1 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS
TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,
SANGAREDDY.
Wednesday the 13 th day of May, 2026
Present: Smt. R.Sreelekha,
Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape And POCSO Act Cases, Sangareddy.
SC.POCSO. 23 of 2023
Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sangareddy Sub-Division. Description of the accusedErigadinla Vadde Yadagiri S/o.Vadde Ananthaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Centering work, R/o: H.No.4-3-78,IndiraColony,Rajampet, Sangareddy ChargeUnder Section U/Sec.448, 376-AB and 323 of IPC, Sec.5(m) r/w Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
Crime No. and Name of PSCrime No.28/2023 of P.S. Sangareddy Town. Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty
Finding of the JudgeFound guilty Sentence or order In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.
However, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.448, 323 and 376-AB of IPC and U/Sec.5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly he is convicted U/Sec,.235(2) of Cr.PC for the said offences.
The accused is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence and the same is recorded on a separate sheet. He pleaded mercy of the Court and prayed to take lenient view.
2 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, 2012 as the victim girl was aged 10years at the time of offence, the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years (20 years) and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months ( 2 months) for the offence U/Sec.5(m) punishable U/Sec.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
In view of Section 42 of POCSO Act, 2012, no separate punishment is being imposed against the accused for the offence U/Sec.376-AB of IPC.
The fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand Only) imposed against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, shall be paid to the victim/PW1 to meet the medical expenses and her rehabilitation.
The accused is also convicted U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.448 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months (6 months) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month ( 1 month).
Further, the accused is also convicted U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months (6 months) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month (1 month). The substantial sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Total fine amount is Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only).
As seen from the record, the accused was in jail from 30-01-2023 to 23-05-2023. The said 3 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 period shall be given set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C against the substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed against him.
The accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and he is further informed that he will be provided legal-aid counsel to prefer an appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble High Court within thirty days from today and also furnished the details of DLSA, Sangareddy with it’s office phone No.08455 271401, Toll Free No.15100. Office is hereby directed to communicate the same to the learned Secretary, DLSA, Sangareddy with a direction to follow up the case with jail authorities and to see that free legal aid counsel be appointed, if the accused places any of such request through Jail Authorities, if he is not represented by counsel.
Free copy of Judgment is supplied to the accused.
MO.1 to 8 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
As the accused is convicted for the offence U/Sec.5(m) punishable U/Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl aged 10 years, in view of the nature of offence and the sufferance undergone by the victim/PW1 both physically and mentally, and also for her rehabilitation, this Court opines that the victim girl is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only). Therefore, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Sangareddy is hereby directed to take steps to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the victim girl at the earliest.
4 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
Prosecution conducted byB.Sur Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor.
Accused defended bySri. Dattatri, Deputy Legal Aid Defence Counsel
for accused.
This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. B.Sur Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri Dattatri, Deputy Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the accused, having perused the material on record; having heard arguments on either side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. The Sub-Divisional Police Office, Sangreddy Sub-Division filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Ss.452 and 376-AB of IPC,
Section 5 (j) (m) r/w Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2) (v) of SC/ST(POA)
Act,1989.
2.Facts of the prosecution case in brief are as follows:-
(i)The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29-1-2023 at about 11:30 hours, LW1/mother of the victim girl came to the police station and submitted a report stating that they came to Sangareddy for their livelihood and residing in a rented house by doing labour work, that they are having two children i.e. one son and one daughter/PW/1/victim, aged eight years. On 28-1-2023 in the night at 21:00 hours, they left their children at the house and went out to get their phone repaired. Later, at about 21:45 hours they came to their house and knocked the door, immediately their neighbour namely Yadaiah/accused who belongs to
Vaddera caste came out from their house and tried to escape. Immediately LW1 along with her husband/PW13 caught hold of him, but he escaped from their clutches and fled away. Later, they enquired with her daughter/victim, their 5 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 daughter/victim disclosed that her neighbour uncle has come into their house, pressed her chest, removed the drawer and slept on her. After few minutes her daughter vomited, they did not know what to do and also it was late night, as such they came to the police station on 29-1-2023 in the morning hours. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against Yadaiah/accused.
(ii) Basing on the contents of the report, PW14 registered a case in Crime
No.28/2023 U/Ss.452 and 376 AB of IPC, Section 5 (j) (m) r/w Sec.6 of POCSO
Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2) (v) of SC/ST(POA) Act, issued express F.I.R. and sent to all the concerned.
(iii)Later, PW14 sent the victim girl to Bharosa Centre, Sangareddy for recording her statement, accordingly PW8 examined and recorded the statement of victim girl. PW14 gave a requisition to PW11 to examine the victim girl and to collect the required objects from the victim, accordingly lady medical officer/PW11 examined the victim/PW1 and collected vaginal swabs and vaginal smear to send the same to FSL for chemical analysis.
(iv) PW14 collected the clothes of the victim girl and seized the same
before the panchas i.e. PW5 and LW8/Andole Jeevan Kumar and sent to FSL.
(v)On receipt of F.I.R. the Superintendent of Police, Sangareddy appointed PW15 as Investigation Officer and issued proceedings. In compliance of the same, PW15 took over the case file and visited the Government Hospital,
Sangareddy, wherein he examined and recorded the statements of LW1/ mother of victim girl and PW13. Later, PW15 visited scene of offence, secured the presence 6 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 of two mediators i.e. LW9/Patnam Anvesh Kumar and PW6 and drafted the scene observation report in their presence, drawn rough sketch of the scene and seized one bedsheet and sent to FSL. PW15 examined and recorded the statements of
Pws.2 and 3.
(vi)On the requisition of PW15, PW4 issued bonafide certificate of the victim girl wherein the date of birth of the victim girl is mentioned as 1-1-2013, that as per the date of birth certificate, the victim girl age is ten years, twenty eight days.
PW15 examined and recorded the statement of PW4.
(vii)On 29-1-2023, PW15 filed a requisition before PW12/Tahsildar,
Sangareddy to furnish caste certificate of the accused and before PW10 /Tahsildar,
Tekmal Mandal to furnish caste certificate of LW1 and PW1. Accordingly, PW12 issued caste certificate of the accused stating that the accused belongs to BC-A
Vadera community and PW10 issued caste certificate of LW1 and PW1 stating that they belong to ST-Lambada community.
(viii)On 30-1-2023 at 9:00 hours, on reliable information, PW14 rushed to
Indira colony and apprehended accused/Erigadinla Vadde Yadaigiri at his house and brought him to SDPO Office, Sangareddy and produced before PW15. PW15 interrogated the accused thoroughly, the accused confessed the commission offence, as such PW15 summoned the panchas i.e. PW7 and LW12/Manne
Srinivas, recorded confession statement of the accused and seized the clothes of the accused which were worn by him while committing the offence and sent to FSL.
PW15 effected the arrest of the accused, sent the accused to Government Hospital, 7 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
Sangareddy for medical check-up and for potency test and to collect semen of the accused in order to send it to FSL. PW9 examined the accused and furnished report, PW9 also collected the semen of the accused and sent to FSL for comparison.
(ix)PW15 deposited the seized articles along with letter of advise to FSL for chemical analysis and report, on that LW17/Dr.G.Gopinath analyzed and furnished report, later PW15 collected the property from FSL. Hyderabad and deposited in the Hon’ble Court.
(x)On the requisition of PW15, LW18 /the then JMFC, Zaheerabad recorded 164 Cr.PC statement of LW1 and PW1. After completion of entire investigation and collection of all necessary documents, PW15 filed charge sheet against the accused for offence punishable U/Ss.452 and 376 AB of IPC, Section 5
(j) (m) r/w Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2) (v) of SC/ST(POA) Act.
3.The case was taken cognizance for the offence U/S.452 and 376 AB of IPC and Section 5 (j) (m) r/w Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2) (v) of
SC/ST(POA) Act, against the accused.
4.On appearance of the accused, case copies and documents were furnished to him as required U/S.207 of Cr.P.C.
5. On appearance of the accused and on hearing the accused, charges are framed for the offence U/Ss.448, 376 AB and 323 of IPC, Sec.5(m) r/w Sec.6 of 8 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and explained to the accused, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, in order to substantiate it’s case against the accused, on behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 15 were examined and exhibited
Exs.P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 8 are marked.
7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined
U/S.313 of Cr.PC for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
8.Heard both sides and perused the entire record.
9.Now the points for determination are: -
1. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.448 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for
the offence U/Sec.376 AB of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
3. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.323 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
4. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for
the offence U/Sec.5(m) r/w Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond
reasonable doubt?
5. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for
the offence U/Sec.3(2) (v) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 beyond reasonable
doubt?
9 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
POINTS NO.1 to 4:-
10.For the sake of convenience, the points No.1 to 4 are discussed together.
11.The case of the prosecution is that when the victim girl aged ten years was sleeping in her house, the accused entered into the house of the victim girl and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her, that when the victim girl cried, the accused slapped her for stopping her cries and that thereby the accused committed the offences U/Secs.448, 323 and 376 AB of IPC and U/Sec.5(m) r/w
Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The initial burden is on the prosecution to prove the same.
12.Before discussing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is necessary to refer to the provision of Sections 448, 323 and 376 AB of IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w
Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
(a) Section 448 of IPC reads as follows:-
Punishment for house-trespass:- Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
(b)Section 323 of IPC reads as follows:-
Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt:– Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
(c)Section 376-AB of IPC reads as follows:-
Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age:– Whoever, commits rape on a woman under twelve years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine or with death.
(d)Section 5(m) of POCSO Act, 2012 reads as follows:-
Aggravated penetrative sexual assault: - 5(m):- whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or
(e) Sec.6 of POCSO 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.
(2). The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.
Proof of age of the victim:-
13.To prove the age of the victim, the prosecution got examined PW4 who issued the bonafide certificate of the victim girl. According to PW4, in her chief- examination she deposed that on 30-1-2023 on the requisition from SHO, P.S.
Sangareddy Town, she furnished bonafide certificate of the victim girl/PW1, that the victim studied in their school from 1st to 4th Class for the Academic years 2019-2020 to 31-2-2022. She further deposed that the admission number of the victim is 460, that as per the admission register, the date of birth of the victim is 1-1-2013, that accordingly she issued the bonafide certificate. Ex.P2 is the bonafide certificate of the victim girl. In her cross-examination, she denied that the victim never studied in their school and that at the instance of police, she issued Ex.P2.
11 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
14. Even as per report/Ex.P17 also, the age of the victim is mentioned as eight years. The defence counsel did not specifically deny the age of the victim girl.
According to the prosecution, on 28-1-2023, during night hours the accused entered into the house of the victim girl and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. Thus, the age of the victim is ten years as on the date of incident. Nothing substantial is elicited in the cross-examination of PW4 to discredit her testimony. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence of the defence and considering the testimony of PW4 along with Ex.P2, this court concludes that the victim girl was minor below the age of eighteen years, as such a child as on the date of incident.
Appreciation of evidence:-
15.In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 15 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 8.
16.The prosecution got examined the victim as PW1. As the victim is a minor approximately nine years old, in order to ascertain whether the victim was capable of understanding the questions put to her, this Court posed some preliminary questions to the victim. Upon confirming her ability to respond appropriately, the
Court proceeded to record her statement.
17.It is the evidence of PW1/victim that she know the accused, that they resided at Indira Colony, Sangareddy, that she studied in Government School, Sangareddy upto 4th Class. It is her further evidence that about two years back, on one day her parents went out, that around 9-00 P.M. she and her younger brother slept in their house, that one person entered into their house, the said person woke-up the 12 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 victim, that he removed the underwear of the victim and also removed his pant, that he kept his toilet portion(penis) into her toilet portion(vagina). It is the further evidence of PW1 that when she raised her voice, the said person threatened the victim not to raise hue and cry and pressed her throat, that he slapped on her cheeks. It is the further evidence of PW1 that in the meanwhile her mother knocked the doors, entered into the house, caught the said person, dragged him out of the house and tried to beat him, but the said person bitten the hand of her mother and ran away. PW1 further deposed that then her mother approached the police. It is the evidence of PW1 that she was sent to Bharosa Centre, Sangareddy, that one madam examined and recorded her statement. It is the further evidence of PW1 that she was referred to Government Hospital for medical examination, that she was admitted there for three days. PW1 further deposed that her statement was recorded by Judge Madam, that as per her narration the Judge Madam recorded her statement, read over the contents and obtained her signature. PW1 identified the accused present in the court hall as the person who committed the offence against her, when the photograph of the accused was shown in the mobile phone, as the accused was placed in a separate cabin in the court hall, not visible to the victim. The 164 Cr.PC statement of the victim is marked as Ex.P1.
18.In her cross-examination, she deposed that there is one another portion beside their house. She denied the suggestion that the accused never entered into their house and that no incident took place as deposed in her chief-examination.
Thus, nothing material is elicited during the cross-examination of PW1 to discredit her testimony.
13 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
19.To support the version of the victim, the prosecution got examined the father of the victim as PW13. According to PW13, at the time of incident, they were residing at Indira Colony, Sangareddy as tenants in the house of PW2. It is the evidence of PW13 that about two years back, on one day himself and his wife went to Sangareddy to get repair the mobile phone at around 9:00 P.M., at that time his children alone were present in the house. It is the evidence of PW13 that when they returned back home, their house door was bolted from inside, that they knocked the doors, the accused opened the door, came out from their house, that PW13 tried to catch him, but he fled away. It is the evidence of PW13 that when the door was opened, he saw the accused was without underwear and he even removed the underwear of his daughter, who was crying by that time. It is the evidence of PW13 that on enquiry, his daughter informed that in their absence, the accused entered into their house, locked the door from inside, removed the underwear of the accused, removed the underwear of his daughter, kept his penis(his toilet portion) into her toilet portion and also kept his toilet portion into the mouth of the victim, that after half an hour the victim vomited, through out the night, she cried. It is the evidence of PW13 that on the next day morning he and his wife went to the police station and lodged a report before the police, that his wife gave report to the police.
PW13 also identified the accused present in the court hall as Vadde Yadagiri.
20.In his cross-examination, he deposed that the house of PW2 is consisting of two portions, that in one portion PW2 and family resides and in another portion they are residing as tenant. He further deposed that that there are houses surrounding their house, that the accused is their adjacent neighbour. He denied a suggestion 14 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 that he is having disputes with the accused who is their neighbour and keeping in mind the said disputes, the accused is falsely implicated in this case.
21.Though, PW13 is cross-examined at length, however, nothing material was elicited to establish that the present case is outcome of any grudge or previous enemity against the accused. No contradictions or inconsistencies were brought out during his cross-examination to doubt his credibility. Thus, the evidence of PW13 is corroborating the evidence of PW1 with regard to the accused entering into the house of the victim and committing sexual assault against her.
22.According to PW13, at the time of incident they were residing as tenants in the house of PW2. To prove the same, the prosecution got examined the house owner of PW13, as PW2. According to PW2, about two years back, she gave one portion consisting of two rooms on rent to the family of the victim, that the victim, her parents and siblings used to stay, that the parents of the victim are coolies. It is the evidence of PW2 that on one day, the parents of PW1 went to market, that on the next day of the incident, during morning hours, the mother of the victim informed her that they went to market, that the victim was alone in the house, that the accused entered into their house, removed the clothes of the victim and sexually harassed her, that the accused slept on the victim and the victim got blood at her private part.
23.In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that no such alleged incident took place, nor the mother of the victim informed her anything and that the accused never entered into the house of victim. Thus, the evidence of PW2 15 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 corroborates the evidence of PW13 that at the time of incident, PW13 resided as tenant in the house of PW2.
24.The prosecution also got examined PW3 who is a circumstantial witness.
According to PW3, she came to know that some quarrel took place at the house of
PW2, as such she went there, that she came to know through the victim’s mother that on that day, the parents of the victim went out, that the victim was alone in the house and doors were not locked from inside, that when they returned back home, they observed that the accused was present in their house by bolting the door from inside, that on knocking the door, it was not opened, that some body pushed the door from the outside, that the accused opened the door and came out, that when the parents of the victim tried to catch him, the accused absconded by biting the hand of the mother of the victim. It is the evidence of PW3 that on enquiry, the victim disclosed to her that the accused removed her drawer and also undressed himself, slept on the victim, kept his penis into her mouth.
25In her cross-examination, she deposed that she heard about the quarrel at around 8;00 P.M. or 8:30 P.M, at that time 15 to 20 persons gathered in front of the house of the victim, that the police also came on that night around 9:30 P.M.
However, it is not the evidence of PW13 that 15 to 20 persons gathered in front of his house, that the police also came on that night around 9:30 P.M. Thus, the evidence of PW3 is inconsistent and full of improvements. Admittedly, PW3 is not a eye witness to the incident. Hence, the evidence of PW3 need not be taken into consideration.
16 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
26.According to PW1, her statement was recorded at Bharosa Centre,
Sangareddy. To prove the same, the prosecution got examined PW8/WSI, Bharosa
Centre, Sangareddy. According to PW8, on 29-1-2023, as per the instructions of
Superintendent of Police, Sangareddy, she recorded the statement of the victim at
Bharosa Centre, Sangareddy, that as per the version of the victim, she recorded the statement of the victim girl, read over and explained the contents, that at the time of recording statement, victim’s mother was present. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the victim stated before her that she cannot identify the perpetrator.
27.The evidence of Pw.1 and PW13 reveals that the 164 Cr.PC statement of the victim girl was recorded by a Judge Madam. As seen from the record, the 164
Cr.P.C. statement of the victim was recorded by LW18/ the then JMFC,
Zaheerabad. As per 164 Cr.PC statement, the victim has stated about the sexual assault committed by the accused against her.
28.To prove the seizure of the clothes of the victim, the prosecution got examined PW5 who deposed that in the year 2023, when she was on duty, on one day the police came to Government Headquarters Hospital, Sangareddy and recorded seizure report and seized the clothes of the victims in the presence of
LW8/A.Jeeva Kumar and herself, that seizure report bears her signature. The seizure report is marked as Ex.P3. The clothes of the victim are marked as
M.O.1/Lavendar colour top. M.O.2/Red colour pant and M.O.3/Chocolate colour underwear. In her cross-examination, she denied a suggestion that no panchanama was conducted in her presence and that at the instance of police she is deposing false and that M.Os.1 to 3 are not seized in her presence.
17 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
29.To prove the scene of offence panchanama, the prosecution got examined
PW6. According to PW6, in the year 2023, on one day at the house of
Ramulamma/PW2 nearby church, Indira Colony, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer conducted panchanama and seized one bed sheet and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence, that the panchanama was drafted in their presence, read over the contents and obtained their signatures. The scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama is marked as Ex.P4 and the rough sketch is marked as Ex.P5. The bed sheet is marked as M.O.4. PW6 further deposed that Exs.P4 and P5 bear his signatures. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot say the native place of the victim, that they resided as tenants. He denied a suggestion that no panchanama was conducted nor any bed sheet was seized in their presence, nor any rough sketch was drawn in their presence.
30.According to the prosecution, the accused confessed the commission of the offence before the Investigation Officer in the presence of panchas. To prove the same, the prosecution got examined PW7 who is one of the panchas for confession-cum-recovery panchanama. According to PW7 in the year 2023, on one day around 11:00 hours, he and LW12/Manne Srinivas were called to DSP Office,
Rajampet, Sangareddy, as such they went to the police station, that one person was present, that on the request of the police, they enquired the said person at one corner. It is the evidence of PW7 that the said person disclosed his name as
Yadagiri/accused, the said person confessed his guilt and in pursuance of his confession, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer seized clothes of the accused under cover of panchanama. PW7 identified the seized clothes when confronted to him.
The relevant portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama is marked as Ex.P6.
18 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
M.O.5/chocolate colour jeans pant, M.O.6/black, blue and yellow colour checks full hand shirt, M.O.7/one white colour half banian and M.O.8/one black colour half underwear which were seized from the possession of the accused are marked through PW7. In his cross-examination, PW7 denied that M.Os.5 to 8 were not recovered from the possession of the accused and that at instance of court constable, he identified the accused.
31.According to PW1/victim, she was referred to a doctor for medical examination. To prove the same, the prosecution got examined PW11. PW11 who examined the victim girl testified that on 29-1-2023, she received a requisition from
SHO, P.S. Sangareddy to examine the victim minor girl, that accordingly on the same day around 3:00 P.M., she examined the victim girl at District Hospital,
Sangareddy. It is the evidence of PW11 that the age of the victim was eight years, that the victim was accompanied by her mother and WHG, that she has taken the consent of the mother for examination of the victim girl. It is the evidence of PW11 that the girl was feverish, terrified and crying at the time of examination, that on general examination, external injuries were not found over the chest, upper part of the body, that there was abrasion and bruise on medial aspect of upper right thigh, that on genital examination, her labia majora was edematous and congested, that her labia minora was congested, that a small abrasion was seen on the right labia majora, a small paraurethral tear of one MM present on the right side of the urethra. It is the evidence of PW11, that she has taken a total of three swabs and four slides and sent them to FSL for examination. It is the further evidence of PW11 that according to FSL report, no semen and spermatozoa are detected, that basing on clinical examination, physical examination and FSL report, she gave her final 19 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 opinion that sexual assault took place on the victim minor girl. Ex.P10 is requisition received by her, Ex.P11 is medical examination report of the victim under Appendix-
I, ExP12 is FSL report and Ex.P13 is final opinion. In her cross-examination, she denied a suggestion that she did not examine the victim girl and that she gave final opinion at the instance of police and against the FSL report.
32.Thus, according to PW11, there was abrasion and bruise on medial aspect of upper right thigh, a small paraurethral tear of one MM present on the right side of the Urethra. According to PW11, she gave final opinion that sexual assault took place on the victim minor girl. This corroborates with the evidence of PW1 with regard to recent sexual assault on her.
33.From the above discussion, it is evident that the evidence of PW1/victim,
PW13/father of victim and PW11/doctor who examined the victim girl is corroborating with each other with regard to sexual assault committed by the accused against the victim and the same is cogent, convincing and inspires the confidence of the court.
34.The prosecution also got examined the doctor who conducted potency test on the accused as PW9. PW9 opined that there is nothing to suggest that
Erigadinla Vadde Yadiagiri/accused is not capable of performing sexual act.
Accordingly, he issued potency certificate of the accused under Ex.P7. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that at the instance of police, he issued
Ex.P7. The evidence of PW9 also corroborates the evidence of PW1 with regard to sexual assault against her.
20 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
35.According to PW13, on the next day of the incident, he and his wife went to police station and that his wife lodged the report. To prove the same, the prosecution got examined PW14/Investigation officer. According to PW14, on receipt of report under Ex.P17, he issued FIR under Ex.P18. PW14 further deposed about the manner of investigation done by him. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there is delay of 14 hours in lodging the report.
36.PW15 is another investigation officer who also deposed about the manner of investigation done by him. Through him, Ex.P19/Requisition given by him to the
Head Master, Primary School, Vijayanagar Colony, Rajampet, Sangareddy, Ex.P20/
Requisition by him for recording 164 Cr.P.C. statements of victim and her mother,
Ex.P21/164 Cr.P.C. statement of the mother of the victim are marked. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestions made by the counsel for the accused.
37.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, that the evidence of
PW1/victim is corroborated with the evidence of other material witnesses and that the same is cogent and trust worthy, that nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to discredit their testimony. The learned Special Public
Prosecutor further submitted that the age of the victim is proved by the evidence of
PW4 and Ex.P2 and prayed to convict the accused.
38.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW13, that there are omissions and improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, that there is delay in 21 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 lodging the report, that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to acquit the accused.
39.As seen from the evidence discussed supra, the identification of the accused is not in dispute. A suggestion is given to PW13 that he is having disputes with the accused who is his neighbour and keeping in mind the said disputes, the accused is falsely implicated in this case, which is denied by PW13. This suggestion impresses upon the Court that the accused is admitting that he is the neighbour of
PW13. Even as per Ex.P5/rough sketch also, the house of Vadde Ananthaiah who is the father of the accused is shown as neighbouring house of Alluri
Ramulamma/PW2/owner of the house of PW13 which corroborates with the evidence of PW13 that the accused is his adjacent owner.
40.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the victim/PW1 in her 161
Cr.P.C. statement stated that she cannot identify the accused, as such the evidence of the victim girl cannot be believed. However, as seen from the cross-examination of PW1, no such suggestion is given to PW1 with regard to her 161 Cr.P.C.
statement. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the accused on this aspect is not tenable and cannot be accepted.
41.Another contention of the counsel for the accused is that there is delay in lodging the report. As per the prosecution, the incident took place on 28-1-2023 at 9:45 P.M. The report was lodged on 29-1-2023 at 11:30 hours. PW14/Investigation
Officer admitted in his cross-examination that there is delay of fourteen hours in lodging the report. However, LW1/mother of the victim stated in the report itself, that after the incident, PW1/victim vomited, as such they were unable to understand as 22 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 to what to do and also further it was night time, as such they lodged the report on the next day. Thus, LW1/mother of the victim explained in the report itself, the reasons for the delay in lodging the report. Moreover, the delay in presenting the report in sexual offences is common due to psychological trauma, social stigma and fear. The delay in lodging F.I.R. in a case of sexual assault cannot be equated with the cases involving other offences and the same has to be considered with a different yardstick. Moreover, LW1/mother of the victim stated in the report itself, the reasons for the delay and the same has to be considered and accepted.
42.Another contention of the accused is that there are disputes between PW13 and the accused and keeping in mind the said disputes, the accused is falsely implicated in this case. However, PW13 denied the said suggestion. This Court observes that except giving the said suggestion which is denied by PW13, the accused did not adduce any positive evidence with regard to the said disputes. The absence of any evidence of the accused suggesting disputes between PW13 and the accused further supports the case of the prosecution.
43.The first charge against the accused is U/Sec.448 of IPC for committing house trespass. According to Section 448 of IPC, whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may be extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. In the present case, the prosecution through the evidence of PW1 and PW13 has successfully proved that the accused trespassed into the house of PW13 and thus committed the offence U/Sec.448 of IPC.
23 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
44.The second and fourth charge framed against the accused is U/Sec.376- AB of IPC and U/Sec.5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 respectively, for having committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the victim aged ten years.
45.As per Section 375(a) of IPC, rape is defined as to include penetration of the penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person. The testimony of PW1/victim that the accused kept his toilet portion(penis) into her toilet portion(vagina) falls under this definition.
46.As per Sec.376-AB of IPC, whoever, commits rape on a woman under twelve years of age 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 that person’s natural life, and with fine or with death.
47.Admittedly, in the present case, the age of the victim is ten years i.e. under twelve years of age. As such, this court opines that the offence committed by the accused is punishable U/S.376-AB of IPC.
48.In addition, the offence committed by the accused also attracts the provisions of Sec.5(m) of POCSO Act, punishable U/Sec.6 of POCSO Act.
49.Section 5(m) of POCSO Act, defines aggravated penetrative sexual assault as to include a person who commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years. As per Section 6 of POCSO Act, 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 24 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 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.
50.In the present case also, as discussed above, the age of the victim is ten years. As such, the offence committed by the accused U/Sec.5(m) of POCSO Act, is punishable U/Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
51.In addition, the accused is also charged for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 of IPC for having slapped the victim girl when she started crying. As per Sec.323 of
IPC, whoever voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. According to PW1/victim, when the victim raised voice, the accused threatened her not to raise hue and cry and slapped on the cheeks of the victim. Thus, the act of the accused in slapping on the cheeks of the victim, when she raised her voice falls U/Sec.323 of IPC.
52.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution has successfully established that the accused trespassed into the house of the victim, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim and also slapped on the cheeks of the victim, thereby making him liable for punishment U/Sec. 448, 376-
AB, 323 of IPC and Sec.5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The points are answered accordingly.
POINT NO.5:-
53.In this case, the accused is also charged with the offence punishable
U/Sec.3(2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is the contention of the prosecution, that the accused who 25 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 belongs to BC- A (Vaddera) community, despite having knowledge that the victim belongs to Schedule Tribe-Lambada community, committed sexual assault on her.
54.To prove the community of the victim and the accused, the prosecution got examined PWs.10 and 12 respectively. PW10 is the Tahsildar, who issued the caste particulars of the complainant and victim/PW1 under Ex.P9. According to Ex.P9, the complainant and the victim belong to ST-Lambada community. PW12 is the
Tahsildar who issued the caste particulars of the accused under Ex.P15. As per
Ex.P15, the accused belongs to BC-A (Vaddera) community.
55.Except producing the caste certificate in proof of the community of the victim girl, the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove the ingredients of the provisions of Sec.3(2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989. None of the witnesses, including the victim stated that the accused has knowledge about the caste of the victim girl and that having such knowledge, the accused committed the offence. It is settled law that merely because the victim belongs to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe, the provisions of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not attract, unless the accused has committed the offence with such knowledge or intention of committing the offence on a person belonging to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe. In the above circumstances, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has committed the offence U/Sec.3(2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The point is answered accordingly.
26 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
CONCLUSION:-
56.In the light of the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly PW1/victim, PW13/father of the victim and PW11/doctor who examined the victim and the Investigation Officers, it is evident that the accused entered into the house of victim, committed sexual assault on her and also bet the victim on her cheeks.
57.Here, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Sec.29 and 30 of POCSO
Act, 2012.
Section 29. Presumption as to certain offences:- Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence U/Sec.3, 5, 7 and Sec.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.
Section 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.
(2) For the purpose 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.
Explanation:- In this section “culpable mental state” includes intention,motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
58.From the reading of Section 29 of POCSO Act, 2012, it is evident that if a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence
U/Sec. 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act, the 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. As per Section 30 of POCSO Act, 2012, in a 27 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 prosecution for any offence under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the 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, beyond reasonable doubt and not by preponderance of probabilities.
59.In the instant case, the accused is charged for the offence U/Sec.5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. As discussed above, the prosecution is able to prove that the accused committed the offence U/Sec.5(m) of the Act punishable U/Sec.6 of
POCSO Act, 2012 through the evidence of PW1/victim, PW13/father of the victim,
PW11/doctor who examined the victim girl and the Investigation Officers.
60. Therefore, in view of the presumption U/Sec.29 of POCSO Act, 2012, it has to be presumed that the accused has committed the offence, unless the contrary is proved. The Court shall also presume U/Sec.30 of POCSO Act, 2012 that the accused had the culpable mental state while doing the act, which he shall disprove beyond reasonable doubt by adducing defence evidence or by eliciting through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
61.The counsel for the accused has cross-examined all the prosecution witnesses. From a perusal of cross-examination of PW1 and PW13, it shows that nothing contrary was elicited from them. Except putting formal suggestions with regard to the commission of the offence and implication of the accused falsely in this case, due to disputes, nothing material was elicited through the victim or her father, to discredit their entire evidence. Thus, it can be inferred that the accused failed to rebut the presumptions contained in Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO 28 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
Act, 2012 and consequently, it can be presumed that the accused has committed the offences with which he is charged.
62.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable
U/Sec.3(2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.
However, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.448, 323 and 376-AB of IPC and U/Sec.5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly he is convicted U/Sec,.235(2) of Cr.PC for the said offences.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me
in the open Court on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.
Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Sangareddy
Hearing on quantum of sentence:-
1.The accused is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence and the same is recorded on a separate sheet. He pleaded mercy of the Court and prayed to take lenient view by stating that he is having wife, small children and old aged mother, that except him, there are no other persons to look after them. The learned Spl.P.P.
submitted that no lenient view can be taken, as the offence is grave in nature.
2. After hearing the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that a lenient view cannot be taken against him, as the offence committed by him is against the minor victim girl (aged 10 years old).
3.Section 42 of The Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 speaks as follows:-
Alternate Punishment “When an act or omission constitutes 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, 376-A, 376-AB, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376DA, 29 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 376DB, 376-E, Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act,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 under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree”.
4.In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, 2012 as the victim girl was aged 10 years at the time of offence, the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years (20 years) and to pay a fine of Rs.
5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months ( 2 months) for the offence U/Sec.5(m) punishable U/Sec.6 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
5.In view of Section 42 of POCSO Act, 2012, no separate punishment is being imposed against the accused for the offence U/Sec.376-AB of IPC.
6.The fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand Only) imposed against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, shall be paid to the victim/PW1 to meet the medical expenses and her rehabilitation.
7. The accused is also convicted U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.448 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months (6 months) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand Only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month ( 1 month).
8.Further, the accused is also convicted U/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months (6 months) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand Only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month (1 month). The substantial sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Total fine amount is Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only).
9.As seen from the record, the accused was in jail from 30-01-2023 to 23-05- 30 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023 2023. The said period shall be given set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C against the substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed against him.
10.The accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal before the
Hon’ble High Court and he is further informed that he will be provided legal-aid
counsel to prefer an appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble High Court within thirty days from today and also furnished the details of DLSA, Sangareddy with it’s office phone No.08455 271401, Toll Free No.15100. Office is hereby directed to communicate the same to the learned Secretary, DLSA, Sangareddy with a direction to follow up the case with jail authorities and to see that free legal aid counsel be appointed, if the accused places any of such request through Jail
Authorities, if he is not represented by counsel.
11.Free copy of Judgment is supplied to the accused.
12.MO.1 to 8 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
13.As the accused is convicted for the offence U/Sec.5(m) punishable U/Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl aged 10 years, in view of the nature of offence and the sufferance undergone by the victim/PW1 both physically and mentally, and also for her rehabilitation, this Court opines that the victim girl is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only).
Therefore, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Sangareddy is hereby directed to take steps to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the victim girl at the earliest.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the
open Court on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.
Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal Of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Sangareddy 31 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION DEFENCE
PW1 : Victim/Victim. Nil PW2: A.Ramuluamma/Circumstantial witness. PW3: M.Nagamani/Circumstantil witness. PW4: K.Padmvathi/issued bonafide certificate of the victim PW5: K.Venktamma/Panch witness for seizure report of clothes of victim. PW6.: M.Srinivas/Panch witness for scene of offence and seizure panchnama PW7: R.Rakesh Kumar/Panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama PW8: H.Rani/who recorded the statement of victim girl PW9: Dr.G. Chadra Deepak /who conducted potency test of the accused . PW10: S.Hardeep Singh/issued caste particulars of LW1 and PW1. PW11: Dr.N.Namratha/who examined the victim girl. PW12: B. Vijay Kumar/ issued caste certificate of accused PW13: Father of victim. PW14: N.Sridhar Reddy/Investigation Officer PW15: B.Ravindra Reddy/ Investigation Officer
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION DEFENCE
Ex.P.1: 164 Cr.PC statement of PW1/PW1. Nil Ex.P2: Bonafide certificate of victim girl/PW4. Ex.P3: Seizure report/PW5. Ex.P4: Scene of offence -cum-seizure panchanama/PW6. Ex.P5: Rough sketch/PW6. Ex.P6: Relevant portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama/PW7 Ex.P7: Potency certificate/ PW9 Ex.P8: Requisition received from SDPO Sangareddy/PW10 Ex.P9: Letter issued by PW10 furnishing caste particulars of complainant and victim/PW10. Ex.P10: Requisition received by PW11/PW11. Ex.P11: Medical examination report of the victim/PW11 Ex.P12: F.S.L. report/PW11 Ex.P13: Final opinion/PW11 Ex.P14: Requisition given by SDPO/PW12. Ex.P15: Letter issued by PW12/PW12 Ex.P16: Caste certificate of the accused/PW12 Ex.P17: Report/PW14 Ex.P18: F.I.R/PW14 Ex.P19: Requisition given by PW15 to the Head Master, Primary School, Vijayanagar Colony, Rajampet, Sangareddy/PW15 Ex.P20: Requisition given by PW15 for recording 164 Cr.PC statements of victim girl and her mother/PW15 Ex.P21: 164 Cr.PC statement of mother of victim/PW15 32 of 32 S.C.POCSO NO.23/2023
MATERIAL OBJECTS
M.O.1: Lavendar colour top/PW5 M.O.2: Red colour pant /PW5 M.O.3: Chocolate colour underwear/PW5 M.O.4: Bedsheet/PW6 M.O.5: Chocolate colour jeans pant/PW7 M.O.6: Black, blue and yellow colour checks full hand shirt/PW7 M.O.7: One white colour half banian/PW7 M.O.8: One black colour half underwear/PW7
Fast Track Special Judge For Expeditious Trial And Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases Sangareddy.