Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K.SURESH REDDY, K.SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ.
Pengaluru Vijay, S/o P. Devaiah – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP., rep PP., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad – Respondent
Key Points:- The court confirms A.1’s conviction for 366A IPC and 496 IPC, and upholds the conviction for 496 while modifying the sentence to reflect time already served; A.1’s 376(2)(i) IPC and 4 POCSO charges are not established. (!) (!) (!) - The court acquits A.2 of all charges, including 366A IPC and 17 POCSO, and sets aside the conviction and sentence for those offences; refund of any fine and release. (!) - The court emphasizes that corroboration is essential in sexual offence cases and that the victim’s solitary testimony without medical corroboration cannot sustain convictions for 376(2)(i) IPC and 4 POCSO. (!) - Medical evidence did not corroborate the victim’s ocular testimony; RFSL findings showed no recent sexual intercourse within 48-72 hours prior to examination, affecting the proof of offences against A.1. (!) (!) - The trial court’s conviction of A.1 for 366A IPC with common intent and for 496 IPC was upheld; 376(2)(i) IPC and 4 POCSO were not proved. (!) (!) - The victim was found to be a minor at the time of the incident, with birth certificate evidence supporting age 14 at the time of the events. (!) (!) (!) (!) - A.2 was held not to have abetted under POCSO Section 17; conviction for that provision is set aside. (!)
JUDGMENT :
(K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.)
These Criminal Appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 08.09.2016 in POCSO S.C.No.69 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Sessions Judge’).
2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2017 is A.2, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.358 of 2017 is A.1, in the said Sessions Case.
3. Vide the impugned judgment in the aforesaid Sessions Case, the learned Sessions Judge -found the appellants/A.1 and A.2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 366A read with 34 IPC; found the appellant/A.1 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 496 IPC and 376 (2) (i) IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and found appellant/A.2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and accordingly convicted them of the respective charges and sentenced A.1 and A.2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each, for the offence punishable under Section 366A read with 34 IPC; sentenced A.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and
The court established that corroborative evidence is essential in sexual assault cases, and the absence of such evidence led to the acquittal of one accused and the modification of the sentence for t....
The court upheld the conviction for rape under IPC, emphasizing that a reliable witness's testimony can suffice for conviction, despite procedural irregularities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
