody from the Hon’ble I ADJ Court, Nalgonda.
33. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable
U/sec. 341, 354 and 509 of IPC and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and the accused is convicted U/sec 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the said charges.
The case property MO1 i.e. motor cycle bearing no.TS-29-L-9905, which was given to Kudimalla Sathish for interim custody shall be retained by him, after appeal time is over.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer G-I and after correction,
pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 08 th day of February,
2024).
I Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Suryapet FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Suryapet
34. I would like to refer a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Surendra Singh reported in AIR 2015 SC 3980, wherein it was held that, - 20 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
"Justice demands that courts should impose punishments befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime, but the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The court will be falling in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been not only against the individual victim, but also against the society to which both the criminal and the victim belong.
From the aforementioned guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court, let us determine the quantum of sentence.
35. HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:
Heard with regard to quantum of sentence. The accused stated that he is having parents, who are depending upon him and he is sole person to look after them as his elder brother is residing separately with his family. The accused is suffering with breathing problem.
36. Having regard to the fact that the offence committed by the accused is against a minor girl who is age of 17 years old at the time of incident.
Hence, the accused cannot be given advantage of provisions of Probation of offenders Act.
37. Accused is sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the offence punishable U/sec. 341 IPC.
- Accused is sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) for the offence punishable U/sec. 354 IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
- Accused is sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) for the offence punishable U/sec. 509 IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
- 21 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
- Accused is sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) for the offence punishable U/sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
- The accused shall undergo the above sentences concurrently.
38. There is no remand period undergone by the accused to be set off under Sec. 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
39. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment and the availability of free legal aid. A free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused U/Sec 363 of Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer G-I and after correction,
pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 08 th day of February,
2024).
I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Suryapet FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Suryapet :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the Prosecution:
PW1/LW1 : XXX (Name is not disclosed as barred U/sec. 228-A of IPC and as observed by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs Puttaraj (2004 (2) ALT (Sc)6 as discussed in para no.2 of judgment.
PW2/LW2 : XXX (Name is not disclosed as barred U/sec. 228-A of IPC and as observed by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs Puttaraj (2004 (2) ALT (Sc)6 - 22 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
as discussed in para no.2 of judgment.
PW3/LW4 : XXX (Name is not disclosed as barred U/sec. 228-A of IPC and as observed by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs Puttaraj (2004 (2) ALT (Sc)6 as discussed in para no.2 of judgment.
PW4/LW5 : XXX (Name is not disclosed as barred U/sec. 228-A of IPC and as observed by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs Puttaraj (2004 (2) ALT (Sc)6 as discussed in para no.2 of judgment
PW5/LW6 : Velijireddy Ramakrishna Reddy
PW6/LW8 : Tekumadla Muralidhar
PW7/LW13 : Rachankonda Saidulu
PW8/LW14 : E. Saidulu
PW9/LW15 : Sk. Saida Bee,
For the Defence :
None
:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::
For the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Report, dt. 11.04.2022
Ex.P2: Extract of the Admission register
Ex.P3: Study and conduct certificate of the victim girl
Ex.P4: Confession-cum-seizure panchanama
Ex.P5: First Information Report
Ex.P6: Scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P7: Rough sketch - 23 - Sessions Case No. 119 of 2022 FT Spl. Court for ET and DOP Act cases, Suryapet.
For the Defence:
-NIL-
Material Objects Marked
For the Prosecution :
MO1 motor cycle bearing no. TS-29-L-9905
I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Suryapet FAC: The Fast Tract Spl. Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Suryapet .