THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.363, 429, 478 of 2020 & 146 of 2021 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)

1. Criminal Appeal 363 of 2020 is filed by Accused No.2. Criminal Appeal No.478 of 2020 is filed by A1. Criminal Appeal 429 of 2020 is filed by the defacto Complainant/PW.1. Criminal Appeal 146 of 2021 is filed by the State.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the complainant and also learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, representing the State.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that PW.1 is the defacto complainant, who is the father of the victim boy-PW.2. PW.1 married Accused No.2 in the year 2006 and had three children. Both PW.1 and A2 went to Kuwait, where all three children were born. They stayed in Kuwait until 2013, and during the year 2013, PW.1 sent back Accused No.2 and all the three children to India, where they were living separately in Khilwat area in a rented premises.

Thereafter, they shifted to Shaheen Nagar area. Both areas are in Hyderabad.

4. On 09.09.2016, PW.1 called Accused No.2 and informed her that he was coming to India. On 11.09.2016, PW.1 came to India and celebrated Bakrid festival in his parents house. On 18.09.2016, PW.1 asked Accused No.2 to take back the children to their rented premises in Shaheen Nagar, since their exams were starting on 22.09.2016. PW.2 was found shivering and weeping. He requested PW.1 not to send him with Accused No.2.

5. PW.1 questioned the boy (PW.2) about his behavior. PW.2 informed PW.1 that A2, with the help of A1 (a thantrik), inflicted several injuries on his body. PW.1 found several injuries on PW.2’s buttocks and other parts of his body. PW.2 did not allow PW.1 to check his anus and was suffering from pain. PW.2 also informed PW.1 that the entire activity of inflicting injuries, cutting him with blades, and pouring hot water on him was photographed on a cell phone. Accused No.2 left the house, and on further enquiry,PW.2disclosed that Accused No.1 used to come to their house and that A1 and A2 were having illicit intimacy. PW.2 informed PW.1 that A2 also threatened the children whenever A1 came to the house.

6. PW.1 then went to the Police and lodged an English-typed complaint on 26.09.2016. The Police registered the case under Sections 120 (B), 307, 341, 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the POCSO Act, Sections 2 (C) and 7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”),and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

7. During the course of investigation, PW.2 was taken to PW.7- Doctor. PW.7 examined PW.2 on 27.09.2016 and found the following injuries:

i) Injury on the left big toe ii) Injury on the right big toe iii) Blade marks all over the body.

8. According to PW.7, the injuries were caused with a blade. During the course of investigation, Ex.P6-the bonafide certificate of PW.2 was collected from PW.4. Ex.P3-photographs and Ex.P4- CD/DVD showing the injuries caused to the boy/PW.2 were video-

graphed.

9. During the course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P21 and MOs.1 to 7. The learned Sessions Judge found Accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the following offences:

10. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of A1 and A2 would submit that the injuries on PW.2 do not suggest any kind of unnatural sex or any injuries to his private parts. In the absence of any such injuries, the question of convicting Accused No.1 under Section 377 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act is incorrect. There was no DNA test conducted on PW.2, and the injuries were found to be simple in nature. In fact, PW.7 admitted that injuries (i) and (ii) were simple in nature and the third injury could have been caused by a fall.

11. There were disputes between A2 and PW.1. For the reason of the said disputes, a false complaint was filed by PW.1 alleging illicit intimacy between A1 a