Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
K. Lakshman and P. Sree Sudha, JJ.
Deep Singh, Deep Singh, Deepu – Petitioner
versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.529 of 2020
Decided on 13.2.2024
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:R. Prasanth, Advocate
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor TG
IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation to victim of sexual assault – Quantum of compensation shall be fixed taking into consideration loss and injury suffered by victim and other related factors – DLSA is under legal obligation to give effect to compensation determined by Special Court.
Headnote:
(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 5(i)(m) r/w 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(i)(m) – Rape of girl child – Life sentence – Victim girl was aged one year at the time of offence – When examination was done on M.Os for tracing of semen by FSL, Investigating Officers did not give requisition for DNA examination – Presence of accused in neighbouring room was not shown in rough sketch – Investigating Officer has not collected any proof to show whether victim girl was treated in hospital and where she was admitted as inpatient and outpatient – When child was bleeding profusely and offence was committed in bathroom, there can be scope of having certain incriminating material in bathroom like blood stains – Scene of offence was not properly figured by Investigating Officer – There was no investigation to show whether offence was committed by any other person who are in next room – In view of several lapses on part of investigation, prosecution miserably failed to connect accused with offence – Prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such he is entitled to benefit of doubt – Appellant/accused acquitted. (Paras 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
(B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 33(8) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 – Rule 7(3) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 357A – Compensation to victim of sexual assault – Quantum of compensation shall be fixed taking into consideration loss and injury suffered by victim and other related factors – DLSA is under legal obligation to give effect to compensation determined by Special Court – Matter with regard to determination of victim compensation remanded to Special Judge, with direction to determine victim compensation to be paid to victim. (Paras 23 and 24)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
P. Sree Sudha, J.—This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 15.10.2018 in S.C. PCS No.47 of 2018 passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial Of Cases under Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Hyderabad.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused alleged to have raped the victim child and thus it is alleged that accused committed offences punishable under Section 5 (i) (m) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376 (2)(i)(m) of IPC. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 on their behalf and also marked M.Os.1 to 4. Exs.D1 and D2 were marked on behalf of defence. The Trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also the entire evidence on record, convicted the accused under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and in view of Section 42 of POCSO Act, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 5(i)(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Aggrieved by the said judgment, accused preferred the present appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that as per complaint given by father of the victim child is that he hails from UP State about three years back, for livelihood he came to Hyderabad and he also brought Sher Singh, Venu, Rinku, Azad, Niraj to assist him in his work and all of them were residing in his house. Deepu Singh/accused also residing in his house. On the intervening night of 06.09.2016, at around 01.00 a.m. his younger daughter, Naina, was sleeping along with her mother and the accused took her into the bathroom and committed rape and brought her back and laid her on the cot. When he and his wife heard the cries of the baby, they noticed bleeding from her private parts and immediately they took her to Gandhi Hospital and went to the police station and requested them to take action against the accused and filed complaint on 07.09.2016 in Crime No.535 of 2016 under Section 376 (2)(i)(m) of IPC and Section 6 r/w 5(i) & (m) of POCSO Act, 2012 and it was signed by the complainant/P.W.1 in Hindi.
4. P.W.1, in his evidence stated that he had three daughters and the victim girl is younger daughter and she was aged 3 years on the date of deposition i.e., 18.0.2018, but at the time of incident, she was aged one year. He along with his two daughters were sleeping in one room, Renu, Sher Singh, Rinku, Neeraj, Azad and Deep Singh/accused were sleeping in another room in their house. When he heard the cries of the victim girl, he woke up and observed that accused keeping the victim girl beside his wife and on observing the victim girl; he noticed that the victim girl was bleeding from her private parts. The clothes of the victim girl were also found with blood. He gave complaint under Ex.P1 and the police examined him and recorded his statement. In the cross-examination, he stated that he do not know Telugu and the complaint and the statement were scribed by the Inspector of Chilkalguda PS as per his dictation. He did not witness the accused taking the victim girl to bathroom. He has not stated to the police that the accused brought the victim girl from bathroom and kept her beside his wife on the cot. It was suggested that victim girl fell down from the cot and received injuries and the accused never committed any offence and lodged a false complaint against the accused and he denied it.
5. P.W.2 is mother of the victim girl and she also deposed in the same lines. When they took her to Gandhi Hospital, doctor examined the victim girl and told that she was raped. She handed over the clothes of the victim girl to the police. In the cross-examination she stated that she handed over the clothes of the victim girl in hospital. It was suggested that the victim girl received injuries and no offence was committ
