Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ.
Pengaluru Vijay, S/o P. Devaiah – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of AP., rep PP., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos.349 Of 2017 and 358 of 2017
Decided On : 31-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 366A, 496, and 376(2)(i) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - Conviction of appellants for kidnapping and sexual offences against a minor - A.1 confirmed guilty under Sections 366A and 496 IPC, while charges under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act not established - A.2 acquitted of all charges due to lack of evidence - Conviction and sentence modified for A.1 to reflect time served. (Paras 24-26)
(B) Evidence - The court emphasized the necessity of corroboration in sexual offence cases, highlighting that the victim's testimony alone, without medical evidence, is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 21-22)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of kidnapping a minor girl and subjecting her to sexual assault. The victim was taken from school and later married in a temple ceremony without her consent. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the victim's testimony.
Findings of Court:
The court found A.1 guilty of kidnapping and unlawful marriage but not of sexual assault due to lack of corroborative medical evidence. A.2 was acquitted due to insufficient evidence of abetment.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony and the sufficiency of evidence to support the charges against both appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against A.2 and did not provide sufficient evidence to support the sexual assault charges against A.1.
Result: A.1's conviction for kidnapping and unlawful marriage upheld; A.2 acquitted.
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 to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 496 IPC; sentenced A.1 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012; and sentenced A.2 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. Substance of charges framed against the appellants/A.1 and A.2 is -firstly, on 04.07.2015 in morning hours, A.1 and A.2, with a common intention, induced the victim girl (PW5), a minor girl under the age of 18 years, to go from Saraswathi Bai Municipal High School, Teluguganga Colony, Srikalahasti town, to Bangalore along with them with an intent, knowing that she is aged 15 years, she is likely to be forced to have illicit intercourse with A.1, and thereby A.1 and A.2 committed an offence punishable under Section 366A read with 34 IPC; secondly, that on 05.07.2015 at 2.30 PM, A.1 forced the victim girl (PW5), took her to a temple at Bangalore of Karnataka State, dishonestly or fraudulently tied an yellow thread to her neck and went through the ceremony of being married her, knowing that he was not thereby lawfully married, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 496 IPC; thirdly, that on 05.07.2015 night hours, A.1 forcibly participated in sexual intercourse with the victim minor girl (PW5) and then shifted her to Sanjayaveri village, Tirupur District, Tamilnadu where in a factory quarters, A.1 forcibly participated in sexual intercourse with her several times till 11.07.2015 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) IPC; fourthly, on the same date, time and place mentioned in charges 2 and 3, A.1 caused penetrative sexual assault on the minor girl PW5 by forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereby A.1 committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012; and lastly A.2, on the same date, time and place mentioned in charge No.1, committed an offence of abetment at Srikalahasti and that he abetted A.1 in commission of the said offence of procuration of minor girl which offence was committed in consequence of his abetment and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W.1 is resident of Ward No.11, Rajeev Nagar, Srikalahasti and he was living by doing cooli work. P.W.2 is wife of P.W.1. P.W.5, victim girl, is daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2. She was studying 10th class in
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
