Page 1 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL
COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE &
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO)
ACT CASES, NIZAMABAD.
Saturday, the 24th day of June, 2023
PRESENT: Smt. Suneetha Kunchala,
Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
FAC: I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
NIZAMABAD
(Spl. Judge, POCSO COURT, NIZAMABAD)
Pocso SC. No.112 of 2022
[Cr.No.263 of 2022 of Police Station, Dichpally]
Name of the complainant :The State represented by Asst. Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad Division, Police Station Dichpally.
Cr.No. & PS:Cr.No.263/2022 of PS Dichpally.
Name of the accused:Devakatte Govindrao @ Banni, S/o Hanmanth Rao, Age: 31 years, Caste: Munnurkapu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Eklara Big village, Madnoor mandal, Kamareddy District, at present Dharmaram (B) village of Dichpally mandal, District Nizamabad.
2. Charge :Under Sec.376(A), (AB) 376 (2) (f), 302 and 201 IPC and Sec.5(i) (m) & (n) r/w 6 (1) of POCSO Act against the accused person.
3. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.
Page 2 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
4. Finding of the Judge:Found guilty.
5. Sentence or order: In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences Under Sections 5(i) (m) & (n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, punishable under Section 6(1) of the the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 376(A), (AB) 376 (2) (f) of IPC and Section 302 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.
He is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.201 IPC and accordinglyheisacquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.
The accused is sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment which shall mean Imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) for the offence under Section 5(i)
(m) & (n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which is punishable under Section 6 (1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The accused is further sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default to pay the fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
Both the sentences shall run
Page 3 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 concurrently.
6. Prosecution :Spl.Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad conducted by
7. Accused defended by:Sri Raj Kumar Subedar, Chief Legal Aid Counsel for Accused.
This case came up before me on 20.06.2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Rajkumar Subedar, Chief Legal Aid Counsel for accused, having perused the material on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.This Sessions Case arises out of Crime No.263 of 2022 on the file of Asst. Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad
Division, Police Station Dichpally registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(A), (AB) 376 (2) (f), 302 and 201 IPC and Sec.5(i) (m) & (n) r/w 6 (1) of POCSO Act.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 23.10.2022 at 10.00 A.M. the complainant lodged a complaint stating that she has 2 daughters, elder one is 5 years old and younger one is 2 years. She stated that her husband gave her divorce in 2019 and since then she has been living along with her two
Page 4 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 daughters only. One month prior thereto she got second marriage with Govind Rao. On 20.10.2022 at about 18.00 hours, her elder daughter/victim while playing in front of the house at 19.00 hours, fell down and became unable to talk, then she along with her husband and neighbour took her to
RMP Doctor at Dharmaram-B, who suggested to shift her to
Taksh Hospital at Nizamabad. On said advise, they shifted the victim and admitted in said hospital and later she was shifted to Neloufer Hospital at Hyderabad, but she took her last breath on 21.10.2022 at 2.45 midnight. Immediately the dead body of victim was shifted to Osmania Hospital
Mortuary room. She added that she does not know the reason for the death of her elder daughter. She stated that the delay caused in filing the complaint due to her phone was dead and her husband Govindh who came with her was left her in the hospital and she went to her mother at Karvan
Mogalka Naala, and told the incident. On 23.10.2022 in the morning hours she came to Police Station and complained to the police.
(a) Based on the said report, PW.23-K. Ganesh, Sub-
Page 5 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
Inspector of Police, Dichpally registered a case, examined
Pw.1, rushed to Mortuary room at Osmania General Hospital,
Hyderabad and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators, took photographs of the dead body and subjected for Postmortem examination and examined Pw.2 and Lw.3. Later, he visited the scene of offence at Dichpally and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators Pw.6 and Lw.19
Elamandala Siddaiah and preserved the scene by means of rough sketch. Pw.23 obtained DPME report of deceased on 27.10.2022 from Pw.22, who opined that the cause of death of deceased victim is due to “Haemorrhagic shock consequent to blunt abdominal trauma associated with penetrative sexual assault”, basing on which Pw.23 altered the section of Law from 174 Cr.P.C. to Sec.376 AB, 302 of IPC and Section 5 R/w 6 of Pocso Act and Sec.3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act and sent to the court. Later, Pw.24 took up the investigation of this case, who visited Dichpally village, secured the Pws.1 and 2 and
Lw.3 and clothes of deceased i.e. pink colour T shirt and purple colour pant of deceased, which were removed by her mother before going to hospital are seized in the presence of
Page 6 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
Pw.17 and Lw.21 Sangem Devanandam and Pw.24 along with
Pw.23 visited the individual houses of Pws.3 to 10 and Lw.12
Gorantla Shanti Prasad and further visited Taksh Multi
Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad and recorded statement of
Pw.11, who treated the deceased and advised Lw.1 to go
Nilofer Hospital for better treatment.
(b)On 29.10.2022 on credible information, Pw.23 rushed to the house of accused and apprehended the accused and informed the same to Pw.24, who rushed there and interrogated the accused, the accused confessed to have committed offences of this case and Pw.24 seized recovered cut drawer of accused and Redmi Company Cell phone in the presence of Pw.17 and Lw.21 Sangem Devanandam. Later accused led the police and panchas to scene of crime i.e. in the outskirts of Dharmaram B village in the agricultural fields of Pw.4, where Pw.24 conducted 2nd scene of offence panchanama and seized Parachute coconut oil small plastic bottle and brought the accused and property to the station and deposited the property before the court.
(c)Further, Pw.24 collected birth certificate of
Page 7 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 deceased/victim girl and Pw.18 conducted potency test of the accused and opined that there is nothing to suggest that he is not capable of performing the act of sexual intercourse. Caste certificates of the complainant and accused were obtained and so also call data records, CAF and Section 65 B (4) (C) IEA certificate of accused. Pw.24 rushed to Kirana Shop of Pw.9 and Medical shop of Pw.12 at Dharmaram B village and observed CCTV footage as such he downloaded same into pen-drive through Pw.15. Lw.27 I AJFCM, Nizamabad recorded Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation and after receiving FSL reports,
Pw.24 filed charge sheet.
3.The charge-sheet was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sections 376(A), (AB) 376 (2) (f), 302 and 201 IPC and Sec.5(i) (m) & (n) r/w 6 (1) of POCSO Act against the accused. On production of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to him.
4.On production of accused, he was furnished with the copies of documents relied on by the prosecution, as required
Page 8 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 under Sec. 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.
5.Having heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned Defence Counsel and on considering the material on record, Charges for the offences punishable under section 376(A), (AB) 376 (2) (f), 302 and 201 IPC and Sec.5(i) (m) & (n) r/w 6 (1) of POCSO Act are framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, wherein the accused denied the charges, and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined
P.Ws.1 to 24 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P35 and MOs.1 to 5.
7.After the prosecution closing its evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC. He denied the incriminating material put to him. He did not adduce any oral evidence in his defence.
8.Heard the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused.
9.Now the point that arises for consideration is:-
“Whether the prosecution could prove
Page 9 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 the guilt of the accused for the charges under Sections 376(A), (AB) 376 (2) (f), 302 and 201 IPC and Sec.5(i) (m) & (n) r/w 6 (1) of POCSO Act beyond all
reasonable doubt?
POINT:-
10.The charges levelled against the accused are for the offences under Section 376(A), (AB) 376 (2) (f), 302 and 201
IPC and Sec.5(i) (m) & (n) r/w 6 (1) of POCSO Act and to prove the same, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 24 and marked
Exs.P1 to P35 and MO.1 to 5. The allegations against accused are that on 20.10.2022 before 6.00 pm, the accused who is the step father of the victim girl took the victim girl along with him and committed penetrative sexual assault on her and caused her death.
11.The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor argued that the accused is the step father of the deceased child and he used to misbehave with the victim and the deceased received injury to her leg while going on cycle and the accused himself took her to Pw.3 and again for dressing her injury, the accused took the deceased to the clinic of Pw.3 on the date of incident and from there he took the deceased to the outskirts of
Page 10 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
Dharmaram village and committed penetrative sexual assault on her and beat her due to which she became unconscious and subsequently she died after shifting to Nilofer Hospital,
Hyderabad and the PME report shows that grievous injuries on the victim girl and even the inquest report also shows the injuries on the body of the deceased and all the prosecution witnesses are consistent and corroborating with the evidence of each other and the medical evidence is also corroborating with the version of Pw.1 and there are no contradictions in the prosecution witnesses and the movement of the accused along with the deceased was also recorded in the CCTV footages which clearly establishes that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused soon before her death and the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and prayed for conviction of the accused.
12.The learned Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel argued that except suspicion, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the deceased and Pw.1 did not mention anything about the
Page 11 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 commission of offence by the accused either in her complaint or in her statement, subsequently the said allegations are made against the accused in order to implicate him in this case and even the video clippings under Ex.P5 and P6 are also not clear to establish that the persons appearing in the CCTV footages are accused and victim child. He further argued that the accused accompanied the victim child all along right from taking her to the clinic of Pw.3 for dressing of the leg injury of the victim girl till the victim girl was shifted to the Nilofer
Hospital, Hyderabad and if at all the accused committed any offence on the victim child as alleged, he would have fled away from the scene of offence but the accused himself brought the victim girl to the house in the unconscious state and he himself took the victim child to the clinic of Pw.3 and from there to Taksh Hospital, Nizamabad and from there to Nilofer
Hospital, Hyderabad and the accused accompanying the victim girl all along clearly shows that the accused is innocent and he never committed any offence on the victim girl. He further argued that Pw.1 did not mention in her complaint about any offence committed by the accused and subsequently the accused was implicated in this case and the
Page 12 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 accused never committed any offence as alleged and prayed for his acquittal.
13.Undoubtedly, the death of the victim child is a homicide and the same is established from the evidence of
Pw.22/Dr.Abdul Rahman Omer Siddiqui coupled with
Exs.P27/PME report and Ex.P28/Final Opinion which go to show that the cause of death of the deceased is haemmorrhagic shock consequent to blunt abdomenal trauma associated with penetrative sexual assault.
14.Now the point to be considered is whether the accused is the perpetrator of the offence.
15.On perusing the evidence both oral and documentary placed before this court, the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is the duty of the prosecution to link up each and every circumstance to establish the guilt of commission of the offence by the accused. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the accused as the accused is the second husband of Pw.1 and the step father of the victim child/deceased. The accused also did not dispute his identity by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the
Page 13 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 identity of the accused is established.
16.The important witness in this case is Pw.1, who is the mother of the deceased and her evidence goes to show that accused is her second husband and she got two daughters through her first husband i.e. victim girl aged 5 years and
Avanthika, 2 years and the victim girl is no more now and she got acquaintance with the accused at Hyderabad and he stated that he do not have any body and said that since she also helpless woman with two girls as such proposed to marry her and he assured to lookafter both the daughters well and also promised to deposit money in their names and he told that he is working in agricultural fields of Rythu Sanjay at
Dharmaram village and accordingly informed the same to her parents and her parents, herself and her children came to
Dharmaram village one month prior to the incident and spoke to accused where he assured to look after her and her children well and they got married at Sai Baba Temple on 20th
Sept. 2022 in the presence of her parents and neighbours.
17.She further deposed that her parents left to Hyderabad and she along with accused and her two daughters used to
Page 14 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 stay in Dharmaram village in the portion provided by said
Sanjay/Lw5/Pw.4 and one Laxman/Pw.5 used to stay in adjacent portion and one Gangaram in another portion and one Yadav Rao in another portion and 20 days after the marriage, she observed that the accused was looking towards her daughter with indecent views and accordingly warned him. She further deposed that the victim child received injury to her left leg and also to the ankle ten days prior to the incident and after two days the accused took the victim child to the hospital for two times and during the second time i.e.
on the day of the incident after taking the victim child to hospital of Lw4/Pw.3 at 6 pm, the accused came back stating that he forgot the ointment at home and again went and since he did not return, she called on his phone, but it was switched off till 8.30 pm and on that she informed the said fact to Lw.7/Pw.5/Laxman, who inturn called the said doctor/Pw.3, who informed to Pw.5 that he had put a bandage to the leg of the victim child at 7 pm and then accused left away taking the victim child.
18.She further deposed that the accused came back at 8.45
Page 15 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 pm by lifting the victim child on his shoulder and made her laid down and when she questioned the accused about the condition of the victim girl since she was normal while going to hospital and now in a drowsy condition and the accused told that he took the deceased besides the fields of Lw.5/Pw.4 and committed rape on her and when the victim girl was shouting, he beat her on her stomach, thigh and chest due to which she became unconscious and he threatened that if she tell about this fact to anybody, then he is going to kill her and her second daughter and in that fear she did not inform about the facts to anybody and immediately she took the victim child to Lw.4/Pw.3 and accused and Pw.5 were also present and as the doctor/Pw.3 was not there, Lw5/Pw.4 called the doctor ove phone and then the doctor/Pw.3 came and after examining the victim he admonished the accused stating that the victim was good when he examined and questioned the accused as to what happened subsequently and the accused stated that she fell down while playing and might have received head injury and on that she was referred to
Nizamabad Hospital.
Page 16 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
19.The further evidence of Pw.1 is that Lw5/Pw.4 provided a car in which they went to Taksha Hospital, Nizamabad and the doctor/Pw.11 stated that the condition of victim girl is serious and referred to Nilofar Hospital, Hyderabad and the victim child was unconscious through out and before going to
Nilofar hospital they came back to Dharmaram and she changed the clothes of the victim girl and kept them in
Dharmaram, which were subsequently recovered and seized by police. Pw.1 identified the clothes of the victim girl under
MO1 and MO2 which are pant and T shirt.
20.The further evidence of Pw.1 is that Lw5/Pw.4 provided ambulance and sent them to Nilofar Hospital, Hyderabad and herself and accused went to Nilofar Hospital and reached
Nilofar hospital by 2 am and after examination the doctors declared the victim child as dead and then the doctors referred victim girl to OGH for postmortem examination and they reached OGH in the early hours from where the accused ran away and then she went to house of her parents at
Hyderabad and stated that the deceased died and they all came to OGH and the doctors of OGH stated that the body
Page 17 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 will be returned only after lodging police complaint and asked to come with the police concerned and on that they came to
Dichpally and lodged complaint on 23.10.2022 that deceased might have died by receiving head injury while playing since she was under the fear of accused. She further deposed that the police came to OGH and they called accused but his phone was switched off and on 28.10.2022 when the police has strictly questioned and examined her, she revealed the entire truth and the accused is only responsible for the death of the deceased as he committed rape on the victim girl and caused injuries to her. She further deposed that she also gave statement before the Magistrate under sec.164 Cr.P.C.
21.Pw.1 was cross examined at length by the learned Chief
Legal Aid Defence Counsel, but nothing important was elicited from her cross examination to disbelieve her evidence. The evidence of Pw.2 also goes to show that the accused married
Pw.1 in Saibaba Temple and he along with Pw.1 and the 2 daughters of the Pw.1 were living in the room provided by
Pw.4 at Dharmaram village.
22.The evidence of Pw.1 is supported by the evidence of
Page 18 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
Pw.2, whose evidence goes to show that the accused married
Pw.1 around 4 months prior to the incident at Dharmaram village and on 20.10.2022 Pw.1 called him in the night hours and informed him that the deceased fell down and received injuries and was brought to Nilofer Hosiptal and subsequently the deceased died and he came to know that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and caused her death.
23.The evidence of Pw.1 is supported by the evidence of
Pw.3/PMP, Dharmaram village, whose evidence goes to show that he knows Pw.1, Lws.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and the accused and the accused used to work with Srinivas
Rao/Lw5/Pw.4 and on 19.10.2022 at around 6 pm, the accused came to his clinic along with a girl child aged around 5 years, who is his step daughter by stating that she kept her leg in the cycle and received injury and on that he treated her, dressed her injury and gave medicines along with ointment and asked the accused to bring the child on the next day for dressing along with the ointment and accordingly on the next day at around 6 to 7 pm, the accused came to his clinic along
Page 19 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 with the victim child, but he forgot the ointment and on that he left the child in his clinic and went back to bring the ointment and came along with the ointment and on that he dressed the injury of the victim child and they went away.
The further evidence of Pw.3 is that after one hour
Laxman/Lw.7/Pw.5 called him over phone and enquired whether the accused and the child were at his clinic and he informed Pw.5 that they left his clinic around 1 hour back and thereafter, at around 9 pm Lw5/Pw.4 Srinivas Rao called him over phone and informed him that the victim child was not doing well and asked him to come to the clinic and on that he went to clinic and examined the victim child and found her in unconscious state and as he noticed the condition of the victim child was serious, he asked to shift her to Nizamabad and on next day he came to know that the child died. His further evidence is that while the child was in his clinic, on the day before, at that time one patient by name
Swapna/Lw.6/Pw.6 was also present in his clinic and the victim child spoke to her. He further deposed that after three or four days, he came to know that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim child.
Page 20 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
24.The evidence of Pws.1 and 3 is supported by the evidence of Pw.4 whose evidence goes to show that he knows
Pw.1, Pw.3, Lws.7 to 12 and 14 and the accused and also know that the deceased was step daughter of the accused and accused started working in his fields from 2 months prior to the incident and after one month of joining work, the accused married Pwl and by that time Pw1 was having two daughters including the deceased from her first husband and the elder daughter/deceased of Pw.1 was aged around 5 years and younger daughter is aged around 2 years and Lws 7, 8,
Gangaram and the accused used to live in the rooms provided by him in the house of his uncle/Prasad Rao and on 20.10.2022 at around 8.30 pm Pw.1 and accused were carrying victim child as she was in serious condition and on that he took them to the clinic of Pw.3 but Pw.3 was not present in the clinic and on that he called Pw3 over phone and asked him to come to the clinic, and accordingly Pw3 came to the clinic, examined the victim child and asked to shift her to Nizamabad as her condition was not good and on that he took the victim child, Pw.1 and accused to Taksha
Hospital, Nizamabad in his car and they referred the victim
Page 21 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 child to Hyderabad and on that he engaged an ambulance and sent the victim child to Hyderabad Nilofar Hospital and on next morning he came to know that the victim child died and on that on 23.10.2022 he went to Osmania Hospital,
Hyderabad but the accused was not present there at that time and he came to know that the deceased died as the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on her.
25.He further deposed that police conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and prepared inquest panchanama/Ex,P4 and he noticed contusion on chest, stomach and thighs of the dead body of the deceased and on enquiry with
Laxman/Lw.7/Pw.5, he came to know that the deceased child received injury as she kept her leg in the cycle and on that the accused took her to the clinic of Pw.3 and after treatment, the accused took her along with him and did not return home and on that Pw.1 enquired with Lw.7/Pw.5 and Pw.5 made a phone call to Pw.3 about the accused and deceased and Pw.3 informed him that they both left his clinic one hour back and police examined him and recorded his statement.
Page 22 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
26.In his cross examination, Pw.4 stated that by that time the victim child/deceased was taken to Pw.3, she was in unconscious state. He also stated that he was sitting in a hotel nearby while Pw.1, accused and Pw.5 were taking the victim child to the clinic of Pw.3.
27.The evidence of Pws.1, 3 and 4 is supported by Pw.5, who is the neighbour of the accused and in his evidence also goes to reveal that Lw.8, one Gangaram and the accused used to work in the fields of Pw.4 and the accused started working in the fields of Pw4 from one month prior to the incident and the accused married Pw1 and by that time Pw1 was having two daughters including the deceased from her first husband and elder daughter of Pwl is aged around 5 years and younger daughter is aged around 2 years and he along with Lw-8,
Gangaram and the accused used to live in the rooms provided by Pw4 in the house of the uncle of Pw.4 and in the month of
October, 2022 on one day the accused took the victim girl to the hospital in the evening hours and after some time Pw.1 informed him that the accused and victim child did not return home and the mobile phone of the accused was switched off
Page 23 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 and on that he tried calling the accused, but his phone was switched off and then he called Pw3 over phone and enquired about the accused and victim child and Pw3 informed him that they left his clinic. His evidence further reveals that he at 8.30 pm he heard the cries of Pw.1 and came out and saw the victim child in serious condition and on that himself, Pw1 and the accused and one Anjavvaa took the victim child to the clinic of Pw3 and on the way Pw4 joined them, but Pw3 was not present in the clinic and on that Pw.4 called Pw.3 over phone and asked him to come to the clinic and accordingly
Pw3 came to the clinic, examined the victim child and asked to shift her to Nizamabad as her condition was serious and on that Pw4 took the victim child, Pw.1 and the accused to
Taksha Hospital, Nizamabad in his Car and he along with
Anjavva also accompanied them to hospital and in the hospital they referred the victim child to Hyderabad and in the next morning he came to know that the victim child died.
28.In his cross examination, he admitted that he stated
before police that Lw.8 Yadarao informed him that one Lw.8
was purchasing provisions at Kirana shop, accused came
Page 24 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 there and asked for tomatoes and thereafter took the deceased towards Bardipur road and on the same day, the accused took the deceased to hospital at around 7 pm and did not return home till 9.00 pm and the accused might have took the victim child to the fields and committed penetrative sexual assault on her due to which she fell unconscious and then he brought her home. Nothing more important was elicited from his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence.
29.From the evidence of Pws.1, 3 to 5, it is clearly established that the accused took the victim child/deceased to the clinic of Pw.3 for dressing her injury and thereafter he left the clinic along with the victim child and did not return home till 8.30 pm and then the accused came home along with the victim child and the victim child was found in unconscious state at that time and on that Pw.1, accused,
Pw.3 to Pw.5 took the victim child to the clinic of Pw.3 where
Pw.3 examined the child and referred her to Nizamabad as her condition was serious.
30.The evidence of Pws.1, 3 to 5 is supported by the evidence of Pw.6 who came to the clinic of Pw.3 on
Page 25 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 20.10.2022 at around 6 pm wherein her evidence also reveals that the accused took the victim girl to the clinic of Pw.3 on that day and Pw.3 admonished the accused as to why he removed the bandage and then asked to bring the ointment and on that accused left the victim in his clinic and went to bring the ointment and at that time, the victim child who was sitting next to her, asked her to come with her and she told that accused was beating her and her sister and requested her not to tell the accused about what she revealed. This evidence of Pw.6 also establishes that the accused took the victim girl to the clinic of Pw.3 on the date of incident.
31.Therefore, from the evidence of Pws.1, 3 to 6, it is very clear that the accused took the victim girl to the clinic of Pw.3 on the date of incident at around 6 pm and thereafter he left the clinic along with the victim girl.
32.Further, the evidence of Pw.7, who is also one of the neighbour of accused and Pw.1 reveals that he attended the marriage of accused with Pw.1 and on 20.10.2022 he came home at 6 pm after attending field work and at 7 pm, accused came to a Kirana shop along with the deceased when he was
Page 26 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 present there and asked for tomatoes and he told that it will be available in the adjacent shop and thereafter, the accused went towards Bardipur road along with the deceased and he came back to the room and at around 9 pm, Pw.4 told that victim child/deceased was very critical and asked him to get
Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of Ambulance and accordingly, he went to the house of Pw.4 and took the amount and went to Nizamabad and gave the amount and came back to village after seeing the victim child on the next day mooring he heard that deceased died and that accused committed rape on her and killed her.
33.In his cross examination, he stated that he did not state
before police about taking Rs.10,000/- from the house of
Pw.4. nothing important was elicited from his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence.
34.The evidence of Pw.7 is supported by the evidence of
Pw.8, whose evidence reveals that on 20.10.2022 at around 7.00 p.m,. accused came to his shop along with the deceased and purchased one biscuit packet and went away towards
Bardhipur cross road and next day morning he came to know
Page 27 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 that deceased died and that the accused committed rape of the deceased and killed her and there is a CC Camera in his adjacent shop.
35.In his cross examination, he clearly stated that police came to his shop and has shown the photo of accused and deceased and asked whether he know the accused and on that he told that accused came to his shop with the deceased.
36.The evidence of Pws.7 and 8 is supported by the evidence of Pw.9 who is the owner of Vinayaka Kirana and
General stores which was adjacent to the shop of Pw.8 and his evidence also reveals that the shop of Lw.9 was also situated adjacent to his shop and on 20.10.2022 at around 7 pm accused came near to his shop with the deceased and enquired with Pw.7 as to where tomatoes will be available and on that Pw.7 asked him to go to adjacent shop.
37.The further evidence of Pw.9 clearly reveals that there is
C.C. camera in his shop and in the said CCTV camera, the movement of the accused was recorded. The witness/Pw.9 identified the accused shown in C.D. which were played in the open court under Ex.P5/pen drive and Ex.P6/CD of CCTV
Page 28 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 footage.
38.In his cross examination, he admitted that in the first visual, the faces are not clearly visible and in the visual No.3, only back vision was seen and face is not visible, but he denied the suggestion that faces are not seen in visual No.5.
On perusing Ex.P5/pen drive of CCTV footages, in visual
No.5, the accused and the deceased are clearly visible and the dress of the victim girl appearing in the CCTV footages is matching in the dress of the victim girl seen in the photographs/Ex.P35. Therefore, the contention of the learned
Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel that the faces are not clear in the CCTV footages is not at all tenable and identification of the accused along with the deceased is clearly established.
39.The evidence of Pws.7 to 9 is also supported by the evidence of Pw.10 whose evidence also reveal that on 20.10.2022 at around 7 pm in the evening the accused came to her shop along with small baby (deceased) and purchased a coconut oil bottle and went towards the road side and subsequently she heard that the accused has committed the rape on the deceased and killed her. She identified the
Page 29 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 coconut oil bottle/Mo.3 sold by her to the accused. She also identified the accused standing in the court hall.
40.Nothing important was elicited from her cross examination to disbelieve her evidence.
41.The evidence of Pws.7 to 10 is further supported by the evidence of Pw.12, who is the owner of Sagar Medical hall and his evidence reveals that there were CC TV camersas in front of his shop and police came to his shop stating that they want to collect CCTV footage of evening hours of 20.10.2022 in relation to carrying one Baby Girl and accordingly police collected CCTV footage through a phone. The witness identified the CCTV footages shown to him in the open court hall under Ex.P5.
42.The evidence of Pws.1 to 12 is supported by Pw.13 whose evidence also goes to show that on 20.10.2022 at about8.30 pm, he went to Rice Mill situated at Mentrajpally for giving paddy and while he was coming back at around 9.15 pm, he saw the accused bringing the deceased on his shoulders into the village from the nearby fields belonging to
Pw.4 and on 21.10.2022 in the evening he heard that the
Page 30 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 deceased died and she was raped and killed by accused.
43.On clear perusal of evidence of Pws.7 to 10 and 12, it is clearly establishes that the accused took the victim girl along with him towards Bardipur village at around 7 pm on 20.10.2022.
44.The allegations levelled against the accused that he took the victim child to the fields in the outskirts of Dharmaram village by the side of the road towards Mentrajpally village and committed penetrative sexual assault on her and beat her due to which the victim child fell unconscious and subsequently died while shifting to Hyderabad.
45.The learned Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel argued that except suspicion, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the deceased and Pw.1 did not mention anything about the commission of offence by the accused either in her complaint or in her statement, subsequently the said allegations are made against the accused in order to implicate him in this case and even the video clippings under Ex.P5 and P6 are also not clear to establish that the persons appearing in the CCTV
Page 31 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 footages are accused and victim child. He further argued that the accused accompanied the victim child all along right from taking her to the clinic of Pw.3 for dressing of the leg injury of the victim girl till the victim girl was shifted to the Nilofer
Hospital, Hyderabad and if at all the accused committed any offence on the victim child as alleged, he would have fled away from the scene of offence but the accused himself brought the victim girl to the house in the unconscious state and he himself took the victim child to the clinic of Pw.3 and from there to Taksh Hospital, Nizamabad and from there to Nilofer
Hospital, Hyderabad and the accused accompanying the victim girl all along clearly shows that the accused is innocent and he never committed any offence on the victim girl.
46.Coming to the contention of the learned Chief Legal Aid
Defence Counsel, it is true that the accused himself took the victim child to the clinic of Pw.3 for dressing her injury and thereafter the accused brought the victim girl to house in unconscious state at around 8.30 pm and again he along with
Pw.1 took the victim child to the clinic of Pw.3 and from there to Nizambad and then to Nilofer hospital, Hyderabad. Even
Page 32 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 for a while, if it is considered that the accused himself took the victim child to the clinic of Pw.3 and subsequently he took the victim girl again to the clinic of Pw.3 and then to
Nizamabad and to Hyderabad and as such he did not commit any offence on the victim child, the question arises is who is the perpetrator of offence. As contended by the learned Chief
Legal Aid Defence Counsel it is clearly established that the accused is present along with the victim child all along from his house to Osmania General hospital at Hyderabad. At the same time it is also established from the evidence of Pws.7 to 10 and 12 coupled with Exs.P5 and P6 that the accused took the victim girl along with him towards Bardipur road at around 7 pm on 20.10.2022. Therefore, no doubt that the accused and victim child are last seen together soon before the incident. In such case, if any third person commits the offence on the victim child, it is the responsibility of the accused to save and protect the victim girl from such incident if committed by any third person. The accused might have alerted the nearby people by raising cries if at all any third person committed the offence on the victim child, but the accused is silent on this aspect. There is no evidence
Page 33 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 putforth by the accused to show the interference of any third person in committing the offence on victim child.
47.Further, Section 29 and 30 of of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 speaks about the presumption against the accused that the special court shall presume that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of this Act and the Special Court shall presume the existence of culpable mental state on the part of the accused 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 against him. The culpable mental state includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe a fact.
48.In the case on hand, the prosecution is able to discharge the initial burden of establishing the guilt of commission of offence by the accused but the accused failed to rebut the presumption drawn against him.
49.Therefore, this court has no hesitation to believe that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim
Page 34 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 child and caused her death and the contention of the learned
Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel holds no force.
50.At this juncture, it is pertinent to look into the medical evidence. The evidence of Pw.3 clearly establishes that the accused brought the victim child to his clinic at around 6 pm on 20.10.2022 and after dressing the leg injury of the victim child, the accused left his clinic along with the victim girl and thereafter, again at around 8.30 pm, Pw.1, accused and others brought the victim girl to his clinic and at that time, the condition of the victim girl was serious and as such he asked them to take the victim girl to hospital at Nizamabad.
In this regard, the evidence of Pw.3 is supported by the evidence of Pw.11/Dr.Mukhesh Lahot, who is the Doctor at
Taksh Hospital, Nizambad and his evidence reveals that on 20.10.2022 at around 10 pm, the victim child/deceased was brought to him by her mother/Pw.1, Pw.4 and accused and they reported that child had some abnormal activity and she became unconscious and on that he examined the child and found the child was almost in Coma stage and there were some ecchymotic patches on the chest, hands and legs of the
Page 35 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 child and that the child was very serious and she requires higher support and he referred to higher center. The evidence of Pw.3 and Pw.11 clearly shows that the victim child was unconscious at the time she was brought to the clinic and hospital of Pw.3 and Pw.11 respectively. Further, the crucial medical evidence in this case is the evidence of Pw.22/Dr.
Abdul Rahman Omer Siddiqui, who conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME report /Ex.P27 and final opinion/Ex.P28 opining that the cause of death is due to “HAEMORRHAGIC SHOCK CONSEQUENT TO BLUNT
ABDOMINAL TRAUMA ASSOCIATED WITH PENETRATIVE
SEXUAL ASSAULT”. The evidence of Pw.22 coupled with
Ex.P27/PME report further reveals the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased.
1. A contusion of size 5cm x 3cm is present on the left side of the face blue in colour.
2. Multiple contusions of varying sizes between 3cm x 3cm to 1cm x 1cm over an area of 20cm x 18cm is present on the front of and middle of the chest, reddish in colour.
3. Obliquely placed abrasion of size 1cm x 0.5cm is present on the front of right side of the chest, situated in the 9th inter costal space, 2 cms medial the anterior axillary line, reddish in colour.
Page 36 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
4. Obliquely placed abrasion of size 2ct x 1cm is present on the front of the left side chest, situated in the 8th inter costal space, 3 cms medial the midline, reddish in colour.
5. Multiple contusions of varying sizes between 4cm x 4cm to 1cm x 1cm over an area of 25cm x 12cm are present on front of right side of the chest and abdomen, reddish in colour.
6. An abrasion of size 2cm x 2cm is present on the outer aspect of right elbow covered by dark brown colour scab.
7. Multiple contusions of varying sizes between 8cm x 7cma to 3cm x 2cm over an area of 10cm x 8cm are present on the front and outer aspect of right thigh, blue in colour.
8. Multiple contusions of varying sizes between 5cm x 3cm to 1cm x 1cm over an area 15 cm x 10cm are present on the front of left thigh blue in colour.
9. An abrasion of size 5cm x 3cm is present on left ankle covered by dark brown scab.
10. On scalp reflection, multiple contusions of varying sizes between 4cm 3cm to 2cm x 1cm is present on the frontal region reddish in colour. On opening of skull vault, sub-dural haemorrhage and sub-arachnoid haemorrhage are present over bilateral high parietal region.
11. On opening of chest wall, contusion of size 5cm x 3cm is present on the anterior pectoral muscles over 7th to 10th inter costal space, reddish in colour.
12. A contusion of size 3cm x 2cm is present on the posterior surface of the chest wall on the right side, over 7th to 10th inter costal space reddish in colour.
13. On opening of abdominal cavity, about 750 ml blood present in the peritoneal cavity. Multiple lacerations of
Page 37 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 varying sizes between 7cm x 5cm to 3cm x 2cm is present on the right lobe of the liver. On serial cut sections of liver parenchyma shows multiple contusions.
14. Laceration of size 0.6cm x 0.3cm x mucosa deep over inferior end of vagina extending 2cm below vaginal orifice onto the perinium at 7'0' clock position with contusion of introitus with evidence of fresh bleeding, mucosal tear of 1cm x 0.5cm seen at 10'0' clock position. Vaginal mucosa congested and red in colour, fresh hymenal tear noted between 6'0 clock and 7'0 clock position and below 10'0 clock and 11'0 clock position, margins red with evidence of fresh bleeding.
15. Anal orifice lax, showing gaping of 2cm approximately with old, healed, and healing scars around anal orifice, more prominent on right side with irregular edges, evidence of fissures at 4'0 clock and 5'0 clock positions of anal orifice; evidence of contusion of size 0.75cm x 0.5cm between 11'0 clock and 2'0 clock position. No evidence of discharge, anal orifice permitting middle finger easily, anal mucosa appears pale- suggestive of repeated anal violation.
51.On perusal of the injuries mentioned in Ex.P27/PME report, all the injuries caused to the victim child/deceased by the accused are sufficient to cause her death in all probabilities. The injury No.14 clearly establishes that a penetrative sexual assault was committed on the deceased.
Pw.22 clearly mentioned that there is evidence of fresh bleeding. The injury No.14 shows the gravity and severity of the offence.
Page 38 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
52.Further, the evidence of Pw.18/Dr. B.V. Nagamohan Rao coupled with Ex.P17/Potency certificate of the accused clearly goes to show that the accused is capable of performing the act of sexual intercourse. This is not disputed by the accused.
Moreover, the FSL report Ex.P33 also reveals that the semen was detected on the underwear of the accused which is also supporting the case of prosecution.
53.Therefore, the medical evidence on record is also supporting the evidence of Pws.1 to 12 in establishing that the accused took the victim girl along with him on 20.10.2022 and committed penetrative sexual assault on her and beat her due to which she fell unconscious and subsequently died.
54.Pw.24 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police/ investigating officer of this case and his evidence goes to show that he took up investigation from Pw.23/first investigating officer and on the instructions of Commissioner of Police,
Nizamabad he took up the investigation vide memo order
No.C1/09/10-APPT/October, 2022 Dt:27.10.2022. His evidence is that he visited the PS and examined the recorded the statements of Pws.1, 2 and Lw3/M.Santhu and later he
Page 39 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 visited the scene of offence at Dharmaram village B in the presence of Pw.17 and Lw.21 and seized the clothes pertaining to the deceased such as one pant and T shirt already marked as Mos.1 and 2 and Pw.24 along with Pw23 visited entire village and went into the individual houses of
Lws.4 to 12 examined as Pws.3 to 10, then he visited the house of Pw1 and Pw1 produced one pant/MO1 and T shirt/MO2 of the deceased and the same was seized under panchanama/Ex.P13 and Pw.24 added the section of law under Sec. 3(ii)(va) r/w 6(i) of SC/ST Act and Sec.376 A, 376(2), 201 IPC and Sec.5(1) (m) r/w 6 (1) of POCSO Act. He further deposed that he visited the Taksha hospital,
Nizamabad and recorded the statement of Pw-11/Lw13 and collected the medical prescription/Ex.P7 of the deceased.
55.The learned Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel argued that
Pw.1 did not mention in her complaint about any offence committed by the accused and subsequently the accused was implicated in this case. Coming to this contention, it is true that Pw.1 did not mention anything against the accused in her complaint about the commission of offence by the
Page 40 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 accused, but her complaint reveals that after the deceased was shifted to Osmania General hospital for Postmortem, the accused left Pw.1 and deceased in the hospital and went away from there and thereafter his mobile was switched off. In her statement before police, she stated that as the accused threatened her with dire consequences she could not mention anything against the accused in her complaint. The Call Data
Record filed by investigating agency shows that Pw.1 made phone calls to the accused on the date of incident. That itself shows that the accused fled away after the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for Postmortem examination. If the accused did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution, he would have stayed along with
Pw.1 in Osmania General Hospital also. But fleeing away of the accused from there also goes to show that the accused committed the charged offences on the victim girl. Therefore, this contention of the learned Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel need not be considered.
56.The evidence of Pws.1 to 13 is supported by the evidence of Pw.14, who is panch witness for inquest/Ex.P9
Page 41 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 and deposed that he noticed injuries over the dead body at chest, stomach and on thigh. The statements of Pws.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 U/sec.164 Cr.P.C. also corroborating with their statements recorded by the police and their evidence recorded
in the court.
57.Further, the evidence of Pws.16 to 24, who are the official witnesses. The evidence of Pw.23 and Pw.24 who are the investigating officers reiterated the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned in the remand case diary and charge sheet. All the prosecution witnesses are cross examined at length by the learned Chief Legal Aid
Defence Counsel, but nothing important was elicited from the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. There are no material and significant contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which are going to disturb the root cause of the offence. Minor contradictions are bound to happen while conducting the investigation of the criminal case and such minor contradictions if any need not be considered unless the said contradictions are going to the root cause of nature of the offence. The entire evidence placed
Page 42 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
before this court, both oral and documentary, clearly pointing
out at the accused alone that the accused has committed the penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and caused her death. Therefore, on clear perusal of evidence of Pws.1 to 24, coupled with Exs.P1 to P35 and Mos.1 to 5, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution has established the guilt of commission of offence by the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.376(A), (AB) 376 (2) (f), 302 IPC and Sec.5(i) (m) & (n) r/w 6 (1) of POCSO Act. However, the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to show that the accused tried to screen the evidence after commission of offence and as such this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.201 IPC.
58.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences
Under Sections 5(i) (m) & (n) of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, punishable under Section 6(1) of the the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 376(A), (AB) 376 (2) (f) of IPC and Section 302
Page 43 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offences and he is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.201 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted
U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.
Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of June, 2023.
Sd/-
FAC: I Additional Sessions Judge Nizamabad.
59.The accused is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence. He pleaded mercy of the court and prayed to take lenient view as he has to look after his handicapped sister.
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 on the minor victim child who is aged 5 years, who is none other than his step daughter, is heinous in nature.
60.Section 42 of The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 Alternate Punishment speaks as follows:
“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, 376AB, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376DA, 376DB or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), then, notwithstanding anything
Page 44 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree”.
61.In view of Section 42 of POCSO Act, as the victim girl was aged 5 years at the time of offence, the accused is being punished under POCSO Act and accordingly he is sentenced to undergoLife Imprisonmentwhich shall mean
Imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) for the offence under Section 5(i) (m) & (n) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which is punishable under Section 6 (1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
62.The accused is further sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default to pay the fine, he shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
63.Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
64.The fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed U/sec.6(1) of
Page 45 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
POCSO Act, 2012, shall be paid to the mother of victim girl/PW1 as per Section 6(2) of POCSO Act, 2012, towards compensation for her mental agony, pain and suffering for loss of her minor daughter. The remand period undergone by the accused, if any, shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
MO.1 Pant, MO.2 T shirt, MO.3 Coconut oil and MO.4
Underwear shall be destroyed and MO.5 Read-me Cell phone shall be confiscated to the State, after the lapse of appeal period.
65.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, if required.
Free copy of Judgment is supplied to him.
66.As the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 (1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and caused her death, this court is of considered opinion that the parents of the victim girl has to be compensated for their mental sufferance and agony and loss of their daughter an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
Page 46 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022 (Rupees : Five Lakhs only) is decided as compensation amount. Therefore, the Secretary, DLSA, Nizamabad is hereby directed to take steps to pay the said compensation amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the parents of victim girl at the earliest by following the due procedure and taking necessary steps.
Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of June, 2023.
Sd/-
FAC : SPECIAL JUDGE, POCSO COURT, Nizamabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW1: Mother of Deceased/victim (Lw.1)-Nil- PW2: Father of deceased/victim (Lw.2) PW3: Meka Srinivas (Lw.4) PW4: Korlapudi Srinivas Rao (Lw.5) PW5: Yedla Laxman (Lw.5) PW6: Vemlala Swapna (Lw.6) PW7: Ende Yadarao (Lw.8) PW8: Konda Swamy (Lw.10) PW9: R. Sudhakar (Lw.11) PW10: D. Anuradha (Lw.9) PW11: Dr. Mukesh Lahoti (Lw.13) PW12: S. Ravinder (Lw.14) PW13: G. Shanti Prasad (Lw.12) PW14: B. Pochavva (Lw.17) PW15: Naveen (Lw.15) PW16: Yedla Ajay (Lw.18)
Page 47 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
PW17: Kuna Sudheer Kumar (Lw.20) PW18: B.V. Naga Mohan Rao (Lw.23) PW19: V. Anil (Lw.25) PW20: P. Srinivas Rao (Lw.24) PW21: Venkat Narayana (Lw.26) PW22: Dr. Abdul Rahman Omer Siddiqui (Lw.22) PW23: K. Ganesh (LW.30) PW24: A. Venkateshwar (Lw.31)
Exhibits marked for Prosecution:-
Ex.P1: Complaint lodged by Pw.1 Ex.P2: Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1 Ex.P3: Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2 Ex.P4: Inquest report of deceased Ex.P5: Pen Drive containing CCTV footage Ex.P6: Compact Disk Ex.P7: Prescription dt.20.10.2022 of the deceased/victim Ex.P8: Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.13 Ex.P9: Inquest report of deceased Ex.P10: ‘Section 65B of Evidence Act’ certificate Ex.P11: Rough sketch Ex.P12: Signature on Panchanama Ex.P13: Seizure of clothes of deceased Panchanama Ex.P14: Signature of Pw.17 on Confession-seizure Panchanama Ex.P15: Scene of offence and recovery panchanama Ex.P16: Rough sketch Ex.P17: Potency certificate Ex.P18: Requisition of ACP, Nzb for issuance of caste certificate Ex.P19: Caste Certificate of accused Ex.P20: Requisition of ACP, Nzb for issuance of caste certificate Ex.P21: Caste Certificate of deceased/victim Ex.P22: Requisition of Deputy Commissioner for CDR Ex.P23: Application form Ex.P24: Call data records Ex.P25: Certificate U/Sec.65B (4) (c) of the Indian Evidence Act
Page 48 of total 48 Judgment in P/SC.No.112 of 2022
Ex.P26: Requisition of SHO, PS Dichpally for PME Ex.P27: Postmortem Examination Report of deceased/victim Ex.P28: Final Opinion dated 23.10.2022 Ex.P29: FIR in Cr.No.263/2022 of PS Dichpally Ex.P30: Section Alteration Memo Ex.P31: Proceedings of Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad,
dated 27.10.2022
Ex.P32: Birth Certificate of deceased/victim child Ex.P33: FSL report case property Ex.P34: FSL report for chemical analysis of viscera belongs to victim child Ex.P35: Four Photographs of deceased/victim child
Exhibits marked for Defence - Nil -
MOs marked MO.1: Pant MO.2: T shirt MO.3: Coconut oil MO.4: Underwear MO.5: Readme Cell phone
Sd/-
FAC : SPECIAL JUDGE, POCSO COURT, Nizamabad.