Dismissed

Mohd Salman, Hyderabad., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC3 Jan 2025CRLA/1097/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Section 6 POCSO and ten years' rigorous imprisonment for sexually assaulting a minor girl over three days. The court found the victim's testimony credible, corroborated by medical evidence, DNA/FSL findings, identification parade and seizure of her clothes from the accused's residence, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohd Salman, Hyderabad., Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1097 OF 2015

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 25.03.20i5 passed in P.C.S. SC. No. i0 of 2014 on th6fileof the Co-urt of the'1't Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for Trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, at Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mohd Salman, S/o. Mohd. Osman, Age: 20 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. H.No. 22-7-589/2, Murgikhana Lane, Meeralam Mandi, Hyderabad.

¶11

...AppellanUAccused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶14

...RespondenUComplainant' r

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLAMP. NO: 113 OF 2016

¶16

Petition under Section 482 o'f 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 reduce the surety amount in Crl.Appeal No.^'1097 of 201 5 in the interest of^justice.

¶17

lA NO:^'l OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 389(1) of 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 herein on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in PCS SC.No.1012014, daled 25-03-2015 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Crl.A.No.'1097 of 2015, in the interest of justice.

¶19

ia NO: 2 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 389(1) of 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 grant nterim bail for a period of three months by suspending the sentence imposed in PCS SC No. 10 of 2014 dated 251312015 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - Spl. Judge for Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 1097 of 2015, in the interest of justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant : Ms. Mudumba Lakshmi

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent : Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶23

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶25

CRJMINAL APPEAL No.1O97 OF 2015

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

The appellant/Accused filed this appeal questioning the conviction recorded by the I Additional Metropolitan^Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Protection^of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Hyderabad, in^{PCS Sessions} Case No. 1O of 2014, dated 25.03.2OL5, for the^{offencesunder} Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual^{offences Act and} sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a^period of^ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,OOO/-.

¶28

Heard Ms.Mudumba Lakshmi, learned counsel for^the appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for^the respondent State.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that on 15.12.2013, at^11:3O arn, a complaint was lodged by PWl-Fathima Begum,^statingthat on l4.t).2O13, at 1:OO pm, her daughter,^{Ayesha Bano-victimgirl} (PW.2), aged about 14 years, left home, informing them that^{she was} heading to a beaut5r parlour near the Fire Station,^Moghalpura, where PW1's 4th daughter works as a beautician.^{Uponvisiting the} beaut5r parlour, PWl discovered that her daughter^{had not arrived} there. PW1, along with family members,^{searched extensivelybut}

¶30

¶31

could not find her daughter. PWl suspected that unknown individuals might have kidnapped her.

¶32

Based on the complaint of PW. 1 , LW .28 registered a case vide Crime No. 187 /201.3, under Section 363 IPC, and PW. 14 commenced furt-her inve stigation.

¶33

While efforts to locate the victim were ongoing, on 18.12.2013, at 8:OO am, PW1, accompanied by her daughter (the victim/pW2) and PW3 (the father of PW2), visited P.S Bhavani Nagar. They informed PW.14 that PW2 had been sexually assaulted by certain individuals near Pahadi Shareef and subsequenfly in a room at Fathedarwaza. Following this, PW. 14 presented them to pW. 1S, who took over the investigation.

¶34

PW. 15 recorded detailed statements of PWs. 1 to 3 and arranged for woman S.I-PW. 18 to examine and record pW.2,s statement under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C, which was also video-recorded. Based on the statements of PWs.l to 3, the applicable sections of law were amended from Section 363 IPC to Sections 366, 376 IpC, t]e Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, and Section 6 of pOCSO, read with Section 34 IPC.

¶35

During Investigation PW. 15 conducted an enquiry with pW.2 regarding the locations of the offences at pahadi Shareef and

¶36

¶37

Fathedarwaza. PW. 15 proceeded to Scene of Offence-I, zrn open area at Pahadi Shareef, where an observation^{panchanama was} conducted. A rough sketch was prepared, photographs of^the location were taken, and the process was carried out in^the presence of mediators, PWs. 7 and 8. PW15 then visited Scene of Offence-Il, located at H. No. 20-7-429,^{Fathedarwaza,Hyderabad,} along with the panchas and PW.2. During the observation,^PW15 discovered an old bed sheet and PW.2's clothes allegedly worn^and used during the commission of the offence. An^observation panchanama was conducted, and the following items were^seized in the presence of PWs. 7 and 8 : One black-colored^{py'ama(lower),} One multi-colored kurta (top), One^grey-colored blanket.^Statements of PWs.5 and 6, who were circumstantial witnesses,^{were also} recorded. PW.2 was subsequently sent to the^{Government Maternilr} Hospital for medical examination under the escort of^{PW. 13, where} PW. 11 conducted the examination. PW.2^{was also referredto} Osmania General Hospital for age determination.^{PW. 16 examined} PW.2 and issued a certiEcate determining her^age as^{14-15 years.} On 18.12.2013, at 7:OO pm, PW.15, along with^{PW14 and other staff} members, acted on credible information and^proceeded to^the accused's residence, where the accused^{was apprehended.His} confession was recorded in the^{presence of PWs.9and 10. Based on}

¶38

¶39

the accused's r:onfession, the following items were seized from his room: One red-colored shirt, one white pant, one chocolate-colored drawer. The accused was subsequently arrested and sent to Osmania General Hospital (OGH) for a potency test, where pW.17 conducted the test and provided an opinion. Following this, JICL. 1 (Juvenile in Conflict with Law)-Mohd Ali Abbas Ahmed @ Imran, JlCL.2-Azan Bin Abdullah, and JICL.3-Shaik Imran were apprehended. Their confessions were recorded, their a_rrests were executed, and their clothes were seized in the presence of panchas. LW7 (Mosin Ali), the owner of the motorcycle, was examined by PW15. His statement was recorded in part II of the Case Diar5r. In the presence of LWs.16 and 17, the motorcycle bearing registration numhr AP l2P 1851, which was used in the commission of the offence, was seized. On requisition by PW. 15, PW. 19 the Hon,ble IX ACMM Court recorded PW2's statement under Section L64 Cr.p.C and conducted a Test Identifrcation Parade (TIP) of the accused and juvenile boys 1 to 3. The seized materials, including smears from vaginal introits, Pubic hair and blood sample for grouping were collected from PW.2 by PW. 11. Clothes of PW2 and blanket used during the commission of the offence, and Clothes of the accused and JICLs. I to 3, were sent by PW. 15 for Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) examination. LW.22 conducted the examination

¶40

¶41

and furnished an opinion on the submitted material. PW. 15 also referred the accused and JICLs.l to 3 for DNA examination. PW. 12 conducted the DNA analysis and provided the results. Upon the transfer of PW. 15, PW.2O took over the investigation. PW.20 collected all relevant documents and evidence pertaining to the case to complete the investigation.

¶42

The charge sheet was liled against the appellant herein under Section 366, 376 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. JICL. 1 (Juvenile in Conflict with Law), 2 and 3 were charge sheeted before the Juvenile court.

¶43

Learned Sessions Judge examined PW. l-mother of the victim girl, PW.2-victim girl and also PW.3 to PW.2O. Exs.Pl to P21 were also brought on record including MOs. I to 6 by the prosecution.

¶44

The victirn-PW.2 stated during her examination in Court that she was raped on 14.12.2013 by JICL and thereafter by the appellant ttlI L7.12.2013. After the sexual assault by JICL and^his friends on 14.12.2013, PW.2 was dropped on the road and Rs.2O/was given asking her to board a share auto to Chandrayangutta. At Chandrayangutta, PW.2 went into the auto of one Imran^and informed that she was assaulted sexually at Pahadi Shareef. Imran

¶45

¶46

then took PW.2 to his sister's room at Fathedarwaza in an Auto where he sexually assaulted her on the night of 14.12.2013. The next day the appellant fought with Imran and his sister and they went away. Appellant sexually assaulted PW.2 and promised to marry her. The appellant continued to have sexual intercourse with PW.2 until L7.|12.2OI3. Then the appellant provided a new dress to PW.2 and dropped her at her residence at Tallabkatta and fled.

¶47

PW. 1 is the mother of the victim. She narrated about her daughter missing from 14.L2.2O13. Though, PW. 1 and others made efforts to trace the victim girl, she was not found. PW.2 then came back to the hor-rse on the evening of L7.12.2013 and informed about the sexual assault by JICLs. 1 to 3 and also the appellant. Further, PW.2 informed that the appellant had promised to marry her and dropped PW.2 eLt her home and then escaped.

¶48

L2. PW.2 in her cross-examination admitted that she went to Barkas area on her own after receiving a call from JICL. 1. pW.2 further admitted in the cross-examination that she did not change her clothes including her inner garments from the time she left home till she returned. PW.2 went to the Police station on 17.12.2013 and her statement was recorded by the poUce. The Police were shown the appellant's house at Fathedarwaza where panchanama wils prepared. On the next day i.e. on 18.12.2O13, the

¶49

¶50

victim girl took the appellants to Pahadi Shareef where she was assaulted by JICL. 1 and his two friends.

¶51

l,earned counsel pointed out the contradictions that crept into the evidence of PWs.1 ar.d 2. Though, PW.2 stated that her motherPW. 1 took her to the Police station on ttre next day i.e. 18.12.2013, however, PWs.2 and 3 stated about going to the police station on 17. 12.2013 itself. PW.2 stated in her cross examination that she did not change her clothes from the day she left home and returned on 17.12.2013. However, on 18.L2.2OI3 panchanama^was conducted in the house of the appellant and PW.2's dress^i.e. p5rjama, frock and bed sheet were seized. The said contradiction goes to the root of the case and the Police have deliberately^planted the clothes in the house of the appellant.

¶52

The items that were seized at Fathedarwaza and also at Pahadi Shareef were sent for FSL Examination. After^FSL examination and DNA analysis, seminal stains found on the^pfama of the victim was analyzed as that of JICL.3 namely Shaik^Imran, vide Ex.P14-FSL report.

¶53

PW. 11 is the doctor who examined PW.2. According to^{PW. 11} on the basis of FSL report-Ex.P13, she opined that the^{h5rmen was} not intact, vagina admitted one finger, semen and spermatozoa^were

¶54

¶55

detected in the two glass slides and accordingly concluded that sexual intercourse could not be ruled out.

¶56

PW. 16 is the Assistant Professor working in the Department of Forensic Science in Osmania Medical College. He examined victim girl on 78.72.21)13 and gave opinion that the victim girl was aged 14 to 15 years and accordingly issued Ex.P18-certificate.

¶57

L7. The main defence of the appellant is that the conduct of the victim girl is improbable and her evidence cannot be accepted. The Police at Fathe Darwaza found that there was no attached batl. room arrd she was going outside the house. In the said circumstances it cannot be said that there was any kind of force used on the appellant or that she was forcibly detained.

¶58

The defence of the appellant is one of fa,lse irnplication and that the incident never happned. Admittedly, the appellant is a stranger to the victim gAl-PW.2. After the victim girl was missing on 14.L2.2O73, she was dropped back home by the appellant on 17.72.2073. The victim girl had taken the Police and identified the room where rape was committed on her by the appellant at Fathe Darwaza. In the house, the clothes of the victim were found and seized. The version of the appellant that he was falsely implicated cannot be believed. PW.2 has taken the police to the house of the

I )

I I

appellant and the Police identfied the appellant as the person who had committed rape on the victim girl on 15ft, 16e and 17tt'.^There is no reason as to why PW.2 would falsely implicate the appellant who in fact was a stranger and no reason is given as to why PW.2 had implicated the appellant. The fact that PW.2 had specilically identified the place where rape was committed on her on those three days by the appellart and the clothes being found in the^premises gives credibility to the version of PW.2. PW.2's evidence that she has not changed clothes would be a minor contradiction in the^present facts of the case. Further, the seminal stain of JICL.3 found on the wearing apparel of the victim girl reflects the truthful version of PW.2 and her narration of incidents from 14th to 17ft.

¶63

Even according to the prosecution case, PW.2 knew only JICL. 1 on whose phone call she went and met him and had undergone the trauma of being sexually assaulted from 14.12.2013 to 17 -12.2013.

¶64

The appellant was also identifie.d during the course of^Test Identification Parade conducted by PW. 19. The age^{of the victim girl} was determined as 14-15 years by PW. 16. Even considering^margin of error of '+'or '-' two years, the victim would still be^less than¹⁸ years.

¶65

¶66

2L. The version of the accused of false implication is wholly unconvincing in the background of the medical evidence, identification of the appellant by PW.2 and also the place of offence. Further the seizure of the clothes from the residence of the appe[ant reflect that sexual assault was committed by the appellant and others.

¶67

There are no compeltng reasons to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, which are reasonable, probable and based on record. In the said circumstances, I do not lind any infirmity with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the appellant.

¶68

Accordingly, the appea_l fails and dismissed.

¶69

Sdr- B. SATYAVATHI UTY REGISTRAR pEr //TRUE COPY// r)t ECTION OFFIC ER

¶70

¶71

To,

¶72

The 1't Addrtional^{Metropolitan SessionsJudge cum Spe-cialJudge. for} friit of cases under Proiection^{of Children from Sexual OffencesAct, at} Hyderabad.^(with records)

¶73

The Vlll Additional^{Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Hyderabad.}

¶74

The Superintendent,^{Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad'}

¶75

The Station l-louse^{Officer,Bhavaninagar Police Station, Hyderabad}

¶76

Two CCs to the^{Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶77

One CC to Ms.^{Mudumba Lakshmi, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶78

Two CD Copies

Nib/gh

HIGH COURIT

DATED:0310112025

J.I A rF
rJI'
l/iI
li":, 2B t B 2[25 vaz
\t '. ,5
\2+ {
'i'--* ,
ATo

¶83

JUDGMENT

¶84

CRLA.No.1097 of 2015

¶85

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

¶86

¶87

wt1

Mohd Salman, Hyderabad., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohd Salman, Hyderabad., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Korpol Rakesh Reddy Vs Muddam Ravichandra Reddy

Kade @ Kale Kondiba @ Balu Vs The State of Telangana

Takkellapally Bhaskar, R.R.Dt., Vs State, Acp Ibrahimpatnam Div., Rep Pp.

Parla Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana

Gampa Narayana, Vs The State of Telangana

Kola Sheshireka Vs The State of Telangana.