Dismissed

Bavanam Peri Reddy v. the State of a.P., and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Feb 2024CRLA/889/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction under the POCSO Act for aggravated sexual assault, the High Court examined the testimony of the child victim and medical reports. The Court held the evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's sentence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused No. 1 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act confirmed.

Bavanam Peri Reddy Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

L

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 889 OF 2016

¶9

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, Appeal against the Judgment made in POCSOA Sessions Case No.1 of 2016, dated 18/4/2016,^onthefile of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial or Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases-cumI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, for the Offences punishable Under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00/- and in default simple imprisonment for three, and aggrieved by the present Criminal Appeal.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Bavanam Peri Reddy, S/o. Ayyapa Reddy, aged about 40 years. Caste By Reddy, Chinthaguntapalem Village, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶12

...Appellant/Accused No.1

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad, (Station House Officer, Parchur P.S., Prakasam District).

¶15

The State - Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chirala. Prakasam District.

¶16

\ /. t

¶17

. Smt. Bavanam Anjamma, W/o. Ayyappa Reddy, aged about 65 years Reddy, R/o. Chinthaguntapalem Village, Parchur Mandal j f?fal<asam District.

¶18

...Respondent/Complainant and Accused No.2

¶19

(The 3"'* Respondent herein is not necessary party^{tothisCriminal} Appeal)

¶20

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2016rCRLAMP. NO: 39477 OF 2016)

¶21

Petition under Section 389 of CrI.P.C } praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant the leave of the Petitioner to file the Criminal Appeal against the Calendar and Judgment dated 18.4.2016, in POCSOA S.C.No.1 of 2016, on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases-cum-l Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. A Gayatrl Reddy

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (AP)

¶24

Court made the Following:

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶26

AND

¶27

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶28

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 889 OF 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT: (per Hon 'ble Sri Justice .KSuresh Redd}/)

¶30

Accused No. 1 in POCSOA Sessions Case No. 1 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for^{TrialofProtection}

¶31

of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases - cum - I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole (for short, 'the trial Court'), is the appellant in the present criminal appeal. The trial^Courttried

¶32

accused Nos. 1 and 2 under the following three charges:

¶33

I Charge was under Section 6 of Protection of Children^from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity, 'the Act'), against

¶34

accused No. 1;

¶35

II Charge was under Section 6 read with Section 16^ofthe

¶36

Act against accused No. 2; and

¶37

III Charge was under Section 506 IPC against accused^No.2.

¶38

The substance of the charges is that accused No. 1, being father of P.W.l (hereinafter referred to as 'the victim girl'), committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and accused Nos. 1 and 2 threatened the victim girl with dire consequences not to reveal the same to anybody and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 6 and. Section 6 read with Section 16 of the Act and Section 506 IPC.

¶39

After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 6 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.lOO/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three rhonths. The trial Court acquitted accused No. 2 for the offences under Section 6 read with Section 16 of the Act and Section 506 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused No. 1 filed the present appeal before this Court.

¶40

Case of the prosecution as per the evidence of prosecution

¶41

witnesses is as follows:

¶42

¶43

P.W.2 is wife of accused No. 1 and it is second marriage^for both of them. Earlier both of them got divorced and^marriedeach

¶44

other. P.W.2 and accused No. 1 were blessed with two daughters. The victim girl is elder daughter of accused No. 1. Due to disputes between accused No. 1 and P.W.2, both of them are residing separately. The victim girl is residing with accused^Nos.1and2at Chintaguntapalem Village and second daughter is residing with P.W.2 at Budavada Village of Parchur Mandal. Accused^No.2 is mother of accused No. 1 and grandmother of the victim girl. The victim girl is studying V Class in M.P.P. School at Chintaguntapalem Village at the time of offence. Accused No. 1 is working as lorry driver. Accused No. 1 used to visit the school of the victim girl and take her to house on one pretext or other and used^tocommit aggravated sexual intercourse on the victim girl. While so, on 16-10-2015, accused No. 2 took the victim girl and dropped her at the house of P.W.2 for Dusserah holidays. During those holidays when P.W.2 enquired the victim girl about her welfare,^thelatter narrated the aggravated sexual assault committed on her by accused No. 1 on eight occasions. Thereafter, P.W.3, who is

¶45

working as Child Line Team Member, Ongole, came to know about the sexual assault committed on the victim girl by accused No. 1. Immediately, P.W.3 went to the house of P.W.2 who informed the former about the sexual assault committed on the victim girl by accused No. 1. On 30-10-2015 at about 4 p.m., the victim girl and P.W.2 went to police station to report the matter. P.W.6-the then ASI of Police, recorded statement of the victim girl, which was marked as Ex.PI, on the basis of which a case in crime No. 74 of 2015 of Parchur Police Station was registered for the offences under Section 6 of the Act and Section 506 IPC. P.W.6 submitted copies of FIR to all the concerned. EX.P5 is copy of FIR. Immediately, P.W.6 informed the registration of crime to Sub Divisional Police Officer, Chirala-P.W.8. Immediately, P.W.8 went to the house of P.W.2 and recorded statements of the victim girl and P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.8 sent the victim girl to Government Area Hospital, Chirala, for medical examination. P.W.7-Civil Assistant Surgeon, .Government Area Hospital, Chirala, examined the victim girl and issued Ex.P6-Preliminary Report. Later, after receipt of report from APFSL, which is marked as Ex.P7, P.W.7 issued Final

¶46

¶47

Opinion under Ex.P8. On the basis of Ex.P7, P.W.7 opined^that sexual intercourse was occurred on the victim girl. On 31-10-2015 at about 9.30 a.m., P.W.8 visited the house of the accused and prepared an observation report in the presence of P.W.4^and another under Ex.P2. P.W.8 also got the scene photographed. EXS.P9 to P20 are photographs and Ex.P21 is corresponding compact disc. P.W.8 also prepared Ex.P22-Rough Sketch^ofthe scene of offence. P.W.8 arrested the accused and remanded them to judicial custody. On 03-11-2015, P.W.8 visited Sanma School, Vankayalapadu Village, where the victim girl is studying and recorded statement of P.W.5 who is Principle of the^school. P.W.8 obtained Ex.P3-Study Certificate of the victim girl^fromP.W.5. In the meanwhile, P.W.2 approached P.W.5 and took transfer certificate of the victim girl which was marked as Ex.P4. On 04-11-2015, P.W.8 filed a memo before the Court requesting^to send accused No. 1 for potency test. P.W.lO-V.Krishna Murthy, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur, examined accused No. 1 and issued

¶48

¶49

Ex.P27-Potency Certificate. After receipt of FSL Report and wound certificate, P.W.8 filed charge sheet.

¶50

In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.l to 10 and marked Exs.Pl to P27.

¶51

When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied the incriminating materiai appearing against them and reported no defence evidence.

¶52

Accepting the evidence of the victim girl and P.W.2 coupled with the evidence of P.W.7, the trial Court acquitted accused No. 2 of all the charges and convicted accused No. 1 as stated supra. 8. Smt. A.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 1, would contend that the evidence of the victim girl and P.W.2 suffers from lot of Improvements and there ISi no corroboration to their ocular version from any other sources; that due to disputes between the accused and P.W.2, the present case is foisted against the accused at the instance of P.W.2 and that the medical evidence spoken to by P.W.7 reveals that there is no sexual assault on the victim girl.

¶53

¶54

On the .other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of the victim girl,^who is a child witness, is crystal clear about the commission of offence,^which is a heinous crime, by accused No. 1 who is her biological^fatherand that the ocular version of the victim girl and P.W.2^{iscorroborated} by the medical evidence spoken to by P.W.7. He, therefore. sought for dismissal of the present criminal appeal.

¶55

This Court perused the entire material available on^record. The victim girl is none other than the daughter of^accusedNo. 1. P.W.2 is wife of accused No. 1. As seen from the evidence of the victim girl, she is residing along with the accused at Chintaguntapalem Viilage. She specifically stated that^accusedNo. 1 used to bring her from school and commit aggravated^sexual assault on her. On 16-10-2015 when accused No. 1 tried to commit sexual assault on the victim girl, she jumped^fromwalland went towards agricultural fields. After some time when she returned home, accused No. 2 was present and the victim girl informed the attempt of accused No. 1 to accused No. 2 but accused No. 2 threatened the victim girl not to reveal^thesameto

¶56

anybody. On the same day, accused No. 2 took the Victim girl and dropped her at the house of P.W.2 at Budavada Village for Dusserah holidays. P.W.2 in her evidence stated that during those hoiidays when she enquired the victim giri about her welfare, the latter narrated the sexual assault committed on her by accused No. 1. The victim girl further disclosed P.W.2 that accused No. 1 committed aggravated sexual assault on her for eight times. P.W;3 in his evidence deposed that he is working as Child Line Team Member, Ongole, and on the morning hours of 30-10-2015 when he was present in his office, he received a phone call from some unknown person who informed him about the sexual assault committed by accused No. 1 on the victim girl. Having^received the said information, P.W.3 proceeded to Budavada Village^and reached the house of P.W.2. On his enquiry, the victim girl and P.W.2 disclosed the sexual assault committed by accused No. 1. Thereafter, on the same day, the victim girl and P.W.2 went to police station and reported the matter to police, on the basis of which the present crime was registered by P.W.6. P.W.7, who examined the victim girl, clearly stated in his evidence that hymen

¶57

¶58

¶59

was not intact. In Ex.P8-Final Opinion, P.W.7 categorically^stated that 'sexual intercourse occurred'.

¶60

Learned counsel for the appellant-accused No. 1 would strenuously contend that though the offence was committed prior to 16-10-2015, P.W.2 gave report to police on 30-10-2015 i.e. more than two weeks after the occurrence and as such,^there is any amount of delay in giving report to police. This being a case of aggravated sexual assault on the victim girl by her biological father, naturally the victim girl and P.W.2 may take^sometimeto give report to police. The victim and the family may be initially reluctant to approach the police as the honour of the family and the reputation of the victim will be at stake. The delay in lodging FIR in such like cases is a natural phenomenon. The delay in lodging FIR in cases of aggravated sexual assault upon^thevictim who is of tender age cannot be equated with the cases^inother

¶61

offences. The delay in case of sexual offences has to be considered with different yardstick, more particularly^whentheact has been attributed to the father of the victim. The appellant, being father of the victim, was expected to act as a protector of

¶62

¶63

¶64

the minor daughter. A father has significant and dominant position in the iife of a daughter. Father is the one who nurtures and guides the daughter through every defining moment of her life. A father is legally and morally bound to protect his daughter but here is a case where the protector turned out to be a perpetrator. Instead of providing protection and care to the daughter, the appellant, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his daughter. The evidence of the victim giri is crystal clear about the offence committed by accused No. 1. Normally, no daughter will complain about the sexual assault committed by her biological father. In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from the evidence of the victim girl. A suggestion was put to P.W.2 in her cross-examination that P.W.2 resorted to the present criminal prosecution through the victim girl as there are disputes between P.W.2 and accused No. 1 which was denied by P.W.2. In a case of this nature, the evidence of prosecutrix alone is sufficient. In the case on hand, apart from the evidence of the victim girl and P.W.2, the medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution case.

¶65

¶66

On evaluating the evidence adduced on record, the prosecution successfully proved and established the guilt of the appellant-accused No. 1 beyond all reasonable doubt. There are no merits in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶67

In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment dated 18-04-2016 in POCSOA Sessions Case No. 1 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act Cases - cum - I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.

¶68

To,

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

SD/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶71

The Special Judge for Trial of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases-cum-l Additional District & Sessions Judge;

¶72

Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶73

The Station House Officer, Parchur Police Station Prakasam District.

¶74

One CC to Smt. A Gayatri Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

¶75

Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT]

¶76

The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi. 6. Three CD Copies

SAM

sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:29/02/2024

ORDER

CRLA.No.889 of 2016

JOo
ol
(iis 0 .'i JUL 202^ nm
^ Current Section

¶84

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

Bavanam Peri Reddy v. the State of a.P., and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bavanam Peri Reddy v. the State of a.P., and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Andugula Nagaraju at Raju, Krishna Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd

Nariboina Madhusudhan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nunna Bhogeswara Rao, Krishna Dt., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Shaik Khadar Vali, Guntur Dt., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Kamasani Nagaraja Reddy (A-1) Chittoor Dt., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Tathireddy Lakshmi Reddy, Chittoor and Anr., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.