Dismissed

Maloth Rajesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Aug 2021CRLA/190/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by an appellant accused of kidnapping and raping a minor girl. Upholding the trial court's conviction under POCSO and IPC, the court found the evidence reliable, validated the victim's age, and dismissed challenges regarding consent, injuries, and delay in filing the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is confirmed.

Maloth Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 19 oF 2019

¶6

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 37a Q) of Criminal^procedure Code, against the Judgment and Sentence passed in S.C.No. 51 of 2015, daled .28 .02.201 9 on the file of the court of the special sessions Judge for Trial of cases under protection of child from Sexual Offcences Act-Cum-l Additional Sessions Judge, at Khammam.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Maloth Rajesh, S/o, Bheema, Age.26 years, Lambada, Occ. Mason Work, R/o. Lakxzmidevipalli Village, H/o. Sujetha Nagar of Kothagudem IVandat, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶9

...AppellanUAccused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, represented by its^public prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

Sub-Divisional Police Ofiicer, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶13

Chintha . Ganapathi, S/o. .Rama Raju, Age. 46 years, Occ. Sentring worker, R/o. Kothagudem Town, Bhadradri K6thagudem District.

¶14

... Respondents/Com plaina nt

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶16

Petition under section 389 (1) cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the crl.A.No. of 20'19 preferred against the Judgment in SC.No.51 of 201s dated 28-02-2019 on the file of the court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases Under protection of child From Sexual Offcences Act-Cum-l Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 3Bg (1) Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/Appellant on bail in the interest of Justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT UMA DEVI NAMA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and 3: NONE APPEARED

¶22

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶23

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

¶24

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.190 of 2019

¶25

JUI)CMLNT:

¶26

This appeal is ciirectecl against the jucigmerrt of the learned SpecialSessions Judge for Trial of Cases under Protection of Children fron Sexuai Offences Act-cum-I-Additional Sessions Judge,^{Khamrnam, in S.C.No.S1 of 2015,dated 28.02.2019, r,r'hereby} the appellantT'accused was found guilty of the offences punishable uncier Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 201.2 ancl Section 366 of I.P.C. and accordingly convictec'l and sentencecl to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of^Te'n years anrl to ;ray 6 f ine of Rs.5,000/- in clefault, to su ifer sir.nple imprisonnrent for a period of one year for the offetrce punishable uncler Section 6 of the Protection of Children frorn Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (f or short^" the POCSO Act") ancl also setrtenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.s,l)00/- in clefault, to suffer simple imp:risontnetrt for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C. Both ttre sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

¶27

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.07.201,4 P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the police statirrg that his younger tlaughter i.e., r'ictim girl, aged about 16 years, stuclf ing L-rternrediate 'l'r year, \vent lo college on 08.07.2014 at about 9.30 A.M., hut she riicl not rL-tLrrn to hlluse till the evenirrg anci thurt he searchecl for lris

¶28

¶29

GSD, J Crla 190 2019

¶30

daughter in every nook and corner and as such there was delay in lodging the complaint. Basing on the said complaint (Ex.P1), P.W.l4-the then Head Constable, Kothagudem, registered a case in Crime No.342 o{ 2014 under the head of 'girl rnissing' and issued Ex.P11-F.I.R. Later, basing on the statement of P.W.3/victim gill, P.W.13-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kothaguclem, alterecl the Section of law by adding Sections 365,376 (2) of I.P.C. anel Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Ex.P10 is the alteration memo. On receipt of Ex.P10, P.W.1S-Inspector of Police, Kothagudem, recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2; P.W.3 was examined by P.W.11, which was videographed by P.W.4; thereafter recorded the statements o{ P.Ws.3, 4 and 11.; collected Ex.P5-Study and Conduct certificate of the victim girl; sent P.W.3 for medical examination; arrested the accused at his house and sent requisition for conducting potency test of the accused ar-rd collected the potency certificate.^{-l-hereafter,} P.!V.l5 visited tire seconcl scene of offence at Venkiryala Village, prepared Crime Detail Folm and rough sketcl-r in the presence of P.W.E and another; serrt P.W.3 for recording her statement^uncler Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter he handed over the case file to P.W.16. After completior.r of investigation and collecting all^the material papers, P.W.16-the then Deputy Superintendent of^Police, Kothagudem, filed a charge sheet, which was taken cognizance^as S.C. No.51 of 2015.

¶31

GSD, J Crla 190 20^I 9

¶32

¶33

On appearance of the^{accused, charges uncler Section 6 of the} Protection of Children from^{Sexual OffencesAct, 2072 and Section} 366 of I.P.C. were^{framedagainstthe accused, read over and} explained to him in Telugu, for^{which he pleadednot guilty and} claimed to be tried.

¶34

T'o subsiantiate its case, the^{prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to} 16 and got rnarked Exs.P1 to P12.^{Afterclosure of evidence, the} accusecl n,as examinecl under Section^{313 Cr.P.C., with reference to} the incriminating circumstances^{aPpearingagainst him inthe} eviclence of the prosecution wihresses,^{to which he'denrecl. No oral} evirience w,ars acicluced on behalf of^{the accust'cl,but Ex.Dlwas} nr.r rketl

¶35

After considering the oral and^{documentaryeviclence on} record., the learned trial Judge found the^{accusedguilty of the} offences rvittr which he was charged^{and accordingly convicted and} sentenced the accused as stated supra.^{Challengingthe same, the} present appeal is filed.

¶36

I-earnecl Counsel for the apprellant/ accusecl woulcl submit^that if thc. accused kiclnapped the victim girl, she coulcl^{have raiseclalartn} or resistr:cl the accusecl and none of the wiinesses have statetl^that thr: victim l;ill raisetl alarm or shown her resistaltce. She further submits tha L there are serious contradictions in the statcments of the

¶37

¶38

GSD. J Crla 190 2019

¶39

victirn girl recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and'L64 Cr.P.C. and also in her evidence. She further submits that the victim girl did not state in her chief-examination that she was subjected to repeated penetrative sexual assault by the accused. She further submits that none of the prosecution witnesses stated that tl-re accused comrnittecl aggravatecl penetl'ative sc'xual assault on the victim girl and as sucl-r the convictiorr uneler Section 6 of the POCSO Act is liable to be set asir'le. She furtl.rer subrrits that the trial Court has miserably Iailecl to appreciate the evidence-in-chief of the victim girl and^her" statements recoldecl by the police and Magistrate, which are overall embellishments and improvements and^{that the testimony of the} prosecuhix is totally unreliable. She further submits that during^the course of investigation, the prosecution did not^{examine the} important witnesses to Prove the^{commission of offence under} Sections 366 of I.P.C. and Section^{6 of the POCSOActas well, but} She only examined the witnesses in pick and^{choose method} fur ther subrnits that the Court^{below seriously erred in convicting} the accusecl basing on the evic'lence of^{interested witnessesi.e} P.Ws.l and 2, u.ho are the Parents^{of the victim girl, whichinvites} interference of this Court in^{order to meet the ends of justice.She} further submits that P.Ws.1 and^{2 have stated thatsince the accusecl} got married the victim girl, they^{have participated in sexual} intercourse. She further submits^{that the reason for the inordinate} deiay of 18 days in lodging^{the complaint by the father of the victim}

¶40

¶41

CSD. J Clrla 190 2019

¶42

is not reliable and Lrust worthy. She further^submitstha t^{no </sup> Ossification^'Iest or any Radiological test has been^{subjected to the} victim girl tc, cletermine her correct age and that the trial Court^has erroneously ,:onsidered the age of the victim girl basing on the Study and Conduct certificate issued by the Head Master of the^High School, whic'h did not give any reliance to prove the correct age. -fherefor e, ir ttre absence of age proof, the ",ictir-n^{girl is not a chiltl} uncler thc rlcfinition of Section 2 (1) ((t) o{ the' I']C)CSO Ar:t, 2012 ancl, thercfore, thr: conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant unclcr Sectiorr 6 of the POCSO Act itself is not maintainable ancl the sar-ne is lial,le to be set aside. It is further subrnittecl tl-rat the prosecution has failed to establish its case in proper perspective in al1 the ways The trial Court has failed to consider the vicleograph through which the statement of victim under Section 161 of CI.P.C. was recorde,f by P.W.4 in the presence of P.W.11. The evidence of the prosecutrir suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies, but, the trial Court failed to appreciate the same n,hile convicting the accused. I is further submittecl that the trial Court errecl in appreciatine tlte cross-examination of P.W.3, wherein she has statecl that herself ancl the accusec'l lecl marital life for 5 clavs at Jangaon. lt is fr.rrthel submittetl that as per [ix.P7-report, P.\V.9-Doctor, opirrecl tlrat tht' t,ict;r-r, girl's seconrlary sexual characters are u,ell cle.',,r-.loptd ancl lrer l-ast N'lenstrual Periocl was on 09.07.2074 antl that the victim girl informe,-1 that her last intercourse was one week ago; the cloctor}

¶43

¶44

GSD..I Crla I 90 201 9

¶45

opined tha t the victirn is not virgin, sire has underwent sexual assault and whether she is pregnant or not cannot be confirmed now and, therefore, P.W.9-Doctor has not supported the case of the prosecution either by medically or scientifically and no medical evidence has proved tl:rat the accused committed the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and that the absence of injuries will inevitably cliscredit the versiorr of the prosecution. It is also subrnitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyoncl all reasonable doubt that sexual act comrnitted by the appellant was either by inducement or by putting threat.

¶46

¶47

Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Plosecutor would submit that as per Ex.P5-Study and Conduct Certificate, it has been clearly established that P.W.3 is less than 18 years of age as on the date of occurrence. He further submits that the accused had forcibly kidnapped the victim/minor girl (P.W.3) from the lawful custody of the parents under the pretext of marrying her and had aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. Therefore, the accused has cornmitted the offence under Section 366 of I.P.C. ancl Sectior-r 6 of the POCSO Act. I{e fulther submits that the eviclence of I'].Ws.l to 3 is corroborated by the evidence of^forn-ral witnesses. FIc furtirel subn-rits that thele is sufficient material kr show that the appellant/ accused is responsible^f or the commission

¶48

¶49

GSD, J Crla_190²⁰¹⁹

¶50

of offence and,^{therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the} trial Court is iustified^{and is not liable to be set aside'}

¶51

In orcler to Prove^{its case,the prosecution examinec'l as many} as 16 witnesses.^{P.W.3 is the victimgirl;P Ws lancl 2 are her} parents. P.\'.4^{is the photographer, who videograpl-retl the} statement of^{P.W.3 recordedby P.W.11' P Ws'5anc'l 6 are the panch} w,itnesses for t:x^{P4-CrirneDetails Form'P W'7 is tl-reFleaclMaster'} wlroissueclEx,P5-StuclyandConcluctCertificateofthevictimgirl. P.W.B is the^{panch wihressfor Ex.P6-C'D'Fdated 1208'2014' P'W'9} is the doctor, who^{examinedthe victim girl and issued Ex'P7 medical} certificate. P.W.10^{is the doctor, who examinedthe accused and} issued Ex.P8-Potency^{Certificate of accused.P.w.11is the supervisor} of I.C.D.S., u'ho^{recordedthe statementof P'W'3 (victim girl)'} P.W.12 is the person,^{who sent the accused to attend the work at the} house of P.W. l. P.Ws.13^{to 16 are the Investigating Officers'}

¶52

"fhis Court, being an Appellate Court. is a fact fincling Coult ancl it has to give its^{fincling indepenclentlyafter appreciatingthe} entire evidence.^{Accordingly,this Court has re-appreciateclthe} entire evidence.

¶53

P,{.1, who is the^{father of the victimgirl (P W'3),cleposecl in} his evidence that he lodged^{a complaintwith the policewith regard} to missing of his daughter^{since few days prior to the date of} complaint. He further deposed^{that after one week of lodging the}

¶54

¶55

GSD. J Crla 190 20I 9

¶56

cornplaint, his claughter returned home and informed that the accused has taken her away by inclucing her under the pretext of love and marriage to Bhuvanagiri, where he kept her in a room and participated in sexual intercourse with her.

¶57

P.W.2, who is the mother of the victim girl (P.W.3), deposed in her evidence that P.W.3 was studying Intermediate 1st year at Government iunior College, Kothagudem. On 08.07.2014, P.W.3 went to college and did not retul'n home and they have searchecl for hc'r in their surrourrciir-rgs ancl relatives houses, but thet, coultl not tracc hcr. She also cleposc.rl that since tl-re clate of rnissirrg of he.r claughter', 'they have not seen the accused, who was working as mason in their house; that on 10.08.2014, her daugl-rter retulned home and informed that the accusecl took her to Jangaon, malried her in a temple, kept her in a room and participated in sexual intercourse with her.

¶58

12, P.W.3, who is the victim girl, deposed in her evidence that her date of birth is 01.01.1998; that the accused, who used to do mason work at her house, used to talk with her when hel parents were not at home arrd used to say that he is loving her and he cannot^live witl-rout her; that sl-re was studying intermediate^1st 1'eaI^at Government Junior College, Kothagudem; that on 08.07.2014,^the accused took her to Kotl-raguclem bus stancl, from^{where he took her} to Jangaon, ancl stayed at the Railway Statlor-r on that day;^{that on}

CSD, J Crla 190 2019

w I

t/t/

,r //

the next day, the accused took her to^{Ramalayamtemple and} married her ,rnd kept her in a vacant house behind^t)re Jangaon Railn,ay Station ancl participatec-t in sexual iutercoursc n'ith^her saying tirat since they have got marriecl, there is no mistake^{antl that} their palents will also agree for their marriage. She fulther staterl that on 10.08.:2014 when the accused went to n,ork, she came back to her parents' house; that her parents loclged the cotnplairtt rvith the police arrd thr: police examined her and recordecl her statement; that her statemenl was recorded by the ICDS Supervisor, which rvas also videographecl and later her 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded by a Magistrate.

¶65

P.!'.4, who is a photographer., cleposed in his evic'lence that he is rururing a photo studio in Kothagudem since 30^years and on I 10.08,2014, P,rljce I Town, Kothaguclem, callecl l-rim to vicleograpl-r tl-re statement of P.W.3 at ICDS Office and accorclinglv, hewent there anrl vicleograplrecl the statement of P.W-3 recorderl bv P.\V.1 I

¶66

P.l'.5, r.r'ho is the panch witness lor Er.P,l-Crjrrrt' Dettrils Forrn, cleposccl in his eviclence that on 26.07.2074 police calleci him to the house of I'].W.3 at Seshagiri Colony, Kothagudem, where Crime Detail l'orm n,as prepared and rough sketch was drawn in his Presence

¶67

¶68

GSD, J Crla 190 l0l 9

¶69

P.W,6, r,vho is ar.rother panch ,vitness for Ex.p4-Cr.irne Details Form, deposed in his evidence that he signed on Ex.p4, which was c'lrafted in his presence at the house of P.W.3

¶70

P.W.7, deposed in his evidence that earlier he worked as HeaLl Master, Chunchupally High School, from 2009 to 2015; that he has issued Study and Conduct Certificate of P.W.3 and according to which the date of birth of P.W.3 is 10.02.1998 with admission No.6430, dated 16.06.2008. P.W.3 studied in their school from 2008 to 2013 from Class 6th to 10th. Ex.P5 is the Study and Conduct Celtifica te

¶71

17 P.W.8, deposed in his eviclence that he signed on C.D.F., clateci 12.08,2011 as first attesting witness. Since P.W.8 dicl not support the case of the prosecution, he was cleclared as hostile.

¶72

P.W.9-Doctor, who examined the victim girl, and issued Ex.P7-medical examination report, deposed in her evidence that on 10.08.2014, she has examined the victim gir1, who was brought to Area Hospitai, Kothagudem by WHC No.453 and {ound that her secondary sexual characters are well deveioped and her LMP (Last Menstrual Period) is 09.07.2014 and the victim girl informed that her last intercourse was one week ago. She further deposed that on exarrination of the private parts of the victim girl, her external genitalia were healthy, r-ro ir-rjuries were found on the genitalia,

¶73

¶74

GSD. J Crla 190 2019

¶75

hymen !\ras rllptured^{ancl her vaginawas admitting one finger} easily. P.W.9 opinecl^{that the victim girl was not virginanci she} untlerw'errt se>i ual assault^{ancl she coulcl not sarY whe'thel'P,W 3 was} carr1,ine i,r'ith^{pt gg11311Ly,}

¶76

P.W.10, deposed in his^{evidencethat on 10.08.2014,he} examined the accused and found^{that the accusedis capable of} performing sexual act and that^{he issued Ex.P8-Potency Certificate} of accused.

¶77

P.W.11, the then Supervisor,^{ICDS,Kothagudem,deposedin} her evidence that, on^{'10.08.201.4,} she^{recordedthe statement of P.W.3} ancl at the time of recording^{her statement, P.Ws.1 to 3 along with} one wonlen ['.C. were presen|^{that P.W.3 statecl to her that the} accusecl was doing mason work at^{her house since 15 clays prior to} the inciclent and usecl to say that^{he lovesher; that on 08.07.2014,} while she was going to college, the accused^{came to her and took her} to Kothagudem Bus Station, from^{where he took her to} Jangaon, where they stayed on that day and thereafter^{the accused took her to} Venkiryala village, where he tied nuptial^{thread in a temple,and} thereafter they stayed in a vacant room and^{the accusedused to go} to mason work and during the night^{time he usedto participatein} sexual intercourse with her stating that they^{were marriedand} nobody can separate them if they participate in sexual^intercourse; that after one week P.W.3 came to know that her parents lodged^a

¶78

¶79

GSD, J Crla 190 2019

¶80

complaint at the Police Station and as such she left the place to her parents house after the accused left her work. p.W.11 also deposed that the statement of P.W.3 was videographed by p.W.4.

¶81

P.W .12, who is a circumstantial wihress, deposed in his evidence that he knew the accused since two year.s prior to the date of incident as he was working as Coolie under him and he used to allot the work to the accused; that about four years back, he sent the accused to work at the house of P.W.L and thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 informed him that the accused has taken away their daughter and married her.

¶82

Before venturing into scan the available material evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definitior-r of offence u n!lor Sc( tion loo of L I'.C.

¶83

Section 366 of IPC c.lefines that:

¶84

"Kiclnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compcl hor nrarriage, etc-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be cornpellecl, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be iikely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, (and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority to any other methocl of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with

¶85

¶86

GSD. J C rla 190 2019

¶87

irltent that she may be, or knowing that it is likeiy that she rvill be, forcecl or seduce.i to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid."

¶88

On a careful reading of the evidence of the victim sirl (P.W.3), it is seen thal she has narrated the entire events. P.W.1, who is the father of the',iictim girl, stated in his evidence that his daughter was missing during the relevant point of time and as such he lodged the complaint be fore the police and thereafter his ciaughter returnecl home and informed that the accused has taken her away by inducing her under the pretext of love, marrieci her ancl participatecl in sexual intercourse with her. P.W.2, who is tl-re mother of the victirn girl, sr-rpportec-l the version of the victim grrl ancl cleposecl that the victim girl re,turr-recl horne on 10.08.2014 ancl informec'l that the .rccusetl has rnarried her and participatecl in sc.xtrai intr.rcourse r.r,ith ht r

¶89

P.W.3-Victim girl was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu, for recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The said statement was marked as Ex.P2. In the said statement, the victim girl has stated that the accused took her to Jangoan Railway Station and they stayed in the house of one Ramesh, who is the brother-inJaw of the accused, ancl that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Though the statement recorrled under Section 164 Cr.Ir.C. is not substantive eviclence., the victim girl was exarnineci before the Cour.t as p.W.3,

¶90

¶91

GSD, J Crla 190 2019

¶92

during trial, and she has deposed that the accused participated in sexual intercourse saying that they got married and that there is no rnistake. Therefore, the statement under Section 164 Cr.p.C. corrolrorates rvith th. r'viderce of the victir-n girl (p.w.3).^-t'hough the'e are minor contradictiorrs in the statement of victim girl, but the fact tha t the victim girl stayed with the accused ancl the accusecr participated in sexual intercourse with her is well established, r,r,hich fact was corroborated by the evidence of p.W.9-Doctor., who examined the victim girl. p.W.9-Doctor deposed that on examination of the victim girl, she found the hymen ruptured with congestion around the orifice and vagina admitting one finger easily and that she opined that the victim girl is not virgin and she underwent sexual assault.

¶93

Adrnittedly, at the time of occurrence, the victim girl had not completed 18 years of age, and therefore, she is a child under Sectiorr 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act. In order to prove the age of the victim girl, the study and conduct cer.tificate of the victim girl was rnarkecl as Ex.PS, through P.W.7, who is the Head Master, Chunchupally High School and issued the said certificate. As per Ex.PS, the date of birth of the victim girl is 10.02.1998. The date of occurrence is between 08.07.2014 to 10.08.2014, and therefore, at the time of occurrence, the age of the victim was only 16 years and she had not completed L8 years. Therefore, it is clear that, at the time of

¶94

¶95

(ist)..1 (rla.l90 2019

¶96

occurrence, the age of the victim girl {as orlly 16 years, and therefore, she, is a 'child' under Section 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act Ir is not in dispulg that the accused was aged abofi 22 years at the time of occulrence.

¶97

From thc' evidence of P.W.3-victim girl, P.W.1-father of the victim girl, P.W.2-Mother of the victim girl, Ex.P11-F.l.R. registered on 26,07.2074 unc'ler "Cirl missing" and Ex.P10-alteration memo, it is clear that the accusecl has removed the victim girl fron-r the lalr,ful cLlstody oi l).\s. I and 2, w,ithout their consent, anc-l the,refore, he has cornmittertl tl-,e oifence punishable uncler Section 366 of i.lr.C., antl since thc mintrr victim girl, who was a child unclct. POCSO Act, was subjecteri to serual assault, the accused has also committed the offence punishable under Section 6 of the pOCSO Act.

¶98

Though there is no independent witness, in cases like this, conviction can be made solely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix. In this case, the victim is a child and her custody was removed from her lawful guardians without their consent. Even assuming that the accused took the victim girl with her consent, since the victim girl had not completed the age of 1g year.s, her consent cannot be taken as a lawful consent. Further., from the evidence of I'.\V.9-Doctor, it is seen that there were .o external i,jr-rries on th. girl, lrut she was not virgirr aucl s]re untle^t'e.t se,xual assault. Ilve, assuming that the victim girl harl .ot objected to tl-re

¶99

¶100

GSD. J Crla 190 2019

¶101

sexual intercourse and had given her consent, such consent of a child is not legally valid. Once the victim is a child, falling under Section 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act, her consent is immaterial.

¶102

Insofar as the c'lelav in lodging tl-re complaint is concerned, the offence is stated to have taken place on 08.07.2014 and the complaint n,as lodgecl on26.07.2014 by the father of the victinr (PW.1). P.W.1 has deposed about the ciLcumstances that clrove him to lorlgc tl-re cornplaint. ln his eviclence, he has specifically statcd that he searchccl the victim in the houses of the relatives and having failec'l to trace her, he reported the matter to the police. Therefore, the delay in lodging the compiaint in my opinion is suitably explained by the prosecution and on that count, the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted.

¶103

From the oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution has proved that the accused has taken away the victim git'l from the lawful custody of her parents without theit' consent, and subsequently, had forcible sexual intercourse with her,^ancl therefore, the accuseci has cornmitted thc oifences punishable uuclcr Scction 366 of I.P.C. ancl Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 1'hough^there are some rninor contradictions in the evidence of the^prosecution r.r,itnesses, such contradictions are not material contradictions, which wili go to the root of the case of the prosecution. This Court^{does not} find any reason to discard the evidence of the^victim girl^(P.W.3).

¶104

¶105

CSD, J Crla 190 201 9

¶106

¶107

On a careful leading of the evidence of P.Ws.1^{to 12 and also the} documents Exs.P1 to P12, this Court also finds that^{the accusedhas} committed the t>ffences punishable under Section 366 of^{I.P.C. and} Section 6 of tl're POCSO Act. The trial Court has appreciated^the entire oral an,l documentary evidence in a propcr perspective and I-ras rightlv fc,uncl the guilt of the accused ancl convictetl him^as statcrl above, fherefore, this Court has no hesitation to holcl that the juclgment oas:,etl by the trial Court, is just ancl propcr arrcl therc.fore, it tloes not reLr u ire anv interference by this Court.

¶108

Accorclrrrgly, this Crirninal Appeal is c-lismisser-l anrl tl.re jucigment of ,: onvictiorr and sentence passed by the learrred Special Sessions^judge for Trial of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual OfIenr:es Act-cum-I-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, in S.C.No.S1 c,f 2015, dated 28.02.2019, against the appellant/accused are herebv confirmed.

¶109

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if arry, pending shall

¶110

stand closecl.

¶111

SD/. CH, MALLIKARJUNA VARMA DEPUTY R EGIST R ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶112

To, 1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offencr:s Act-Cum-l Addltional Sessions Judge, at Khammam (With records it any)

¶113

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶114

The Superintendent and Jails, Central Prison, Warangal.

¶115

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶116

One CC to Smt Uma Devi Nama, Advocate [OPUC]

¶117

Two CD Copies

¶118

One Spare Copy IVMK TP'*s'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 171081',2021

JUDGMENT

t
()B
Nt\ar<br>c 0 I ) E P 202l c, zrl1l
.1, JI
o+r/
oly'
'|.
'-:::=

¶123

CRLA.No.190 of 2019

¶124

DISMISSING TI{E CRIMINAL APPEAL

Maloth Rajesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maloth Rajesh v. The State of Telangana

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

Manne Raghavendra Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Anumula Sangeetha Vs The State of Telangana

Sabavath Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

E. Vijaypal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mrs. Radhika Pandurangam Vs Mr. T.C.Pandurangam

Trivikram Rao Vs The State of Telangana