1 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE
FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO
ACT CASES, MAHABUBNAGAR.
Thursday, the 07th day of May, 2026
Present:- Smt. Thaman Raja Rajeshwari,
Special Sessions Judge,
The Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act
Cases, Mahabubnagar.
SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE No.131 of 2021
Between: The State of Telangana through Police, Midjil Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. … Complainant
And
Korravath Ramesh S/o. Somya, age 18 years, Caste: ST (Lambada), Occ: Student, R/o. Chedugattu thanda, h/o. Limbya thanda of Midjil Mandal, Mahabubnagar. … Accused.
Offences Charged.: U/Sec.376AB of IPC and section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Court: Found guilty
Sentence or Order: Accused is found guilty for the offences under section 376AB of IPC and section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, Accused is convicted Under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence.
(a) The Accused is sentenced to Twenty (20) years Rigorous Imprisonment and also directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence 2 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 punishable u/Sec.5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. In default of fine the accused shall undergoSimple Imprisonment for (03) months.
(b) The substantive sentences shall run concurrently, but the default sentence should run consecutively for non- payment of the fine amount.
(c) 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 the judgment is supplied to Accused forthwith under section 363 of Cr.P.C.
(d) A free copy of the judgment shall be given to the learned Special Public Prosecutor under Rule 100 of Criminal Rules of Practice.
(e) As seen from the record, the Accused was in jail in this case for the period from 23-11-2020 to 11-01-2021. The said period shall be given set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed against him.
(f) The MO.1 to MO.3 and shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked non-valuable case property i.e. Blue colour Ghagra of the Victim shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Prosecution conducted by: Sri M.John, Special Public Prosecutor.
3 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
Accused defended by: Sri.K.Venkatesh, Advocate for Accused.
*****
This case is coming up before me for hearing on 30-04-2025 in the presence of Sri M.John, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Venkatesh, Advocate for Accused and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The Circle Inspector of police, Jadcherla Rural has filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.135/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 376AB of IPC and section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2.The brief facts of the case are that on 22-11-2020 at 15:00 hours
PW.1/Mother of the Victim lodged a complaint by stating that the
Accused committed rape on her 7 years old daughter. The PW.1 stated that she had two daughters and her second daughter/Victim was aged about 7 years. On 22-11-2020 at about 9.00 AM she went to attend coolie work leaving her daughters at home and her younger daughter/Victim went to the house of the Accused for watching T.V.
The Victim returned back home crying in the afternoon at about 1300 hours, as such PW.1 enquired her daughter/victim as to what happened. The Victim girl informed her that the Accused took her into 4 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 his room laid her on the floor lifted up petty coat and forcibly committed rape on her. PW.1 noticed white stains on the legs of her daughter/victim. For this season, PW.1 lodged a report with Midjil police station. Basing on the above report lodged by PW.1,
LW.19/D.Suresh, Sub-Inspector of police registered the above case under section 376AB of IPC and section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 in Cr.No.135 of 2020.
3.During the course of investigation, PW.15 rushed to P.S. Midjil and took up further investigation of this case from LW-19/D.Suresh,
Sub-Inspector of police. As per the instructions of PW.15,
PW-10/Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, visited the residence of the
Victim child at Chedugattu Thanda H/o Limbya Thanda, examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 and Victim/PW.2, later the
Victim was sent to Government General Hospital, Mahabubnagar for medical examination under the escort of W.P.C 3259 Ayesha Banu of
P.S Midjil. PW.15/Circle Inspector of police accompanied with
LW-19/SI of police and staff went to the scene of offence situated at the residence of the Accused at Chedugattu Thanda H/o Limbya
Thanda of Midjil Mandal and enquired about the offence, inspected the scene, examined and recorded the statements of PW-3 to PW-8, 5 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 secured the presence of PW.9 and LW-9/Sambu Srinivasulu, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene in Crime Details Form. PW-13/Assistant Professor,
Government General Hospital, Mahabubnagar has clinically examined the Victim, preserved vaginal slides for chemical examination and report, also preserved her apparels i.e. Dark Blue Colour Embroidery
Work Petty Coat (Skirt) and Green Colour Embroidery Work Top.
4.On 23.11.2020 morning, LW-19/Sub-Inspector of police and staff rushed to Chedugattu Thanda H/o Limbya Thanda apprehended the
Accused in his agricultural land at about 08:00 hours brought him to
Circle Office at Jadcherla and produced him before PW.15/Circle
Inspector of police, on interrogation Accused admitted his guilt, in the presence of PW-14 and LW-12/Hanumanthu and his confession statement was recorded, further the clothes of the Accused i.e., wheat
Colour black dotted full sleeves shirt, Light Cream colour jeans pant and Navy blue colour half banian (Thaila Red) were seized from the
Accused under the cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of same mediators/PW-14 and LW-12/Hanumanthu affixing their signed chits. Further PW.15 after formalities arrested the
Accused.
6 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
5.Subsequently, the arrested Accused was sent to Government General
Hospital, Mahabubnagar for Potency Test. LW-14/Dr.Lokesh, Tutor, conducted Potency Test of the Accused and issued the Potency Test report in which he opined that "there is nothing to suggest that the individual examined is not capable of performing act of sexual inter-course". The Accused was produced before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody. The preserved material objects i.e.
(1)Vaginal slides, (2) Navy Blue Colour Ghagra (Petty Coat) of the
Victim, (3)Wheat Colour Black dots full Shirt, (4)Light Cream Colour
Jeans Pant, (5)Navy Colour readymade underwear of the accused have been deposited at T.SFSL Hyderabad through letter of
Advice and forwarding letter of S.D.P.O Mahabubnagar vide
No.250/SDOM/FSL/2020, Dated:24-11-2020 and obtained Case
Property Receipt vide File No.SFSL(TS)8730/SER/1864/2020,
Dated:26-11-2020. On requisition Accused was produced at
T.S.FSL Hyderabad wherein the Blood of the Accused was extracted and preserved for DNA Profile vide
File No.SFSL(TS)/9598/DNA/341/2020, Dated:23-12-2020 for comparison with the File No.SFSL(TS)8730/SER/1864/2020,
Dated:26-11-2020. LW-16/Dr.Shaik Haseena Parvin, Assistant
7 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
Director, conducted the Analysis Test to the preserved items and furnished the report in which she opined that the item nos.1 to 7 are examined. Human semen and spermatozoa are detected on item nos.3(Ghagra of the victim) and 7 (underwear of the accused). Semen and spermatozoa are not detected on item nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Blood is not detected on item nos.3 to 7.
6.PW-12/Dr.G.Pandu, Assistant Director of TSFSL, Hyderabad conducted DNA Profile of item no.1 blood samples collected from the
Accused, item no.2 torn blue colour terry cotton ghagra of the Victim and torn blue under wear printed as Thaila Red. PW.12 issued DNA report bearing file No.DNA/341/2020, Dated:25-02-2021 opining that
DNA extracted from item nos.1 to 3 are subjected to Autosomal STR analysis. The DNA profile obtained from item no.2(Victim’s Ghagra) is compared with DNA profiles obtained from item nos.1 and 3(blood samples and underwear of the Accused). The allelic pattern of item no.2 matches with allelic pattern of item nos.1 and 3 and concluded that the Autosomal STR analysis indicates that the seminal stains on the source of item No.2 (Ghagra of the victim) is matching with the
DNA profile of the source of item no.3 (underwear of the accused) and 8 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 the source of item no.1 (blood sample of accused) and conclusively proves that they are of same biological origin.
7.After collecting all material documents, PW.15 filed charge sheet against the accused. Basing on the FSL report/Ex.P11 and
DNA report/Ex.P12, PW-13 issued the Final Opinion/Ex.P14 in which she opined that Human Semen & spermatozoa are detected on item nos.3 & 7, Possibility of sexual abuse cannot be ruled out". On requisition, the LW-15/Magistrate, Jadcherla recorded the statements
U/sec.164 Cr.P.C of PW-1 and PW.2.
8.The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar took the cognizance for the offences punishable under section 376AB of
IPC and section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against Accused and having numbered the same as Spl.SC.No.131 of 2021 made over the same to this Court, the presence of Accused was secured and he was furnished with case copies as contemplated under section 207 of
Cr.P.C.
9.On appearance of the Accused before this Court upon consideration of the material available on record and after hearing the learned Special
Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, charges were framed for the offences punishable under section u/Sec.376AB of IPC 9 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 and section 5(m) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 against Accused and read over and explained to him in vernacular language as contemplated u/sec.228(2) of the Cr.P.C for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10.During the course of trial to it’s case, the prosecution has examined
PW.1 to PW.15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21 and MO.1 to MO.3.
11.PW.1 is the Mother of Victim, PW.2 is the Victim, PW.3 to PW.8 are the circumstantial witnesses, PW.9 is the panch witness for crime details form, PW.10/WSI of police, recorded the statement of victim,
PW.11/Medical Officer, conducted analysis and issued report,
PW.12/Assistant Director Scientific Officer, TSFSL, Hyderabad, conducted DNA Profile test and issued report, PW.13/Assistant
Professor, Government General Hospital, Mahabubnagar, examined the Victim for medical report, PW.14 is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama, PW.15 is the Investigating officer, who filed charge sheet.
12.Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW.1 on complaint, Ex.P2 is section 161
Cr.P.C statement of PW.1, Ex.P3 is section 161 Cr.P.C statement of
PW.2, Ex.P4 is section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3, Ex.P5 is section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4, Ex.P6 is section 161 Cr.P.C 10 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 statement of PW.5, Ex.P7 is section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6,
Ex.P8 is section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7, Ex.P9 is section 161
Cr.P.C statement of PW.8, Ex.P10 is the signature of PW.9 in Crime
Details form, Ex.P11 is the FSL report, Ex.P12 is the FSL report,
Ex.P13 is the Preliminary report, Ex.P14 is the Final opinion, Ex.P15 is the Complaint, Ex.P16 is the FIR, Ex.P17 is the Crime Details form,
Ex.P18 is the Confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P19 is the
Potency report, Ex.P20 is the DNA report and Ex.P21 is the DNA report. MO.1 is the underwear, MO.2 is the shirt, MO.3 is the pant.
13.The examination of the listed witnesses viz., LW.9/S.Srinivasulu is the panch witness for Crime details form, LW.12/Hanumanth is the panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama, LW.14/Dr.Lokesh, conducted the potency test of accused, LW.15/Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla, who recorded the statement of victim u/sec.164 Cr.P.C statement and LW.19/D.Suresh, SI of police, issued
FIR, was given up by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
14.After closure of the prosecution evidence, with the above evidence the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of 11 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
15.Heard both sides. Perused the material placed on record against the
Accused.
16.It is contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the witnesses PW.1 to PW.8 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution due to undue influence of the Accused as the Accused and the witnesses were all same family members having same surname. Every witness stated in their chief examination that the Accused is his relative or agnate and they do not know anything about the case.
PW.1/mother of the Victim stated in her deposition that Accused is her son by courtesy, hence all the witnesses turned hostile. It is further contended that the offence occurred in the year November, 2020, however the trial prolonged for so long and it came up for evidence almost after 4½ years and slowly the case got diluted. It is pertinent to put-forth that there is other evidence which strongly proves that the
Accused has committed sexual assault against the Victim is the FSL and DNA report. The medical evidence has clearly proved that the blood sample of the Accused matched with the semen on the dress of 12 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 the Victim and the underwear of the Accused. Hence, the Accused is liable to be convicted for the offences with which he is charged.
17.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused contended that except the medical evidence i.e., the FSL report and DNA report there is no other evidence on record to say that the Accused has committed the alleged offence. Moreover the mother of the Victim and the Victim herself turned hostile to the prosecution case along with other witnesses PW.3 to PW.9. Hence, seizure panchanama and FSL report are not sufficient to convict the Accused in the absence of testimony of material witnesses.
18. Now the following points for determination:
(i) Whether the Victim-girl/PW.2 was a child as defined in the Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act as on the date of commission of the alleged offence upon her?
(ii) Whether the conduct of the Accused falls within the ambit of the offences punishable Under Section 376AB of IPC, section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt?
19.In view of the aforesaid charges leveled against the Accused, the initial burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate that the Accused had committed the aforesaid offences. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable 13 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 doubt for the charges framed against him. To ascertain that aspects it becomes necessary to scrutinize the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In this regard, as stated above to prove its case the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.15 and marked Exs.P1 to P21 and
MO.1 to MO.3.
Point No.1
Whether the Victim-girl/PW.2 was a child as defined in the Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act as on the date of commission of the alleged offence upon her?
20.The allegations made against the Accused are that he committed sexual assault on PW.2/Victim girl who was aged about 7 years, for which, the Accused is charged under Section 376AB of IPC and
Sec.5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. So, to attract these offences under
POCSO Act, one of the essentials to be proved is that the Victim was a “child”. Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act, 2012, defines “child” as any person below the age of 18 years. It is, therefore, for the prosecution to prove that the Victim girl/PW.2 was below the age of 18 years as on the date of commission of the offence upon her.
21.The mother of the victim/PW.1 stated in her complaint, sec.161 & sec.164 Cr.P.C statements and her chief examination that her daughter/Victim(PW.2) was aged about 7 years. It is also stated by the 14 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
Victim girl at the time of deposition in the year 2024 that she was 11 years old and studying 7th class. The offence took place in the year 2020 and at that time, the age of the Victim was 7 years and she was studying 3rd standard. In the medical records issued by Government
General Hospital, Mahabubnagar, the age of the Victim was recorded
as 7 years by the medical officer/PW.13 in the preliminary report.
There is no denial by the Defense regarding the age of the Victim. The
Defense did not raise any question regarding the age of the Victim nor did not confront that the age of the Victim is above 18 years and that the Victim is not a child. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the
Victim girl/PW.2 was below the age of 18 years, it can be held that she was a “child” as on the date of commission of alleged offence upon her. This point is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:
Whether the conduct of the Accused falls within the ambit of the offences punishable Under Section 376AB of IPC, section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt?
22.The said complaint in this case was given by PW.1/Mother of the
Victim that her daughter/Victim who was aged about 7 years was sexually abused by the Accused on 22-11-2020, when the Victim girl went to watch Television in his house. It was further stated in the 15 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 complaint that at around 1300 hours the Victim girl returned back home by weeping and informed her mother/PW.1 that the Accused took her into the room, laid her on the floor lifted her dress and forcibly committed rape on her. PW.1 also stated that she noticed white stains on the legs of her daughter/victim and went to question the Accused, then he pushed her and ran away. Hence, she requested the police Midjil to take legal action against the Accused. Her 161
Cr.P.C statement recorded by the police and her Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement were on same line. However, PW.1 turned hostile during her chief examination.
23.It is observed that the Victim girl also turned hostile during her chief examination in the Court. The victim in her previous statements i.e.,
Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement and Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement stated that she was 7 years old and was studying 3rd standard and she stated that “Rithika & Haritha iddaru ma intiki vachi adukovataniki bayati tisukavellaru. Alage TV chudataniki Ramesh Anna intiki appudappudu vellevallam. Ee roju(22-11-2020) kuda Madhyanam TV chudataniki Ramesh Anna intiki vellam. Na friends iddaru TV chusthu nidrapoyaru appudu nenu okkadanine TV chusthu undaga ma Anna
Ramesh nannu vere room loki tisukuvelli kinda bandalapai 16 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 pandabettinadu. Na dress paiki lepinadu nenu gattiga aravakunda noru musi Ramesh anna pant vippi na paina pandukunadu. Nenu edichina vadalaledu. Gattiga eduvaga paiki lechi evvariki cheppavaddu ani bedirinchadu”. During her examination in the Court the Victim very much recognized the Accused and she stated that she knew the
Accused. During her cross-examination when the Victim was asked if she knows anyone by the name Ramesh, for which she replied “yes I know”. When a question was asked by this Court to the Victim as to what happened, the Victim answered that she do not know anything as she do not remember. It is observed that chief examination of the
Victim was conducted after 4½ years from the time of occurrence of the offence and the Victim girl was 7 years at the time of offence. The
Victim in her chief examination on one hand stated that her mother/PW.1 didn’t take her to police station or hospital and on the other hand she stated that on one occasion she went to Court and hospital with police and she do not remember what happened. Her statement contradicted the statement of her mother/PW.1 that police never took her daughter for medical examination and also they never produced her before the Court.
17 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
24.PW.10/WSI of police deposed that upon request of SI of police Midjil
P.S she went to record the statement of Victim/PW.2. After confirming that PW.2/Victim girl is capable of giving her statement, she recorded the statement of the Victim. PW.10 deposed that it is stated by the Victim girl that she went along with her sister to the house of Accused for watching TV and her sister slept of while watching Television at his house, then he took the Victim to the other room and made her sleep down, lifted her skirt and removed his clothes and slept over her and threatened her not to inform anyone regarding the same. She cried and ran to her parents and informed them about the assault. Knowing regarding the sexual assault her parents went to police station and gave a complaint to the police.
During her cross-examination she denied the suggestion that she did not record the statement of the victim and the Victim did not gave any statement to her. It is observed that being an official witness the
PW10/WSI was careless in her chief and cross examination.
25.PW.3 who is the brother of PW.1 was hearsay witness that PW.1 informed him regarding the sexual assault by the Accused on her daughter/victim as such he went to PW.1’s house and enquired regarding the offence from the Victim and went to the police station 18 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 along with PW.1. However, PW.3 turned hostile and resiled from his previous statement. PW.3 stated in his chief examination that Accused is relative of PW.1.
26.PW.4/Korravath Raju who was present and saw the Victim girl coming from the house of Accused and informing her mother regarding the assault on her, turned hostile and resiled from his previous statement. PW.4 stated that Accused is his agnate.
27.PW.9/Panch for Crime details form stated that he is resident of
Cheliveru village of Midjil Mandal and is working as Office
Subordinate in Tahsildar Officer at Midjil Mandal. He knew
LW.9/S.Srinivasulu. On the instructions of Tahsildar Midjil Mandal, himself and LW.9 went to Chedugattu thanda for witnessing panchanama by the police at PW.1’s house. Police conducted panchanama and after completion of CDF police obtained their signature. It is observed that the PW.9 was made hostile by the prosecution and upon questioning of the prosecution, PW.9 admitted no written requisition was issued by Tahsildar and he is not a VRA of
Chedugattu thanda. It is interesting to observe that the prosecutor put questions to his witness on behalf of Defense that suggestion that if
PW.9 is called by police for witnessing panchanama on regular basis, 19 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 for which PW.9 denied. Also a suggestion was put to PW.9 that police did not conduct any scene of offence panchanama before him and his deposing upon the instance of police, for which PW.9 denied the suggestion.
28.PW.1 to PW.8 who were relatives of the Accused turned hostile and resiled from their previous statements.
29.It is observed that the Victim’s family and the witnesses PW.3 to
PW.8 are relatives of the Accused sharing same surname and living in the same neighborhood. The witnesses stating that the Accused is their agnate or relative, they resiled from their previous statements made
before the police at the time of offence. The chief examination took
place after 4½ years from the time of offence and the vigor in the witnesses at the time of offence is not seen at the time of chief examination in the Court and the case slowly got diluted. Every witness stated in their chief examination that the Accused is their relative or agnate and they do not know anything about the case.
PW.1/mother of the Victim stated in her deposition that Accused is her son by courtesy and she do not know anything about this case.
When a question was asked by this Court to the Victim as to what happened, the victim answered that she do not know anything as she 20 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 do not remember. It is observed that chief examination of the Victim was conducted after 4½ years from the time of occurrence of the offence and the Victim girl was 7 years at the time of offence. In the said circumstances where the material witnesses were not supporting the prosecution case inspite having a strong case, the prosecution relied upon medical evidence and the official witnesses.
30.The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sri Pappu Vs. State, 18 May, 2016, observed that not withstanding star witnesses, including the Victim, turning hostile and which in the Indian environment is to be expected because a helpless family would reconcile with the circumstance of Dependence and a minor daughter, barely into her teens, would succumb to family pressure; which in turn would be influenced by societal pressures, conviction has been returned on the basis of FSL report.
31.Hence an important piece of evidence which the prosecution sought to rely upon against the Accused is the FSL and DNA reports. The prosecution has examined and relied upon PW.11/FSL expert who issued FSL report, PW.12/FSL expert who issued DNA report,
PW.13/Medical expert who issued final opinion, PW.14/panch witness for seizure of clothes of the Accused.
32.It is observed from the deposition of PW.14 that he is Panchayath
Secretary at Ranipet village, Midjl Mandal and upon instructions of
MPDO(Mandal Parishath Development Officer)/Sai Laxmi, he along 21 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 with LW.12/Hanmanthu went to the police station, Jadcherla for attending panchanama on 23-11-2020 and found the Accused in the police station, as such the police asked them to question the Accused about his details and later seized his wheatish colour shirt with black spots, cream colour jeans and navy blue colour underwear with Thaila
Red hologram. During his cross-examination nothing tangible against the prosecution was elicited by the Defense. PW.14 denied the suggestion that the clothes of Accused MOs.1 to 3 were not seized from the Accused in his presence and no panchanama was conducted.
He further denied the suggestion that police obtained his signature on the pre-written panchanama and also denied that MO.1 to MO.3 were planted by the police for the purpose of this case. Adding to this, when questioned by this Court during his 313 Cr.P.C examination if wheatish colour with black spots shirt, light cream colour jeans and navy blue underwear with Thaila Red hologram was seized from him, for which the Accused very clearly stated that he was arrested from his agricultural fields and his clothes were seized. Hence, it can be taken that the seizure was not denied by the Accused.
33.PW.13/Medical Officer deposed in her chief examination that on 22-11-2020 the Victim was accompanied by WPC-3259/Ayesha 22 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
Bhanu, Midjil police and PW.1. Upon preliminary examination she found white colour stains on her body parts and on her navy blue colour Ghagra, hence she handed over the clothes of the Victim to the police. She collected vaginal swabs of the Victim and handed over the same to the police. PW.13 gave preliminary report stating that no injuries on vagina of the Victim were found and hymen was intact and no tears found. PW.13 issued Final opinion basing on FSL report bearing No.SER/1864/2020 dated 04-01-2021 that human semen spermatozoa detected on item no.3(blue colour ghagra of the Victim) and item no.7(Blue colour underwe4ar of the Accused printed as
Thaila Red). During her cross-examination PW.13 denied the suggestion that she did not collect any samples from the Victim for forwarding it to FSL, Hyderabad and that upon insistence of police she collected wrong samples and given them to police. She further denied the suggestion that she did not follow due procedure of the law and collection of samples. However the Defense did not raise any question regarding collection of clothes of the Victim and forwarding them to the police by the Medical Officer/PW.13 in her cross- examination.
23 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
34.PW.11/Dr.Sheik Haseena Parveen, Asst., Director of TGFSL,
Hyderabad deposed that she received one sealed cloth parcel from
SDPO, Mahabubnagar along with requisition letter dated:24-11-2020 through M.Nanu, PC-2361 of Midjil police on 26-11-2020. The parcel labelled as Cr.No.135 of 2020 containing plastic vial labelled as A containing cotton swab marked as item no.1, cotton swab marked as item no.2, a blue colour terry cotton Ghagra marked as item no.3, A green colour with gold border silk top marked as item no.4, A cream colour cotton full sleeved shirt marked as item no.5, A cream colour jeans pant marked as item no.6, A blue colour underwear printed as
Thaila Red marked as item no.7. The above items were examined under biochemical immunological test and issued report stating that human semen and spermatozoa are detected on item nos.3 and 7, however the blood group cannot be determined on the said items. The learned counsel for the Accused stated no questions for cross- examination, hence it was considered as nil.
35.As per the opinion issued by PW.11 the blood group cannot be determined on item no.3 and item no.7, the prosecution requested for collection of blood samples of the Accused before the Court of 24 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
I Addl.Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar for conducting DNA analysis test on item nos.3 and 7 with the blood sample of Accused.
36.PW.12/Dr.Pandu, Asst., Director of TGFSL, Hyderabad deposed that on 24-12-2020 he received requisition letter from I Addl. Sessions
Judge, Mahabubnagar along with the Accused escorted by
PC-1939/Venkat Reddy PS Midjil for collecting blood samples. As per the requisition PW.12 collected blood samples from the Accused marked as item no.1. He further collected the following items from serology section vide file no.SER/1864/2020 on 21-01-2021. A paper parcel tagged as “SER/1864/2020-3” containing a torn blue colour terry cotton Ghagra marked as item no.2. A paper parcel tagged as “SER/1864/2020-7” containing a torn blue colour underwear printed as Thaila Red marked as item no.3. As per the result of examination the DNA extracted from item nos.1, 2 and 3 are subjected to autosomal STR analysis by using global filer kit. The DNA profile obtained from item no.2 is compared with DNA profiles obtained from item nos.1 and 3. The allelic pattern of item nos.2 matches with allelic pattern of item nos.1 and 3. PW.12 conclusively gave his report that the autosomal STR analysis indicates that the seminal stains on the source of item no.2(Ghagra of the Victim) is matching with DNA 25 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 profile of the source of item no.3(underwear of the Accused) and the source of item no.1(blood sample of the Accused) and conclusively proves that they are of same biological origin. The learned counsel for the Accused stated no questions for cross-examination, hence it was considered as nil.
37.Accordingly when the Accused was questioned by this Court during his sec.313 Cr.P.C examination if his blood sample was collected by the FSL to conduct DNA analysis, for which the Accused stated that his blood sample was collected. Hence, it can be taken that the collection of the blood sample was not denied by the Accused.
38.After carefully evaluating the evidence presented by the prosecution, it is evident that the material on record establishes the presence of sperm on the petticoat/ghagra of the Victim, as confirmed by the FSL expert (TGFSL/PW11) through biochemical and immunological testing. It is further borne out from the testimony of PW.13/the
Medical Officer, and the preliminary report issued by her that the
Victim was taken to the Government General Hospital,
Mahabubnagar, on 22.11.2020 at 7:30 PM. The preliminary report (Ex.P13) clearly records that navy blue coloured ghagra clothes, stained with semen, were preserved and subsequently handed over to 26 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 the police. In this context, a pertinent question arises: how could human semen and spermatozoa of the Accused be found on the clothing of a 7-year-old child?
39.As per the charge-sheet, the alleged sexual assault occurred at around 1:30 PM on 22.11.2020 at the house of the accused. A complaint was lodged with the police by the mother of the victim(PW.1) at approximately 3:00 PM. The victim was taken to the hospital on the same day, and her clothes were seized by the Medical Officer at around 7:30 PM. Hence, no deviation is discovered in the prosecution evidence regarding the presence of human semen on the ghagra of the victim girl.
40.In her prior statement, the Victim clearly stated that she was sexually assaulted by the Accused and her mother made hue and cry that her 7 years old child was sexually assaulted by the Accused. Being relative and son by courtesy, the mother of the Victim and the Victim trusted the Accused. Subsequently after 4½ years, all the witnesses
PW.3 to PW.8 including the Victim/PW.2 and her mother/PW.1 being relatives of the Accused having same surname and living in the same neighborhood turned hostile and resiled from their prior statements.
The other witnesses PW.3 to PW.8 who stood by the Victim at the 27 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 time of offence, deposed that the Accused is their relative and they do not know anything regarding this case. However, if closely observed, the Victim in her chief examination on one hand stated that her mother/PW.1 didn’t take her to police station or hospital, and, on the other hand, she stated that on one occasion at the instance of police she went to Court and hospital, and she do not remember as to what happened. The statement of the Victim contradicted the statement of her mother/PW.1 that police never took her daughter for medical examination and also they never produced her before the Court. The
Victim girl tried her best to be hostile to the prosecution case and resiled from her statement. However, she admitted that she was taken to the Court and Hospital by the Police.
41.The Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Courts in many instances that this became a general scenario that the child abused often occurs in the environments of trust, within families or among close acquaintances. The family of the Victim is threatened, manipulated or made emotionally vulnerable and slowly turn them to retract their statements or turn hostile during trial. Social stigma, fear of retaliation, and lack of psychological support further complicate truthful disclosure. As a result, traditional evidentiary expectations, 28 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 such as, consistent testimony or immediate reporting, are frequently unmet in such cases, not because the offence did not occur, but because of the inherent vulnerability of the Victim. Here in the present case, the Accused is relative of the Victim’s family having same surname and living in the same neighborhood and the father of the
Victim being deaf and dumb as such, the mother and child being vulnerable in their own situation, couldn’t continue their fight in their own social unit, and they had to succumb to unreality and were won over by the Accused.
42. The Hon’ble High Court in Imran Shamim Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 2019 (Para 8) observed that the said submission cannot be taken into consideration as the offence is not just against the individual child but is against the society. In POCSO Act, there is rising trend of the victim turning hostile. It is apparent that before the trial, elder members of the family are won over by the accused and hence, minors would turn hostile. It appears that the accused happens to be close relative and therefore, the family members wanted to suppress the said act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass v/s. State (NCT) of Delhi reported in AIR 2011 SC 1863 has observed as follows : “her subsequent denial
in the Court is not believable because she obviously had
afterthoughts and wanted to save the accused from punishment."
(Para 9) There is ample evidence to indicate that the victim had rather been sexually assaulted. Most of the times, it is the close relative or close acquaintance who would sexually abuse a child and subsequently, the child is forced to become hostile. Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 reads as under : “29. Presumption as to certain offences.- Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under section 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or 29 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved." "The P.O.C.S.O. Act is enacted with specific object, "The law should operate in a manner that the best interest and well being of the child are regarded as being of paramount importance at every stage, to ensure the healthy, physical, emotional, intellectual and social development of the child." Under this Act the provisions are made to bring such instances of sexual assault on the child in the light by protecting the victim. The object is also that the person of culpable state of mind should be punished for harassing the child by bringing instances in the light and keep the society child friendly."
43.The Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court in all the
POCSO cases deliberated on Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which introduces a reverse burden of proof for certain offences (Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9) penetrative and non-penetrative sexual assault, including aggravated forms). Once the prosecution establishes foundational facts (such as the occurrence of the incident and the involvement of the accused), the Court is required to presume that the
Accused committed the offence. The burden then shifts to the Accused to rebut this presumption. This provision reflects a legislative recognition that, Direct evidence in such cases is often scarce. Victim testimony may be inconsistent due to trauma or coercion as the
Perpetrators frequently occupy positions of authority or trust. Section 29 is a significant legal tool designed to address the unique challenges of prosecuting child sexual offences. It acknowledges the realities of 30 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 abuse, particularly the role of close relations and the likelihood of
Victim hostility, while still allowing the Accused an opportunity to rebut the presumption. Its effectiveness ultimately depends on careful judicial application that protects Victims without compromising the fairness of the criminal justice process. The presumption arises only after the prosecution establishes basic facts. The accused does not need to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt, but must offer a plausible explanation or evidence to counter the presumption. The provision must be applied carefully to avoid wrongful convictions.
The presumption under Section 29 is rebuttable, not absolute. The accused can disprove it by presenting evidence or by creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.
44.Accordingly, after all the deliberation that if the prosecution proves its case on foundational facts, it is for the Accused to offer plausible explanation or evidence to counter the presumption under Sec 29 of
POCSO Act to disprove the case of the prosecution; in the present case, the Prosecution proved the foundational facts that the Accused was very much identified by the Victim as a relative, and Semen of the Accused was found on the dress/blue colour ghagra of the Victim were taken as the foundational facts. As the prosecution proved that 31 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 the semen found on the Ghagra of the Victim is of the Accused, it is upon the Accused to prove that, he did not commit the offence as alleged by the Prosecution. However, in this case the Defense did not raise any defense against the FSL and DNA report and did not confront the official witnesses.
45.The prosecution sought to rely upon the medical evidence and the testimonies of PW.11 to PW.15. It was further observed that the
Defence did not dispute the medical evidence and specifically contended that, except for the medical evidence, there was no other material witness to prove the guilt of the Accused for the commission of the alleged offence. It was also observed that the Defence did not cross-examine either of the experts who issued the FSL report and the
DNA report. Nothing tangible was elicited from the cross-examination of PW.14, the panch witness to the seizure panchanama, in support of the Defence. The statements of PW.11, PW.12, PW.13, and PW.14 were found to be closely corroborative of each other. No contention was raised by the Defence regarding any mishandling of the material objects, clothes, or other items sent to the FSL for chemical examination and DNA analysis. It was further observed that the
Defence did not challenge either the FSL report or the DNA report.
32 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
46.The statement of the Accused in his examination under Section 313
Cr.P.C., wherein he admitted that he was arrested from the agricultural land, that his clothes were seized, and that his blood sample was subsequently collected, further strengthened the prosecution case, as the Defence did not deny the FSL and DNA analysis. It is pertinent to note that the Defence neither cross-examined the medical experts who issued the preliminary and final opinions, nor the FSL expert or the
DNA expert. The Defence also failed to raise any contention that the
DNA evidence was improperly documented, collected, packaged, or preserved, or that it did not satisfy the legal and scientific requirements for admissibility before a court of law.
47.The Court observed that the Defence failed to rebut any presumption or create reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case either through evidence or effective cross-examination. Moreover, the learned
Defence appeared to place reliance on the fact that all the material witnesses, including the Victim and her mother, had turned hostile, and therefore showed little interest in challenging the official witnesses or the medical evidence. Even during final arguments, the learned Defence contended that, apart from the medical evidence, there was no other evidence against the Accused, and since all the 33 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 material witnesses, including the Victim and her mother, had turned hostile, the medical evidence alone was insufficient to establish guilt.
Hence, in the absence of any contradiction, challenge, or denial by the
Defence, the medical evidence was treated as reliable and credible evidence.
48.Hence, it can be safely concluded that the clothes of the Victim were collected by the Medical Officer, PW.13, and were forwarded through the police to the TGFSL, Hyderabad. The same were received as case property in Cr. No.135 of 2020 of Midjil Police Station vide Lr.
No.250/SDOM/FSL/2020 dated 24-11-2020. Semen and spermatozoa were detected on Item No.3, namely the blue-coloured terry cotton ghagra of the Victim, and on Item No.7, namely the blue-coloured underwear printed as “Thaila Red” belonging to the Accused. Since the blood group could not be determined from Item Nos.3 and 7, the prosecution approached the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge,
Mahabubnagar, seeking permission to collect the blood sample of the
Accused in order to ascertain whether his DNA profile matched with the semen and spermatozoa detected on the blue ghagra of the Victim (Item No.3) and the blue underwear bearing the “Thaila Red” hologram of the Accused (Item No.7). The Court granted permission 34 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 vide Crl.M.P. No.712/2020 dated 17-12-2020 to take the Accused to
TGFSL, Hyderabad, for collection of his blood samples for DNA profiling.
49.Pursuant to the orders of the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge,
Mahabubnagar, the blood sample of the Accused was collected, and a report was furnished vide File No.DNA/341/2020 dated 25-02-2021 stating that the seminal stain detected on the blue-coloured terry cotton ghagra of the Victim matched with the DNA profiles obtained from the blue-coloured underwear bearing the “Thaila Red” hologram of the Accused and the blood sample of the Accused. Hence, it was conclusively established that all the samples were of the same biological origin.
50.In the decision reported as (2014)2 SCC 576 Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik Vs. Latha Nandlilal Badwaik and Anr. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held (para 13) it is well recognized that the result of genuine DNA test is scientifically adequate. In said decision since it was nobody’s case that the result of the DNA test was not genuine the Court proceeded on an assumption that the result of the DNA test is accurate. The result showed that the appellant therein was not the biological father of the girl child. The decision was followed in the decision reported as (2014)5 SCC 509 Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
51.With these touchstones, as the factum of recovery of material items/clothes of the Victim and the Accused have been duly proved by 35 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021 the prosecution by leading cogent and reliable evidence which has not been shaken by the Defense, and Defense did not putforth any plausible explanation or evidence to counter the presumption under
Sec 29 of POCSO Act to disprove the case of the prosecution; it appears to be true and believable and establishing that at the relevant time Accused committed the sexual assault on Victim/PW.1. The victim was aged 7 years at the time of occurrence of offence, still a minor till date. The court do not see any reason not to rely upon the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses.
52.For the reasons recorded supra, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that he committed sexual assaulted against the victim/PW.1
Hence this point is, therefore, answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
53.The prosecution proved its version of the case by producing the prosecution witnesses and material evidence. Nothing tangible could be elicited to disbelieve version of PW.11 to PW.15. The evidence of prosecution it appears to be true and believable and establishing that the Accused had sexual assault against the Victim/PW.2.
36 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
54.Charges were framed against the Accused under Section 376AB of
IPC, Section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012. Whether the conduct of the Accused falls within the ambit of the offences punishable Under
Section 5(m) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act 2012 and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt was the point No.2 framed and the point is proved in favour of the prosecution and against the Accused. Hence, in view of the findings in point No.2, the Accused is liable to be convicted.
55.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences under section 376AB of IPC and section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, Accused is convicted Under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 04th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-
Special Sessions Judge, The Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious Trial
and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases,
Mahabubnagar.
37 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
56. Questioning on sentence:
The Accused is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed to which the Accused stated that, he has to look after his family, he has a wife and child, and prayed the Court to forgive him.
The punishment for which the Accused is charged is under Sec.376AB of IPC and Section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, wherein in both the
Sections the minimum punishment is Rigorous Imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 20 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.
Taking into consideration the plea of the Accused that he has got wife and child,this Court is of the opinion to take a lenient view in the result the Accused is convicted with minimum punishment.
(a)Hence by applying Sec.42 of POCSO Act, the Accused is sentenced to Twenty (20) years Rigorous Imprisonment and also directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable u/Sec.5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. In default of fine the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for (03) months.
(b)The substantive sentences shall run concurrently, but the default sentence should run consecutively for non-payment of the fine amount.
38 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
(c)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 the judgment is supplied to Accused forthwith under section 363 of Cr.P.C.
(d)A free copy of the judgment shall be given to the learned
Special Public Prosecutor under Rule 100 of Criminal Rules of
Practice.
(e)As seen from the record, the Accused was in jail in this case for the period from 23-11-2020 to 11-01-2021. The said period shall be given set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed against him.
(f)The MO.1 to MO.3 and shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked non-valuable case property i.e. Blue colour
Ghagra of the Victim shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 07th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-
Special Sessions Judge,
The Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious
Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases,
Mahabubnagar.
A ppendix of Evidence
(Witnesses examined)
On behalf of Prosecution:
Prosecution Name of witness Description
Witness No.
PW.1Mother of the VictimComplainant (Identity not disclosed).
39 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
PW.2Victim(IdentitynotVictim. disclosed).
PW.3MaternalUncleof Circumstantial witness of the Victim (Identity not disclosed).
PW.4Mr.Korravath Raju.Circumstantial witness.
PW.5Ms.Nenavath Srinu.Circumstantial witness.
PW.6Ms.Korravath Ramdas.Circumstantial witness.
PW.7Ms.Nenavath Hanmanthu.Circumstantial witness.
PW.8Ms.Korravath Ravinder.Circumstantial witness.
PW.9Ms.Pitta Srisailam.Panch witness for Crime Detail Form.
PW.10Ms. S.Padma, Woman Sub-Recorded the statement of Victim. Inspector of police.
PW.11Mr.Dr.ShaikHaseenaConducted analysis and issued Parvin, Scientific Officer,report. TSFSL, Hyderabad.
PW.12Ms.Dr.G.Pandu, AssistantConducted DNA profile test and Director Scientific Officer,issued Report. TSFSL, Hyderabad.
PW.13Ms.Dr.Soundarya, AssistantExamined the Victim and Professor, Govt., Generalpreserved slides. Hospital, Mahabubnagar.
PW.14Mr.Gundu Sudarshan.Panch witness for Confession- cum-seizure statement.
PW.15Mr.Shiva Kumar, CircleFiled charge sheet. Inspector of police.
40 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
On behalf of Defence: - Nil -
Exhibits marked
On behalf of Prosecution:
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved
No. by/Attested by
Ex.P1Signature of PW.1 on Complaint.PW.1
Ex.P2Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 PW.1
Ex.P3Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 PW.2
Ex.P4Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 PW.3
Ex.P5Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 PW.4
Ex.P6Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5PW.5
Ex.P7Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 PW.6
Ex.P8Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7,PW.7
Ex.P9Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8, PW.8
Ex.P10Signature of PW.9 in Crime DetailsPW.9 form.
Ex.P11 FSL Report, PW.11
Ex.P12 FSL Report, PW.12
Ex.P13 Preliminary Report, PW.13
Ex.P14Final opinion, PW.13
Ex.P15Complaint, PW.15
Ex.P16 First Information ReportPW.15
Ex.P17Crime Details Form,PW.15
Ex.P18Confession-cum-seizure panchanamaPW.15
Ex.P19Potency Report, PW.15
Ex.P20DNA report.PW.15
Ex.P21DNA report.PW.15 41 Spl.SC No.131 of 2021
On behalf of Defence: -Nil-
Material Objects marked
Material Object Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
No.
MO.1Underwear of the AccusedPW.14
MO.2Shirt of the AccusedPW.14
MO.3Pant of the AccusedPW.14
Sd/-
Special Sessions Judge,
The Fast Track Special Court For Expeditious
Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases,
Mahabubnagar.