SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FAST TRACK SPECIAL
COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CASES
AT JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY.
Wednesday, the 09th day of April, 2025
PRESENT: SRI P. NARAYANA BABU,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY
FAC SPECIAL JUDGE FAST TRACK SPECIAL
COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL
AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CASES
JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY
SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) NO. 54 OF 2022
SESSIONS CASE (POCSO) NO. 69 OF 2021 (OLD)
Crime No.42/2020 of PS., Adavimutharam
1.Name of the Complainant: The State of Telangana, through Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kataram.
2.Name of the Accused: Gouraveni Arjun, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged: 23 Years, Caste: ST Koya, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Nimmagudem Village of Mahamutharam Mandal.
3.Offence with which Charged: under Sections 417, 420, 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and offence under Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
4.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.Finding of the Court: Found guilty : The Accused is found guilty for the
6.Sentence or Order offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 (l) r/w Section 6 1/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offences.
(i) The Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 417 & 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offences.
(ii) The Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TWENTY (20) Years and imposed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for the offences under Section 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for SIX (6) Months.
(iii) Further, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TWENTY (20) Years and imposed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) for the offence under Section 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 2/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) and in default of payment of fine, the Accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for SIX (6) months. All the above sentences shall run concurrently.
(iv) Considering the gravity of the offence as the victim/PW1 suffered both mental, physical harm and injury/mental trauma and bodily injured, which cannot be compensated monetarily, however to meet the endeavour justice for rehabilitation, the accused is hereby directed to pay victim compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only),
(v) The Liaison Officer and Court Constable reported that there is no victim compensation paid till today by the Government. There is no evidence before this Court as the Government paid the victimcompensation,even registered the crime in the year 2020 till today. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that as contemplated under Section 357-A of CrPC and under POCSO Act/VictimCompensation Scheme/Nirbaya Funds, the matter is referred to the District Legal Services Authority, Jayashankar Bhupalpally to determine for fair victim compensation to the victim/PW1, as the PW1 is entitled 3/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) to get upto Rs.10,50,000/- wherever the offence committed under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC and offence under Section 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, within one month and submit the report.
(vi) The Station House Officer, PS., Adavimutharam hereby directed to furnish the Savings Bank Account particulars of victim/PW1 in order to credit the awarded compensation amount into her account. To avoid multiple claim from the other Institute or Government, this office is hereby informing the same to the State LegalServicesAuthority, Hyderabad, the District Legal Services Authority, Jayashankar Bhupalpally and the District
Magistrate,Jayashankar
Bhupalpally. If any excess compensation amount collected by the victim which she entitled, the District Magistrate as well as this Court are having power to recover the excess claim, in accordance with law.
(vii)Theperiodof imprisonment already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
(viii) There is no order of case property, as no case property in this case.
(ix) This Judgment copy supplied with free of cost to Accused.
(x) The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment before the
Hon’ble High Court for the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad.
(xi) The accused is also informed of his right to Free Legal Aid by approaching the Hon’ble State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, if he does not have means to prefer an Appeal.
:Sri N. Vishnuvardhan Rao,
7.Name of the Prosecution CounselSpecial Public Prosecutor :Sri D. Srikanth,
8.Name of the Defence Counsel Advocate for Accused.
This case is coming before me on 20.03.2025 for final disposal in the presence of both the counsel on record; upon hearing both sides and upon considering the material evidence available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
5/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
J U D G M E N T
The sole accused is arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and offence under Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2.The brief allegations of the prosecution case are as follows:
On 09.04.2020 at 19:00 hours the defacto complainant/victim lodged a report alleging that she is studying 9th class at Kasturba Gandhi
Girls Residential School, Mahamutharam. At the time of Dasara holidays, she came to her house and did not return to hostel due to their poor economical conditions. Her relative/brother-in-law by name
Gouraveni Arjun followed and believed her that he was loving her and he will marry her as their relation also matched. On that, she believed his words and loved him. Further, he believed her that he will definitely marry her and several times he participated sexual intercourse with her, in her house when no one present. Since three months she did not get menses and about 15 days back she suffered with stomach pain suspiciously. On that, she done pregnancy test at her house and found she is three months pregnant. She narrated to her parents and on 28.03.2020 summoned Gouraveni Arjun before the village elders and 6/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) asked about the marriage, then he agreed that he was reason for her pregnancy and also agreed before 1) Nunavath Dhansingh, 2) Gouraveni
Pedha Rajaiah, 3) Gouraveni Raghupal that he will marry the complainant. Further, the informant asked the Arjun that when he will marry her, but he was stating that he did not responsible for her pregnancy. Hence, she requested to take legal action against him, who gave false promises to her and sexually intercourse with her and pregnancy.
3.Basing on the said complaint the PW18/Ch. Raju, the then Sub
Inspector of Police, PS., Adavimutharam registered a case in
Cr.No. 42/2020 under Sections 417, 420, 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and offence under Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused and issued FIR; later, he handed over the CD file to his superior officer/PW19 for investigation. On 10.04.2020, PW19 took up the investigation, verified the investigation done by PW18 and found to be on proper lines; PW19 referred the victim/PW1 to Government Maternity Hospital,
Hanmakonda/PW13 for medical examination; PW13 examined the victim/PW1 and issued certificate; on 11.04.2020, himself along with
WSI/PW14 along with photographer/LW12 went to the house of 7/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) victim/PW1 and examined her; the PW14 examined the victim and recorded her statement; he also examined PW2 to PW5, PW7, PW8 &
PW12, LW2, LW5/G. Pedda Rajaiah and LW6/G. Raghupal and recorded their statements; LW12 videographed the examination of victim and issued CD; later, he examined the PW14 & LW12 and recorded their statements; he also collected certificate under Section 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act; he secured panchas PW11 & LW17 and conducted crime detail form and obtained signatures of panchas; he made requisition to
PW9 for issuance of DOB certificate of victim/PW1 and received the same.
4.On 27.04.2020, on credible information of available of Accused in his house, hence, himself along with his team proceeded to
Nimmagudem Village and apprehended the Accused from his home; as the Accused was in mood of confession, he secured PW15 & PW16 and recorded his confession statement; he also seized the mobile phone from his possession in the presence of same panchas and recorded seizure panchanama along with confession; later, they brought the
Accused to Police Station, Kataram; he referred the Accused to Medical test before the LW22/PHC, Kataram and obtained certificate; after completion of all formalities, he produced the Accused before JMFC, 8/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
Manthani and remanded into judicial custody; on 12.07.2020, he examined PW6 & PW10 and recorded their statements; he also made requisition to the JMFC, Manthani/LW24 to examine the victim, on which the JMFC, Manthani/LW24 examined the victim on 10.09.2020 and recorded her statement.
5.On 12.09.2020, the investigation officer made a requisition to
Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar to refer the Accused and PW1/Victim along with new born baby for DNA test and obtained orders; accordingly, they sent the Accused, PW1, new born baby to FSL,
Hyderabad and received FSL Report; as per the report, the PW1 declared as biological mother of the new born baby, but the Accused is not biological father of the female child. On 25.03.2021, he filed a requisition to the Superintendent of Police, Bhupalpally for CDR and
Customer Application Form of mobile No.6301680371 (Accused) and 7671090616 (PW1/Victim); the PW17 submitted CDR and Customer
Application Form of the Accused and victim; after collection of all records from the concerned and after completion of investigation PW19 filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of
POCSO Act, 2012.
9/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
6.The I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 (2)
(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and offence under Section 5 (l) r/w
Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of
CrPC, 1973. After bifurcation of new Judicial Districts and as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, the case has transferred to the Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial &
Disposal of Rape & POCSO Act Cases, Jayashankar Bhupalpally and re-numbered as SC (POCSO) No. 54/2022, on the point of jurisdiction, for disposal in accordance with law.
7.Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused on charges.
8.The charges for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and offence under Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused were framed and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
9.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to
PW19 and got marked Ex.P1 to P19. During the cross examination of
PW18, the learned defence counsel got marked Ex.D1 & D2. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under
Section 313 CrPC explaining him the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he denied as false and reported no defence evidence.
10.Heard both sides and perused the record. The Special Public
Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved the guilty of both accused by examining PW1 to PW19 & Ex.P1 to P19 and prayed before this Court to convict the accused. The Special Public Prosecutor further argued that the accused exploited the victim as he is close relative to her i.e., brother-in-law and induced the victim for frequently participate physical intercourse with him. On the other hand, the defence counsel argued that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilty of the accused and the police falsely implicated innocent in this case and prayed for acquit both the accused. Further, the defence counsel argued that the accused is not found as biological father of the new born baby of PW1 and DNA not tallied. Moreover, the victim begot child and delivery in CHC, Mahadevpur and themselves recorded the age of 11/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) the victim 21 Years. The learned defence counsel filed memo along with citations and relied on the judgments of Apex Court in 1) 2024 Crl. LJ 38, 2) 2022 (3) ALT (Crl) 72 (TS), 3) 2024 Crl. LJ 4637 & 4) 2024 Crl. LJ 3096 and the same are applicable to the present case in order to acquit the accused.
11.Now the point for determination is :
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused under
Sections 417, 420, 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and offence under
Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
beyond all reasonable doubt ?
12.POINT:
Rule of law:
Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
376. Punishment for rape.— (1)Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which [shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine] (Subs. by Act 22 of 2018, s. 4, for “shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine” (w.e.f. 21-4-2018) (2)Whoever,—
(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
12/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
Section 5 (l) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 reads as follows:
(l) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years.
Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 reads as follows:
Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault: (1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person, and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.
13.In order to prove the said allegations, the prosecution examined the PW1 to PW19 to prove the guilt of the accused.
14.The testimony of PW1 which reveals that she is residence of
Nimmxxxx Village of Adavxxxx Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally
District. The LW2 & PW2 are her parents. She discontinued her 9th Class.
Her Date of Birth is “14.08.2003”. On 03.03.2019, there was Saree function of PW1, the Accused and his father attended the said function; the Accused obtained her mobile number and used to phone calls to her; the Accused used to play volleyball beside their house and used to seen her. She was studied from Hostel. Due to having ear pearcing function of her relatives, hence she came to her village. On 14.06.2019 parents of PW1 went to coolie work and her brother went to school, the Accused came to her house and he said her that he is her distinctive brother-in-law and he loving her, induced and forced to participate in physical intercourse.
13/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
15.After two days, she went to her hostel. In Dussehra holidays, she returned to her home. The Accused came to house of PW1 and he put her legs and requested not to go hostel and he would not stay without seeing her. The parents of PW1 used to go labour work and her brother used to go school, in which the Accused used to come their house. Since then she stayed in their house as she has no interest to continue her education. The Accused promised her to marry her and he used to participate physical intercourse in the absence of her parents. One day, the same witnessed by the brother of PW1 and Kavitha/PW8.
16.After three months she came to know that she conceived. The
PW1 tried to go to house of her maternal grandmother at Maharastra along with her mother/LW2, but due to had Carona lockdown, they went to house of her paternal grandmother at Peddampet of Mahadevpur
Mandal. The PW1 suffered with stomach pain, hence her grandmother referred to RMP Doctor at Ambatipalli. The said RMP Doctor/PW6 confirmed that she has carrying three months. The Pw1 informed the same to her parents and Accused and called him for panchayath in presence of the elders, but he not appeared as by that time there was marriage of sister of the Accused. After sometime the Accused 14/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) appeared before the caste elders and he admitted that he would marry the PW1 after attaining her majority.
17.After 10 days of said panchayath, the accused declared that he is noway concerned with the PW1. Hence, she lodged a report before the
Police, Adavimutharam as in Ex.P1. Police examined and recorded her statement. The PW1 also stated the same before the Hon’ble JMFC,
Godavarikhani/LW24 as in Ex.P2 after gave birth to a baby.
18.During the cross examination of PW1 it is elicited that the Ex.P1 scribe by the Police person on narration of PW1. The Accused is former.
The PW1 do not know how much land he is having. The accused is her brother-in-law by courtesy and close relative. The PW1 has not disclosed about physical relationship with the Accused to anyone till conformation of her pregnancy. The said phone is belongs to her father, but it used to herself, her brother and parents. The PW1 has not mentioned the phone number either in her report under Ex.P1 or statement under Section 161 CrPC. The PW1 also not mentioned the mobile number under Ex.P2.
15/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
19.The PW1 also not mentioned mobile number of the Accused either in Ex.P1, Ex.P2 or before the Police. When they tried to go house of her maternal grandmother at Maharashtra, there was lockdown. The
PW1 has read over the contents under Ex.P1.
20.The PW1 has not mentioned in her report under Ex.P1 that “on 14.06.2019 the Accused came to her house in the absence of her parents and brother”. The PW1 has not mentioned under Ex.P1 as “in
Dussehra holidays, she returned to her home; the Accused came to her house and he put her legs and requested her not to go hostel and he would not stay without seeing her”. The Pw1 also not mentioned under
Ex.P1 that “One day, the same witnessed by her brother and
Kavitha/PW8”. The PW1 also not mentioned under Ex.P1 that “she tried to go to Maharashtra”. The PW1 has not mentioned in her report under
Ex.P1 that “she suffered with stomach pain, hence her grandmother referred to RMP Doctor at Ambatipalli; the said RMP Doctor/PW6 confirmed that she has carrying three months; the Pw1 informed the same to her parents and Accused and called him for panchayath in presence of the elders, but he not appeared as by that time there was marriage of his sister”. There is no mention under Ex.P1 as “the Accused will marry her after attaining her majority”.
16/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
21.The PW8/Kavitha, who is her neighbor and she is her senior paternal aunt by courtesy. PW7 is her own brother. The parents of Pw1 intended to perform her marriage with the Accused from her childhood.
The PW1 again adds that only her father intended, but not her mother.
The Police not seized her phone. The PW1 denied that as on 09.04.2020 and also the alleged incident she was not minor. The PW1 denied that the Accused never participated physical intercourse with me and he never promised to marry her or made confession before the elders. The
PW1 denied that as the Accused deny to marry her, hence they foisted false case against the Accused. (At this stage, the victim weeping). The
Pw1 denied that the Accused is noway concerned with her baby. (At this stage, this Court insisted the Victim to produce her Bank particulars for payment of victim compensation, in which the victim is unwilling to furnish her bank particulars for financial assistance from the
Government). The prosecutrix stated that the SDPO sir examined her.
The Pw1 again adds male Sub Inspector of Police also examined her.
The Pw1 denied that to extract the money from the Accused she deposed false at the instance of her parents.
22.During the Re-examination of PW1 by the Spl. P.P it is elicited that the PW1 admitted that the woman Police officer also examined me.
17/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
23.During the Re-cross examination of PW1 by the learned Counsel
for the Accused it is elicited that the Woman Police not examined her
and she is deposing false.
24.The testimony of PW2 which reveals that she is residence of
Nimmxxxx Village of Adavxxxx Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally
District. LW2 is her husband. PW1 & PW7 her daughter and son. The daughter/PW1 of PW1 discontinued her 9th Class. The Accused is her close relative. Her daughter/PW1/Victim studied at Kasturba Gandhi
School (Hostel) at Mutharam. During the summer vacation they celebrated Saree function of PW1/Victim prior to sent her to hostel.
They used to do labour work. In Dussehra Holidays, the PW1 came to her home, but she was unwilling to continue her study and discontinued, she used to stay in home.
25.One day, they intended to go to parents house of PW2 at
Maharashtra, but due to having Carona lockdown, they went to her in- laws house at Peddampet. The PW1/Victim reported the Pw2 that she was suffering with stomach pain. Hence, herself and her mother-in- law/Jyothi took her to RMP Doctor at Ambatipalli. In which the said
RMP Doctor/PW6 reported that PW1/ Victim carrying three months 18/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) pregnancy. Hence, the got inquiry with the PW1, in which the
PW1/Victim informed them as “bava Arjun used to come to their house in their absence; promised her to get marry; participated in physical intercourse”. Hence, they have placed a panchayath before the Village elders namely Dhansing/PW3, Pedda Rajaiah/LW5, Vinod/PW5,
Ajay/PW4 at Nimmagudem.
26.The Accused admitted his guilt and agreed to get marry the
PW1/Victim after attaining her majority. The Accused also admitted that he is responsible for pregnancy of PW1 and shown his willing to continue the pregnancy. But, after 10 days of the said panchayath, the
Accused denied to get marriage with her daughter as he is not responsible to the pregnancy of her daughter/PW1. Hence, they went to Police Station and lodged report. Police examined recorded her statement.
27.During the Cross-Examination of PW-2 it is elicited that her daughter/PW1 gave birth to a baby at CHC, Mahadevpur. PW2 along with PW1 and one Balamma (her junior maternal Aunt) went to the
Hospital. The PW1 furnished particulars to the Doctors. The Accused is a farmer. The PW2 do not know how much immovable property having 19/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) by the Accused. The PW2 adds that the Accused is having much land.
The PW2 admitted that she is not personally witnessed the physical intercourse of the victim and Accused but she came to know the same through the PW1 only. The Police examined her/PW2, but she cannot give their designation. They also summoned to parents of the Accused, in which they also present in panchayath.
28.The Pw2 has no remember whether she stated to the Police that “the parents of the Accused attend to the panchayath or not”. The
PW2 denied that the PW1 not stated before her as “bava Arjun used to come to their house in their absence; promised her to get marry; participated in physical intercourse”. The PW2 also denied that the
Accused never promised to get marry to the PW1 and he never loved her. The PW2 denied that they have not placed any panchayath before the elders and the Accused has not made guilty and admitted to get marry to her daughter/PW1 after attaining her majority and she is deposing false. The PW2 denied that after 10 days of the incident, they did not question the Accused and he never denied to marry her daughter/PW1.
20/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
29.The Pw2 denied that her daughter/PW1 was more than 18 years at the time of alleged incident and she is deposing false. The Pw2 denied that as the Accused is having much agriculture land, hence they proposed to perform the marriage of the PW1 with the Accused, in which he denied the same hence, they foisted false case against him to extract money from the accused.
30.The testimony of PW3 which reveals that he is resident of
Nimmagudem Village of Adavimutharam Mandal, Jayashankar
Bhupalpally District. The Pw3 know the PW1, PW2 and LW2. The
PW1/victim is daughter of PW2 and LW2. The PW3 know the Accused, who is standing in Court and he is also our villager. About 4 to 5 years ago, in summer session the PW2 and LW2 placed a panchayath on the
Accused and stated that “the Accused utilized the PW1/victim, due to which she got pregnancy; the victim/PW1 stated that she live with the
Accused and went along with the Accused, but after three or four days the victim returned to home”.The LW2/father of the victim again reported before them that the Accused not accepted the victim/PW1 and necked out from their house. Hence, they advised to lodge complaint against him. The SDPO, Kataram examined and recorded his statement.
21/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
31.During the Cross-Examination of PW-3 it is elicited that he is having Ac.5-00 guntas agriculture land in their village. As usual he go to his field at about 08:00 A.M and returned on evening. The SDPO,
Kataram came to their village and examined him in Village center. The
PW3 cannot say the date of examination. On the time of the incident, there was lockdown, due to spreading Carona Virus. The PW3 admitted that during the Carona period there was lockdown and the Government advised not gather or crowd in a place. The PW3 admitted that he has not stated before the Police that “the victim stated as the Accused utilized her, due to which she got pregnancy; the victim will live with the Accused and went along with the accused, but after three or four days she returned to home”.
32.As on day of his/PW3 evidence, the Sub Inspector of Police,
Adavimutharam met him in Court premises and she talked with him.
The PW3 denied that the PW1, PW2 and LW2 never approached them and no panchayath was held between them and the Accused, now the
PW3 deposing false at the instance of the Sub Inspector of Police,
Adavimutharam. The Pw3 denied that the Accused never appeared
before the said panchayath and deposing false.
22/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
33.The testimony of PW4 which reveals that he is resident of
Nimmagudem Village of Adavimutharam Mandal, Jayashankar
Bhupalpally District. On 28.03.2020, the Accused and LW2 called him to panchayath, as the Victim/PW1 begot pregnancy. The PW1 to PW3,
LW5/G. Pedda Rajaiah, LW6/G. Raghupal, PW5, PW12, PW8 and PW7 attended the said panchayath. They discussed with the both parties; the Accused/Arjun admitted that he marry to victim/PW1; hence they left there. The SDPO, Kataram examined and recorded his statement.
34.During the cross examination of Pw4 it is elicited that the PW4 was Dy. Sarpanch and having agriculture land. From, March, 2020 there was lockdown due to outbreak of Covid-19. As on 28.03.2020, there was lockdown. The PW4 admitted that the Government prohibited to assemble or gathering crowd in public place. The Pw4 denied that he has not stated before the SDPO that the Accused also invited them to conduct panchayath. The Pw4 denied that only the panchayath elders were acted on behalf of the Victim/PW1, in which the PW4 added that being panchayath elders they discussed both the sides. The Pw4 admitted that he has not stated before the Police, who acted as elder on behalf of the Victim and the Accused. The PW4 denied that they have not acted as panchayath elders in Carona lockdown and he is 23/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) deposing false at the instance of the Police. The PW4 denied that the
Accused is innocent and he never admitted his guilty and deposing false.
35.The testimony of PW5 which reveals that on 28.03.2020, PW2 and her husband/LW2 approached him and requested to summon the
Accused. Hence, they summoned the Accused and placed panchayath.
On inquiry with the PW1, she reported them that the Accused held responsible for her pregnancy. But the Accused denied as he is not responsible for her pregnancy. In which there was situation arose for disputes, hence they left from there. Police examined and recorded his statement.
36.During the cross examination of PW5 it is elicited that he is former. In general they used to go field at about 09:00 A.M and return at evening. The Pw5 could not said when commenced the lockdown, but it was lockdown period. The Pw5 could not said the exact day and date, when the SDPO examined him. The PW5 denied that he is deposing the panchayath date at the instance of Police persons. At the time of incident the PW5 was aged about 25 years. The Pw5 do not know who stated his age as 20 years to the Police. The PW5 has no remember whether he stated or not before the Police that the PW2 and her 24/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) husband/LW2 came to him and summon to the Accused. The PW5 denied that he is deposing at the instance of the Police and PW1 and
PW2. The PW5 denied that the Victim and her parents never approached them and they have not summoned to the Accused and held the panchayath.
37.The testimony of Pw6 which reveals that previously, he worked as a RMP for 15 years till 2020. Thereafter he suspended his practice and used to do agriculture work. On 12.07.2020, LW6/G. Chinnakka and
PW2 brought the victim/PW1 to her treatment and alleged history with stomach pain. The PW6 stated them as he has closed his practice and advised to take her to Government Hospital as the victim is child. On the same day, after 2 or 3 house, they again approached him with a pregnant test kit, on which the PW6 found that pregnancy positive, later he examined the face of victim/PW1 and observed that her face with some white spots. Hence, advised them to go to Government
Hospital. The PW6 also advised them to approach the Police. Police examined and recorded his statement.
25/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
38.The testimony of PW7 which reveals that about five years back, he used to go to school. One midday, the PW7 returned to home from his school, in which he found his sister door locked from inside, hence he knocked the door and requested his sister/PW1 open the door as he is with thirst, in which the PW1 opened the door and found the Accused jumped over the Sajja/Atuku/goda. The PW7 questioned the PW1, on which she threatened him if he disclose the same to mother, she will commit suicide by consume poison. The PW7 know the Accused, who is standing in Court Hall. Police examined and recorded his statement.
39.During the cross examination of PW7 it is elicited that the said school is high school. The school timing was morning 09:00 AM to 04:00 P.M. The PW12 is his cousin and neighbor. The PW8/Th. Kavitha is his neighbor and she is his aunt (Peddamma) by courtesy. Today, the
Police constable tutored him, what he deposed today. Police examined him at Police Station. The PW7 again adds that on question of this
Court which place, whether at home or Police Station, on which he answered at his home. The PW7 has not disclosed to anyone as victim will commit suicide. The PW7 adds that his sister/PW1 threatened him as she will commit suicide by consume poison. The PW7 denied that he has not stated before the Police as “the Accused jumped over the 26/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
Sajja/Atuku/goda”. The PW7 denied that he did not return to home and he never saw the Accused as he jumped over the sajja and deposing false at the instance of Police and his mother/PW2.
40.The testimony of PW8 which reveals that she is neighbour of PW1.
The Accused used to go to the house of the PW1 as and then. The PW2 informed to her that the PW1/Victim begot pregnancy. Hence, the Pw8 got inquiry with the PW1, in which she declared that Arjun/Accused is caused her pregnancy. Police examined and recorded her statement.
41.During the cross examination of PW8 it is elicited that she stated
before the Police that the LW2/Th. Nagxxxx (father of the victim) is
brother of her husband. The Pw8 has not questioned the Accused, why he used to come to the house of the PW1 and did not report to the PW2 or LW2, as the Accused used to come their house. The PW8 denied that she has not stated before the Police that “PW2 informed her as the
PW1/Victim begot pregnancy; she got inquiry with the PW1, in which she declared that Arjun/Accused is caused her pregnancy”. The Pw8 adds that she state before the Police that “she came to know that the
PW1 begot pregnancy”. The PW8 denied that she is deposing false at 27/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) the instance of the Police and PW2 and she never witnessed as the
Accused used to visit the house of the PW1 as and then and deposing false.
42.The testimony of PW9 which reveals that she is residence of
Garepalli Village of Kataram Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.
The PW9 is working as a Teacher in KGBV, Mahamutharam from 08.09.2011 to till today. On 24.04.2020, the PW9 received a requisition from the Police, Mahamutharam for issuance of date of birth certificate of their student/Victim/PW1. The PW9 verified the admission register of their school and issued Study, Conduct and Date of Birth Certificate of the Victim/PW1 as in Ex.P3. As per admission register the DOB of victim recorded as “08.06.2003” and as on 24.04.2020, the Victim/PW1 aged about “Sixteen Years, Ten months Sixteen days”. Police examined and recorded her statement.
43.During the cross examination of PW9 it is elicited that she is a teacher and their school is having Special Officer post, but on that day, their Special Officer was absent, hence she was incharge to that post.
The Pw9 received a requisition from the Police to issue the Date of Birth 28/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
Certificate, but she has not brought the same. PW9 admitted that there is no mention dispatch number on Ex.P3 and she has not mentioned date of issuance of Ex.P3. PW9 also admitted that there is no mentioned school registration number i.e., RTD/DEO or RC number and there is no endorsement of admission incharge on Ex.P3. The PW9 denied that there is no mentioned source of record to the Ex.P3. The
PW9 denied that was lockdown period (24.04.2020) and she was not present any school as there was completely lockdown. The Pw9 denied that she has not received any requisition from the parents of the victim/PW1, but not obtained any permission from the Special Officer or
MEO. The Pw9 adds that she has took the oral permission from the
Special Officer for issuance of Ex.P3. At present the PW9 has no idea, the victim/PW1’s previous education particulars. They have not obtained Date of birth Certificate of the Victim, issued by the
Grampanchayath or Hospital or Municipality. The Pw9 admitted that she has not issued extract copy of the admission register or previous records of the victim to the Police, but denied that being the incharge special officer, she has no authorization to issue the DOB of victim to the Police and she is deposing false. The Pw9 denied that she issued false certificate without verification of the school registers and deposing false. The Ex.P3 handed over to a Police constable as she 29/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) received phone call from the Sub Inspector of Police, but she cannot say their names. The said Police constable examined and recorded her statement on the same day. Thereafter no one examined her.
44.The testimony of PW10 which reveals that she is resident of
Peddampeta Village. During the Carona lockdwon the Police personnel restricted the PW1 and PW2 to go to Maharastra. Hence, the PW1 &
PW2 came to her house. The PW1 reported her that she was getting stomach pain, hence they took her to RMP doctor/PW6 at Ambatipalli.
The PW6 expressed that the Victim/PW1 begot pregnancy. The PW2 brought test kit (pregnancy test Kit), and shown the same to the PW6, in which the PW6 confirmed that the PW1 begot pregnancy, hence they returned to their home. The PW2 requested her to not to disclose the same to anyone and they returned to their home. After two days, the
PW2 informed her through phone that the Accused is responsible for pregnancy of the PW1. The SDPO examined and recorded her statement.
45.During the cross examination of PW10 it is elicited that she denied that she has not stated before the SDPO as “After two days, the
PW2 informed her through phone that the Accused is responsible for 30/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) pregnancy of the PW1”, now she is deposing false. The Pw10 denied that she is deposing false at the instance of her close relatives and
Police persons.
46.The testimony of PW11 which reveals that he is resident of
Nimmagudem Village of Mahamutharam Mandal, Jayashankar
Bhupalpally District. On 11.04.2020, the Police personnel came to the house of the PW2 and got enquiry and conducted Crime Detail Form in their presence as in Ex.P4 and obtained their signatures.
47.During the cross examination of PW11 it is elicited that he is a graduate. The Pw11 do not know why the Police persons obtained their signatures on Ex.P4. The house of Pw11 is situated ½ Km distance from the Ex.P4. The Pw11 received Court summons through the Police. The
PW11 denied that the Police not came to the House of the PW2 and they have not acted as panchas for Ex.P4, now he is deposing false at the instance of the Police persons.
48.The testimony of PW12 which reveals that he is resident of
Nimmagudem Village of Mahamutharam Mandal, Jayashankar
Bhupalpally District. The Accused used to go to the house of the PW1 31/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) in absence of her parents. After some days, the PW12 came to know that the PW1 was pregnant. Hence, the PW2 placed a panchayath against the Accused in their village. The Accused admitted his guilty in the said panchayath and assured he will marry to the PW1/Victim after attaining her majority. After 10 days of the said panchayath, the
Accused denied that he is not responsible to the pregnancy of the PW1.
Hence, the PW1 lodged report before the Police. Police examined and recorded his statement.
49.During the cross examination of PW12 it is elicited that he studied upto 7th class. Now he is doing agriculture. The PW12 has Ac.2-00 guntas of land and used to go field in morning hours and returned to 05:00 P.M. The Pw12 denied that the PW1 and PW2 are his close relatives. The Accused and PW1 and PW2 are relatives by courtesy. The
PW12 denied that he has not stated before the Police that “The Accused admitted his guilty in the said panchayath and assured he will marry to the PW1/Victim after attaining her majority. After 10 days of the said panchayath, the Accused denied that he is not responsible to the pregnancy of the PW1.” The PW12 denied that today he is deposing on narration of the Police persons and he is deposing false.
32/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
50.The testimony of PW13 which reveals that previously, she worked as a Asst. Professor at Government Maternity Hospital, Hanamkonda from 2019 to 26.07.2024. During her tenure at Maternity Hospital, on 10.04.2020, she examined a minor girl, aged about 17 years. Based on gynecologist obstetric examination she was confirmed the pregnancy approximately 20 weeks and subsequently Ultra Sound was done on 13.04.2020 at GMH, Hanamkonda, which confirmed the same with good fetal heart rate. Hence the PW13 issued her final opinion on 28.04.2020 as in Ex.P5. As per Ex.P5, to the best of her knowledge the victim is pregnant and there has been intercourse in the past.
51.The PW13 denied that the Ex.P5 not contains its title. There is no name mentioned under Ex.P5. The PW13 denied that there is no particulars of the victim under Ex.P5 and admitted that there is no mentioned out patient number either inpatient number or identification marks of the patient under Ex.P5. The PW13 denied that there is no mentioned requisition number of the SDPO, Kataram under Ex.P5. The
Pw13 admitted that her signatures on Ex.P5 are different, but she adds that both are signed by her. The PW13 admitted that she received a request letter from the SDPO, Kataram on 26.04.2020 for issuance of
Final opinion and the same mentioned under Ex.P5. The PW13 denied 33/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) that she has not examined minor victim, but she issued Ex.P5 at the instance of Police persons.
52.The testimony of PW14 which reveals that she is resident of
Hanamkonda Town and District. Previously she worked as Sub
Inspector of Police at P.S, Mogullapally from 18.03.2020 to 02.11.2020.
During her tenure at P.S, Mogullapally on 11.04.2020, she received a phone call from the SDPO, Bhupalpally and deputed her to examine the victim in POCSO Act P.S, Adavimutharam. Immediately, she went to the
Office of the SDPO, Kataram and provided location of the victim, where she lived generally. On the same day, she went to the Nimmagudem
Village at the house of the victim/PW1. The PW14 examined the PW1 and recorded her statement under Section 161 CrPC, on her narration and the process of examination was videographed with the help of the
LW12. After completion of recording of statement of the victim, she has read over and explained the same to her, in which she admitted the same as true and correct. Later, the same handed over the LW27/SDPO,
Kataram. The LW27/SDPO, Kataram examined and recorded her statement.
34/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
53.During the cross examination of PW14 it is elicited that the
LW27/SDPO, Kataram endorsed on statement under Section 161 CrPC of the victim/PW1. The PW14 has not received written requisition. The
PW14 went to the Nimmagudem Village in the vehicle of the SDPO,
Kataram. About 45 Minutes took time for recording the statement under Section 161 CrPC of the victim/PW1. After completion of recording statement, they returned to SDPO Office in noon hours. The videographer was belongs to Kataram local photographer, but she has no acquaintance with him. The PW14 has not saw the recorded videograph. Initially, PW14 talked with the victim/PW1. Later, she started recording her statement. PW14 was SHO of Mogullapalli Police
Station as on that day. PW14 admitted that at the time of recording of statement under Section 161 CrPC, there was lockdown due to Covid-
19. The PW14, Victim and videographer were present at the time of recording statement. The videographer also took the photos. The PW14 also not verified the said photos. The PW14 denied that the
Victim/PW1 not stated anything and she has not went to the
Nimmagudem Village, but deposing false at the instance of her superior officer.
35/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
54.The testimony of Pw15 which reveals that he is residence of
Nimmagudem Village of Mahamutharam Mandal, Jayashankar
Bhupalpally District. About Four or five years ago, one day DSP,
Kataram summoned him and PW16/J. Vijay Kumar. Hence, himself along with PW16 went to the office of SDPO, Kataram. The SDPO, Kataram obtained their signatures on surety bond papers of the Arjun/Accused.
Prosecution confronted the signature of the witness, on which the
PW15 identified the same.
55.During the cross examination of PW15 by the learned Public
Prosecutor it is elicited that on 27.04.2020, they have questioned the
Accused about his Police custody, in which he stated as in Ex.P7, which read over and explained by the prosecution to him, but denied that the
SDPO, Kataram also seized mobile of the Accused as in MO1. The
PW15 denied that he is deposing false to help the Accused as he is his relative.
56.The testimony of PW16 which reveals that he is resident of
Nimmagudem Village of Mahamutharam Mandal, Jayashankar
Bhupalpally District. On 20.04.2020, the Police came to the house of the accused and conducted panchanama. Police persons talked with the 36/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
Accused, later they obtained their signatures. Prosecution confronted the signature of the witness, on which the PW16 identified the same.
57.During the cross examination of PW16 by the learned Public
Prosecutor the PW16 denied that on 27.04.2020, they have questioned the Accused about his Police custody, in which he stated as under Ex.P7, which read over and explained by the prosecution to him. The PW16 denied that the SDPO, Kataram also seized mobile of the Accused as under MO1. The PW16a denied that he is deposing false to help the
Accused as he is his villager.
58.The testimony of PW17 he is resident of Narapalli, Medchal
Malkajgiri District. In the month of March, 2021 the Pw17 received a requisition from the Superintendent of Police, Bhupalpally to furnish call details and customer application form for the Mobile Nos.
6301680371 and 7671090616 for the period of 16.03.2020 to 09.04.2020. Accordingly, the PW17 verified their company records and submitted data records for the above mobile numbers.
59.The mobile no.6301680371 stands on the name of Gouraveni
Arjun, S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. Nimmagudem of Karimnagar District – 505503.
37/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
The mobile No.7671090616 stands on the name of Th. Nagaiah residence of Narapalli, Medchal Malkajgiri District. The PW17 is working as a Nodal Officer Reliance-Jio from 2017. In the month of March, 2021 he has received requisition from the Superintendent of Police,
Bhupalpally to furnish call details and customer application form for the
Mobile Nos. 6301680371 and 7671090616 for the period of 16.03.2020 to 09.04.2020. Accordingly, he verified their company records and submitted data records for the above mobile numbers.
60.The mobile no.6301680371 stands on the name of Gouraveni
Arjun, S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. Nimmagudem of Karimnagar District – 505503.
The mobile No.7671090616 stands on the name of Th. Nagaiah,
S/o. Lachaiah, R/o. Nimmagudem Village of Karimnagar District, 505503.
The have submitted Call details as in Ex.P9 to Ex.P12. The Ex.P9 to
Ex.P13 were sent to the superintendent of Police, Bhupalpally through their official mail.
61.During the cross examination of PW17, the defense counsel put a question as whether PW17 had received requisition from the
Superintendent of Police? and the same produced before this Court?
38/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
Which is irrelevant and not proper, and witness is not investigation officer and no need to explain.
62.The PW17 denied that he issued Ex.P9 to Ex.P13 without verifying their company records at the instance of the Superintendent of Police,
Bhupalpally. Their company secured the Call Data for two years. Their company had collected ID proofs of the customers at the time of getting the SIM cards. There is no verbal records under Ex.P9 to Ex.P13.
The Pw17 denied that he is deposing false at the instance of the Police.
63.The testimony of PW18 which reveals that he is resident of
Bhupalpally town of Jayashankar Bhupalpally District. The PW18 working as a Sub Inspector of Police in Special Branch from 09.06.2024 to till today. Previously the PW18 worked as a Sub Inspector of Police at
P.S, Adavimutharam from 07.10.2019 to 16.06.2020. During his tenure at P.S, Adavimutharam on 09.04.2020, the PW1 along with her mother/PW2 went to PS along with written report as under Ex.P1.
Basing on the Ex.P1, the PW18 registered a case in Crime No.42/2020 for the offence under Section 417, 420, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section under
Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 as in Ex.P14 and the same is 39/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) dispatched to all concerned. Later, he handed over the CD file to his superior officer/LW27 for investigation.
64.During the cross examination of PW18 it is elicited that the PW1 brought the written report. PW18 admitted that there was no pre antecedent against the Accused and there is no mentioned date of diagnosis/pregnancy test. Also admitted that there is no specific day and date mentioned under Ex.P1 as the victim informed her stomach pain to her parents and there was lockdown from 25th March to 14th
April, 2020, hence there is no possible to assemble for any panchayath or gathering at a place. The Pw18 admitted that there is mentioned under Ex.P1 as in Ex.D1 i.e., “on 28.03.2020, Gouraveni Laxman nu maa grama peddamanushula samakshamloki pilipinchi naa pelli gurinchi athaninin adugaga athadu naa garbam thana vallane vachindani, nenu ninnu pelli chesukuntanani, maa grama peddamanushulu ayina 1. N.
Dhansingh, 2. Gouraveni Pedda Rajaiah, 3. Gouraveni Raghupal anu vaari samakshamlo oppukunnadu”.
65.Further the PW18 admitted that there is no mentioned the name of Ajay/PW4 and Vinod/PW5 under Ex.P1. There is no specifically 40/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) mentioned the date, time as to says the victim and Accused participated in physical intercourse as under Ex.P1. There is no specific date mentioned under Ex.P1 as the Accused promised the victim to get marry her. The PW18 admitted that the victim mentioned in her report as in
Ex.D2 i.e., “Gatha moodu nelala nunchi naaku nelasari raledu, 15 rojula kritham naaku kadupu noppi ravadamtho, anumanatho nenu intilo pregnancy test chesukonaga, pregnancy ani thelisindi”. The Pw18 admitted that he received report at 06:00 PM and the time mentioned in FIR as 07:00 PM.
66.The defense counsel further put a question to the witness that “Which time is correct”? The witness replied as he received report 06:00
PM; got enquiry with the minor victim and her mother, later registered an FIR at about 07:00 PM and the same time mentioned through computer device. PW18 also admitted that the victim/PW1 not specifically mentioned her Date of Birth under Ex.P1 and he has not collected any resolution in writing from the panchayath elders. There is no mentioned under Ex.P1, when they asked the Accused for get marry her. The PW18 has not initially recorded the victim’s statement. There is no mentioned name or attestation of scribe of the Ex.P1. The PW18 41/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) also not examined the mother of the victim, who accompanied with the victim to lodge report. The PW18 denied that he has not registered the case against the actual culprit, but he foisted false case against the
Accused. There is no mentioned delay for reasons to lodge report from the 1st incident. The PW18 denied that the PW1 foisted false case to harass the Accused.
67.The testimony of PW19 which reveals that on 10.04.2020, he took up the investigation in crime No. 42/2020 for the offence under Section 417, 420, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 as under Ex.P14. The PW19 verified the investigation done by the PW18 found as proper line. He referred the victim/PW1 with escort WHG
No.964 to Government Maternity Hospital/PW13 for medical examination. The PW13 examined the victim/PW1 and issued certificate under Ex.P5.
68.On 11.04.2020, the PW19 along with the WSI/PW14 along with photographer/LW12 went to the house of the victim/PW1 and they examined her. The PW14 examined the victim and recorded her statement under Section 161 CrPC on her narration. The PW19 also examined the PW2 to PW5, PW7, PW8 and PW12, LW2, LW5/G. Pedda 42/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
Rajaiah, and LW6 G. Raghupal and recorded their statements under
Section 161 CrPC. The LW12 videographed the examination of the victim and issued CD as in Ex.P15. Later, the PW19 examined the PW14 and LW12 and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC and he also collected certificate under Section 65-B of IEA. (The prosecution orally reported that the LW12/Photographer has been bed ridden and could not examine him). The PW19 secured panchas PW11 and LW17 and conducted Crime Detail Form as under Ex.P4 and obtained signatures of the panchas. The Pw19 made a requisition to the PW9 for issuance of DOB certificate of the victim/PW1 and received the same as under Ex.P3.
69.On 27.04.2020, on credible information of available of the
Accused in his house, hence, the PW19 along with his team proceeded to Nimmagudem Village and apprehended the Accused from his home.
As the Accused was in mood of confession, the PW19 secured PW15 and
PW16 and recorded his confession statement as under Ex.P7. The PW19 also seized the mobile phone of the Accused from his possession as under MO1 in presence of same panchas and recorded seizure panchas along with confession as under Ex.P7. Later, they brought the Accused to the Police Station, Kataram. The MO1 is deposited before the Court.
43/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
70.The PW19 referred the Accused to Medical examination before the LW22/PHC, Kataram and obtained certificate as in Ex.P16. After completion of all formalities, the Pw19 produced the Accused before
Hon’ble JMFC, Manthani and remanded into judicial custody.On
12.07.2020, examined the PW6 and PW10 and recorded their statements. The PW19 also made a requisition to the JMFC,
Manthani/LW24 to examine the victim under Section 164 CrPC. In which the JMFC, Manthani/LW24 examined the victim on 10.09.2020 and recorded her statement under Section 164(5) CrPC as under Ex.P2.
71.Further it is elicited that on 12.09.2020, the PW19 made a requisition to Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar to refer the Accused and PW1/Victim along with new born baby for DNA test and obtained orders as in Ex.P17. Accordingly, they sent the Accused, PW1, new born baby along with escort PC No.2161 sent to FSL, Hyderabad and received
FSL Report as in Ex.P18. As per the Ex.P18, the PW1 declared as biological mother of the new born baby, but the Accused is not biological father of the female child.
72.On 25.03.2021, the PW19 filed a requisition to the Superintendent of Police, Bhupalpally for CDR and Customer Application Form of mobile 44/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
No.6301680371 (Accused) and 7671090616 (PW1/Victim). The PW17 submitted CDR and Customer Application Form of the Accused and victim as under Ex.P9 to Ex.P12. After collection of all records from the concerned and in his investigation it is established that the Accused committed offence under Section 417, 420, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, hence he filed a Charge Sheet against the
Accused.
73.During the cross examination of PW19 it is elicited that the PW19 denied as there is no mentioned in his charge sheet when he has took up the investigation. PW19 admitted that there is no signature of the photographer/LW12 on CD under Ex.P15, but the Pw19 added that he obtained certificate under Section 65-B of IEA with regard to CD under
Ex.P15. The Certificate under Ex.P15 drafted and signed by the LW12/P.
Umesh. The PW19 attested the same on Ex.P15 and he mentioned crime No.42/2020 of P.S, Adavimutharam at the time of filing charge sheet. There is no mentioned victim particulars or crime details, date, time and who recorded the statement under Ex.P15. The PW19 adds that the date, time and edit/copy into CD mentioned in CD.
45/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
74.The PW19 admitted that he has not obtained signature of the accused his confession under Ex.P7 and the Accused house number not mentioned in confession-cum-seizure panchanama under Ex.P7. The
Pw19 also admitted that he has not collected any particulars regarding source of Date of birth recorded in education institute of the PW1. The
PW19 mentioned in charge sheet where the PW1 gave birth to female child i.e., CHC, Mahadevpur on 14.08.2020. the PW19 also collected copy of discharge summary of the victim as in Ex.P19. The PW19 admitted that as per the Ex.P19, the victim aged shown as “21” years and her husband name mentioned as “Arjun”. The PW19 denied that the victim was major and they created her date of birth as under Ex.P3. The
PW19 has not seized the phone of the victim/PW1. The PW19 has not given in written requisition to panchas for CDF and Confession.
75.The PW19 again admitted that he has not reexamined the PW1 after begot child and getting a DNA report as under Ex.P18. The Pw19 denied that the victim/PW1 stated other culprit name, hence he has not reexamined the victim after getting the DNA report. The PW19 denied that the PW2 not stated before them that the PW1 stated her as “Bava
Arjun used to come to their house in your absence; promised her to get 46/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) marry; participated in physical intercourse”. The PW4 not specifically stated before him as “the Accused” came to her to conduct panchayath.
76.The PW19 denied that the case against the Accused not made out even after getting the FSL Report under Ex.P18. The PW19 denied that the Accused is noway concerned with the alleged offence, he never committed any offence, never promised to marry the victim/PW1 also denied that as per SOP of Covid-19, beginning stage no one permitted to come on the road, hence they has not visited the scene of offence and not examined any of the witnesses, and the all investigation paper drafted in their SDPO office and he is deposing false. The PW19 denied that the PW1 and her family members foisted false case against the Accused to extract money even he is noway concerned with the said alleged offence.
77.On scrutiny of testimony of Victim (PW1) which reveals that the accused is her relative, due having relation he exploited by sexually assaulted her multiple times under the pretext of marriage. The same has disclosed with pregnancy after medical confirmation (PW6-RMP
Doctor). Hence the prosecutrix placed the panchayath in their village, 47/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) the Accused initially admitted guilt in presence of panchayat (PW3,
PW4, PW5, PW12) elders but later refused marriage. There are minor discrepancies about omitted details in Ex.P1 (report) about dates of assault, panchayat, and phone calls.
78.The testimonies of Parents & Panchayat Witnesses i.e. PW2, PW3,
PW4, PW5, PW12 which Corroborated PW1’s pregnancy and accused’s admission in panchayat which can safely consider as extrajudicial confession as there is not at all any threats to him from the police persons. There is minor Contradictions as PW3 & PW4 admitted lockdown restrictions (COVID-19) cast doubt on panchayat feasibility.
But it is established that the victim (PW1), a minor girl studied 9th class at Kasturba Gandhi Girls Residential School, discontinued her education due to poor financial conditions. The accused who is relative (brother- in-law), promised marriage and repeatedly engaged in sexual intercourse with her, leading to her pregnancy. Upon discovery of pregnancy, the accused initially admitted his guilt before village elders (PW3, PW4, PW5) but later refused to marry her. The same is attracted extra judicial confession as he made confession without threat of the police personnel. Hence the prosecutrix lodged report as under ExP1, 48/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) leading to registration a case in Crime No. 42/2020 under relevant IPC and POCSO sections as under Ex.P14. The prosecution proved the victim’s minority as per her DOB: 14.08.2003, under Ex.P3 and pregnancy (Ex.P5). However, DNA test under Ex.P18 excluded the accused as the biological father of the new born baby. The testimony of the prosecutrix who deposed before this court with weeping that the accused repeatedly participated physical intercourse with her, cannot be discarded and the same is trustworthy and genuine one and the same is unrebutted.
79.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed as false implication due to grab property and claimed that no sexual relationship or promise of marriage and the Victim was major at the time of the alleged incident. But Testimony of PW1 (Victim) Consistently stated the accused exploited her by trust, repeatedly raped her, and breached marriage promise. During the cross-examination which reveals that there are omissions in Ex.P1 (e.g., specific dates of intercourse), but core allegations remained unshaken.
80.The medical evidence i.e., PW13 along with documentary evidence
Ex.P5 confirmed 20-week pregnancy and past intercourse. The 49/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) panchayat witnesses i.e., PW3 to PW5) corroborated the accused made initial extra judicial confession which is admissible of his guilt before elders and also accepted the victim to live with him. The DNA Report under Ex.P18 excluded the accused as not the father of the new born baby, though the accused did not disprove sexual assault and his involvement. The Age Proof (PW9, Ex.P3): Victim’s DOB as 14.08.2003, making her a minor (16 years) at the time of offence. It is not the dispute or case about the paternity of minor ward/new born baby and the same is civil in nature for determination. The prosecution case is the accused sexually physical intercourse with victim, who aged 16 years, in repeatedly.
81.Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 reads as follows:
“Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of the 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”.
50/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
82.In this regard, the accused failed to rebut the presumption laid down under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. The accused has not made any efforts to prove as to why false case will be foisted against him. He did not place any documentary evidence to prove that the alleged offence.
83.As per the POCSO Act: Victim was a child (below 18 years).
Consent is irrelevant under Section 5(l) Penetrative sexual assault proved via victim’s testimony (Section 29 POCSO presumption). IPC
Sections 376(2)(n): Repeated rape established by the victim’s account and PW7. However, the Sections 417 & 420: Marriage promise was deceitful, but no evidence of property inducement; the prosecution failed to prove the same, hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.
84.The POCSO Act Overrides the Consent of the Minor’s is irrelevant; sexual activity itself is an offence and the burden of onus lies on the accused. The DNA Not Dispositive; though the accused isn’t the father, but physical intercourse with the victim is proven by victim’s testimony and her brother who witnessed one of the incident. The brother/PW7 of the victim not disclosed due to the emotional blackmail by the prosecutrix as she will commit suicide, if disclosed to anyone. The
Marriage Promise as Deceit; False promise vitiates consent but requires 51/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old) property element for Section 420. The Witness Credibility that
Panchayat elders i.e., PW3 to PW7 and medical evidence (PW13) made strong prosecution case.
85.Based on the evidence, the prosecution has successfully proven the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is therefore found guilty for the offenses under Section 376 (2)
(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
86.The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that
Accused committed the offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, the Accused is liable for conviction for the above said offences. But, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence under Sections 417 & 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accordingly, the Accused is liable for acquittal for the said offences.
52/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
87.In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offences.
The Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under
Sections 417 & 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offences.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 09th day of April, 2025).
Sd/-
FAC SPECIAL JUDGE FAST TRACK
SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS
TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM
SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CASES,
JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY.
HEARING OF ACCUSED ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE
(i) Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence to which he stated that “I have not committed the offence; I have old aged parents and younger sister who are depending on me” and a lenient view may be taken.
53/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
(ii) Considering the view of nature of the offence the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on minor victim/PW1, aged about 16 years 10 months 1 day. This is the issues of the society which suffering since long time and facing several impact on the society in which the Court cannot tolerable and not excusable in Court, in the best interest of the society and protection of children who under the age of 18 years. The victim was 16 years 10 months 1 day as on 24.04.2020.
The children are future prospects of the nation and it is the object legislation to protect minor children, this court is not inclined to take a lenient view against the accused and he is sentenced to minimum degree punishment.
(iii) As per principle of ejusdem generis and criminal jurisprudence less punishment should given to the Accused even though the principle of noscitur a sociis in Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, whereas higher degree punishment provided. The punishment provided under Section 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for shall not less than twenty years or up to life imprisonment and the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 also imposing same sentence to the offenders.
(iv) Considering the age factor of the Accused, who aged 23 years, accordingly, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of TWENTY (20) Years and imposed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for the offences under
Section 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for SIX (6) Months.
54/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
(v) Further, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of TWENTY (20) Years and imposed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) for the offence under
Section 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and in default of payment of fine, the Accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for SIX (6) months. All the above sentences shall run concurrently.
(vi) Considering the gravity of the offence, the victim/PW1 suffered both mental or physical harm or injury/mental trauma and bodily injured, which cannot be compensated monetarily, however to meet the endeavour justice for rehabilitation, the accused is hereby directed to pay victim compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
Only)
(vii) The Liaison Officer and Court Constable reported that there is no victim compensation paid till today by the Government. There is no evidence before this Court as the Government paid the victim compensation, even registered the crime in the year 2020 till today.
Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that as contemplated under Section 357-A of CrPC and under POCSO Act/Victim
Compensation Scheme/Nirbaya Funds, the matter is referred to the
District Legal Services Authority, Jayashankar Bhupalpally to determine for fair victim compensation to the victim/PW1, as the PW1 is entitled to get upto Rs.10,50,000/- wherever the offence committed under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC and offence under Section 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of 55/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, within one month and submit the report.
(viii) The Station House Officer, PS., Adavimutharam hereby directed to furnish the Savings Bank Account particulars of victim/PW1 in order to credit the awarded compensation amount into her account.
To avoid multiple claim from the other Institute or Government, this office is hereby informing the same to the State Legal Services
Authority, Hyderabad, the District Legal Services Authority, Jayashankar
Bhupalpally and the District Magistrate, Jayashankar Bhupalpally. If any excess compensation amount collected by the victim which she entitled, the District Magistrate as well as this Court are having power to recover the excess claim, in accordance with law.
(ix) The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(x) There is no order of case property, as no case property in this case.
(xi) This Judgment copy supplied with free of cost to Accused.
(xii) The accused is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad.
56/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
(xiii) The accused is also informed of his right to Free Legal Aid by approaching the Hon’ble State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, if he does not have means to prefer an Appeal.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 09th day of April, 2025).
Sd/-
FAC SPECIAL JUDGE FAST TRACK
SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS
TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM
SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CASES,
JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1 :Victim. PW2 :Mother of Victim. PW3 :N. Dhansingh. PW4 :J. Ajay. PW5 : K. Vinod. PW6 : Ch. Sammaiah. PW7 : T. Naveen. PW8 : T. Kavitha. PW9 : D. Ramadevi. PW10 : G. Jyothi. PW11 : B. Mahesh. PW12 : N. Pavan. PW13 : Dr. M. Laxmi. PW14 : D. Niharika. PW15 : G. Srinivas. PW16 : J. Vijay Kumar. PW17 : G. Jithender. PW18 : Ch. Raju. PW19 : B. Kishan.
57/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
FOR DEFENCE :
- None -
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1Report.
Ex.P2164 (5) CrPC statement of PW1.
Ex.P3Study, Conduct and Date of Birth Certificate of PW1.
Ex.P4Crime Detail Form.
Ex.P5Final Opinion.
Ex.P6Signature of PW15 on Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama.
Ex.P7Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama.
Ex.P8Signature of PW16 on Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama.
Ex.P9Customer Application Form.
Ex.P10 Call Data details of Mobile No. 6301680371.
Ex.P11 Customer Application Form.
Ex.P12 Call Data details of Mobile No. 7671090616.
Ex.P13 Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P14 First Information Report.
Ex.P15 Compact Disc along with Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P16 Potency Certificate.
Ex.P17 Orders in CFR No. 1701/2020 Dt: 16.11.2020.
58/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL
SC (POCSO) 54 of 2022 SC (POCSO) 69 of 2021 (Old)
Ex.P18 DNA Report vide File No. DNA/286/2020 Dt: 23.02.2021.
Ex.P19 Copy of Discharge Summary of PW1 vide OPD/EMER.REG.No. 2228 Dt: 16.08.2020.
FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.D1Part portion of Ex.P1.
Ex.D2Part portion of Ex.P2.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
- Nil -
Sd/-
FAC SPECIAL JUDGE FAST TRACK
SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS
TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM
SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CASES,
JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY.
59/59FAC POCSO Judge, BHPL