Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sexual Offences Act Cases-Cum-I ... vs Unknown on 2 February, 2026
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K.Suresh Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MONDAY, THIS THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
And
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2456 of 2018
JUDGMENT:(per Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Accused in POCSO Sessions Case No.101 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Special Judge under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act") and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for "Life" and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Learned Special Judge also directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to PW.2-victim girl, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six (06) months.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 10.05.2015 at about 08.30 PM, the accused took the victim minor girl who is dumb and mentally retarded, to the 2 KSR, J & GTK, J Crl.A.No.2456 of 2018 mirchi fields of one Ammisetty Venkaiah situated at Edubadu Village, Parchuru Mandal and forcibly committed rape on her, thereby committed an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, briefly, is as follows:
i) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Edubadu Village, Parchuru Mandal. PW.1 is none other than mother of the victim girl-PW.2. PW.4 is the mother of PW.1. Marriage of PW.1 was performed with one Somusetty Ankmma Rao and they were blessed with two female children. PW.2-victim girl is the second daughter of PW.1 who is aged about 14 years. The accused is also distant relative of PW.1 and as such, he used to visit the house of PW.1.
ii) On 10.02.2015 at about 07.30 PM, the accused visited the house of PW.1 and was talking with PW.4. PW.1 went to her brother's house situated on the next lane. Subsequently, PW.1 returned and found PW.2 missing.
Then PW.1 asked PW.4 about the victim girl. At that juncture, PW.5 came to PW.1 and informed that the accused has taken PW.2-victim girl towards Inagallu village fields. Immediately, PW.1 and PW.4 along with others went towards Inagallu village fields and found the victim girl and the accused at Ammisetty Venkaiah mirchi fields at about 08.30 PM. They also found the accused committing rape on the victim girl. As PW.1 and PW.4 raised hue and cries, the accused ran away from the spot. Thereafter, PW.1 went to the 3 KSR, J & GTK, J Crl.A.No.2456 of 2018 Police Station and gave a report on the same day at about 22.30 hours. PW.12-the then Sub-Inspector or Police received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 and registered a case in Crime No.31 of 2015, for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P19.
iii) Having received the information from PW.12, PW.11-the then Sub- Divisional Police Officer took up investigation. He immediately proceeded to the Parchur Police Station and recorded statements of PW.1 and PW.4. As PW.2-victim girl is dumb, he could not examine her immediately. On the next day i.e., on 11.05.2015 at about 08.00 AM, he secured the presence of PW.10 & another and proceeded to the scene of offence. He prepared an observation report-Ex.P7, at the scene of offence. He photographed the scene of offence under Exs.P8 to P13. Compact Disc pertaining to the scene of offence was marked as Ex.P14. He also prepared a rough sketch at the scene of offence and marked the same as Ex.P15. He seized clothes of victim girl in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, he proceeded to the village and recorded the statements of PW.5, PW.6 & others. He forwarded PW.2-victim girl to the Government Hospital, Chirala, for medical examination.
iv) PW.7-the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital, Chirala examined the victim girl and gave his opinion basing on the APFSL Report that the sexual intercourse was occurred. He issued certificate Ex.P4. 4
KSR, J & GTK, J Crl.A.No.2456 of 2018 The disability certificate issued by PW.8- Chairman, Physically Handicapped Certificates, Medical Board, RIMS Hospital, District Co-Ordinator Hospital Services, Ongole was marked as Ex.P5.
v) On 14.05.2015 at about 10.00 PM, PW.11 arrested the accused. On 17.05.2015, he secured the presence of PW.3 and with his assistance, he recorded the statement of PW.2-victim girl. Later he also recorded the statements of PW.3. He referred the accused for medical examination. PW.9- Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Guntur examined the accused and issued certificate-Ex.P6 stating that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual intercourse.
vi) On 19.05.2015, PW.11 sent the material objects to APSFL, Hyderabad, with a requisition letter-Ex.P16 and letter of advise-Ex.P17. APSFL report is marked as Ex.P3. PW.6-Dental Assistant Surgeon, Chirala examined the victim girl and issued certificate-Ex.P2 stating that the age of the victim girl may be between 14 and 16 years. After receipt of all documents and after completion of investigation, PW.11 filed charge sheet.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.12, marked Exs.P1 to P19 and exhibited MOs.1 to 3.
5. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, learned Special Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid.
5
KSR, J & GTK, J Crl.A.No.2456 of 2018
6. Heard Sri H.Prahalada Reddy, learned counsel assisted by Smt. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that as per the provisions of Section 24 of the POCSO Act, statement of the victim girl who is a child has to be recorded by a women police officer not below the rank of Sub Inspector. But in the case on hand, the statement of the minor victim girl was recorded by the Inspector of Police-PW.11. He contends that before recording evidence of the dumb child witness, the Court has to take assistance of an expert and such statements have to be photographed in view of the procedure prescribed under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As such, he requests this Court, to allow the Appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge.
8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Appeal contending that the accused committed heinous crime against dumb and mentally retarded child who is aged about 14 years. He further contends that merely because the female officer has not recorded the statements, the accused is not entitled for any acquittal. It may be procedural irregularity by which the trial will not be vitiated. Further, he contends that it is the victim girl who has to take objection, when a male officer records her statements, but the accused could not question such recording of statement by a male officer. He further contends that the learned Special Judge, during the course 6 KSR, J & GTK, J Crl.A.No.2456 of 2018 of recording evidence has taken assistance of expert-PW.3 who is a qualified translator of the gestures and who was working as a part time teacher in S.N.R.A. Deaf School in Nagulapalem Village, Parchur Mandal. As such, he contends that the learned Special Judge has taken all precautions before recording the evidence of victim girl and requests this Court to dismiss the Appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge.
9. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. PW.2 is none other than the victim girl. PW.1 is the mother of PW.2 and PW.4 is the mother of PW.1. PW.1 and PW.4 in their evidence categorically stated that on the evening of 10.05.2015 at about 08.00 PM, the accused visited their house. PW.1 and PW.4 further stated that after talking for some time, the accused left the place along with the victim girl. Of course, PW.1 was not there at the time the accused taking the victim girl along with him. But, PW.1 and PW.4 in their evidence have categorically stated that PW.5 informed them that the accused has taken the victim girl towards Inagallu Village fields. Having come to know the same, PW.1 and PW.4 proceeded towards fields, where they found the accused committing rape on the victim girl. PW.1 and PW.4 in their evidence have stated that the accused left the place, as they raise hue and cry. PW.1 and PW.4 further stated that the accused is closely related to them. PW.2-victim girl in her evidence clearly stated as to how the accused committed the aggravated sexual offence against her. 7
KSR, J & GTK, J Crl.A.No.2456 of 2018 Though PW.2 was deaf and mentally retarded person, learned Special Judge has taken the assistance of PW.3 who is a qualified translator of gestures and who was working as teacher in SNRA Deaf School at Nagulapalem Village, Parchur Mandal. Learned Special Judge has stated that while recording the evidence of PW.2-victim girl, PW.3 was very much present in the Court. Though PW.2 and PW.3 were cross-examined nothing adverse has been established by the defence. Further, the ocular version spoken to by PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 has been corroborated by the medical evidence adduced through PW.7 coupled with Ex.P4-report. Further, PW.9-another medical officer who examined the accused, issued a certificate Ex.P6. The prosecution also produced Ex.P5-disability certificate of the victim girl-PW.2 issued by PW.8-Chariman, Physically Handicapped Certificates, Medical Board, RIMS Hospital, District Co-Ordinator Hospital Services, Ongole. Further, the age of the victim girl was also established by examining PW.6 who issued Ex.P2-certificate opining that the victim's age must be around 14 to 16 years. As such, the prosecution has taken all precautions before recording the evidence of the victim girl. Merely because Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements of PW.2-victim girl was recorded by PW.11, the same does not vitiate the trial. It is only a procedural irregularity. Further, it is the victim who has to take objection for male officer recording her statements and not for the accused. He could not take advantage of the procedural irregularity. Further as per the provisions of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, heavy burden is on the accused. In the case on hand, accused has not 8 KSR, J & GTK, J Crl.A.No.2456 of 2018 adduced any evidence or made any suggestions to PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4, to prove his fidelity.
10. Having perused the entire material available on record, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
11. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole in POCSO Sessions Case No.101 of 2015, dated 20.04.2016, under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 02.02.2026 PSA 9 KSR, J & GTK, J Crl.A.No.2456 of 2018 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2456 of 2018 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURESH REDDY) Date: 02.02.2026 PSA