The High Court · 2025

8. Boy Juvenile Kethavath Alit Kgpal Naik @ Anil, S/o Laxman Naik. aoed about .1 8 years, occ. str rlent Ryo pbr NoYd, rillii.iiidir,j.zti' nj;;r=" Gruhakatpa, Laxm iguda Maitardevpaily, n ln.' Oiitri"t 9. Sri Santosh Kumar Barik, S/o Dhaneshwar Kumar Barik, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Operator in Sri Balaji potymers Company fDA li;tte?;;;'i/; compa ny eua rters of s ri Bataji'potv,ireE comp;,i;'krtt;d;:'R;Hi irnrgrr, N/o Badaitha Gotha, Post Nalgunda, Via Motto, P.S. Chandbali, Dist.Bhadark, Orissa State.

10. Supervisor of Plastic Company, Rahul Mandal S/o Nikkhil Mandal, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Operatoi in Parts lndustry Near Ramachandran Oil N/ill, Kattedan Rl/o Company Quarters, Rajendranagar N/o Matiyarkutti Village and Post, Cooch Bihar District, West Bengal State. ...Respondents/Accused lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner /accused No. 1 namely Syed Jaffar Sadiq @ Jaffar, Rl/o. H.No. 16-6-295/5, Osmanpura, chadarghat, Hyderabad, presently serving life imprisonment in Cherlapally Jail, Hyderabad on bail by suspending the execution of sentence, passed in a Judgment in S.C.No. 599 of 2017 dated. 1610812021 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Appellant :SRl ALI MOHIUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI M RAMCHANDRA REDDY, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSEGUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 391 OF 2021 Between:

1. Santosh Kumar Batik S/o. Sri Dhaneswar Kumar Batik, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Operator in Sri Balaji Polymers Company, (Plastic Granules), lDA, Kattedan, Rajendranagar, N/o. Badaitha Gotha post, Nalgunda via. Motto, P.S.Chandbali, Bhadrak District, Orissa State. ( A-8)

2. Rahul Mandal, S/o. Nikkhil Mandal, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Operator in Parts lndustry. Near Ramachandran Oil - Mill Kattedan, R/o. Company Quarters, Kattedan, Rajendranagar, Nio. Matiyarkutti village and post, Coach Bihar District, West Bengal State. ( A -10) AND The State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...Appellants/Accused ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellants :SRl C SHARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : SRI M RAMCHANDRA REDDY, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL N O: 395 0F 2021 Between: Kiran Misra, Wo Lavlesh Kumar Misra, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Nil Rl/o 6--4-162,. Saibaba. Nagar, Katedan, Rajendranagar, Hyderabdd (presenfly serving life time in Chanchalguda Jail) _ ...AppellanUAccused/A-8 AND 1 2 The Station]louse-O_fficer, Mailardevpally Police Station Through public Prosecutor State of Telangana Hyaer'abad Child Protection Officer, Ranga Reddy District, Fl/o plot No.67, Bandlaguda Jagir Rajendranagar Mandal. ...Respondents/De-facto Complainant ...RespondenUDe-facto Complainant Syed Jaffar Sadiq@ Jaffar S/o Syed Sahul Hameed, Aged about S0 years, Occ: Auto Driver F/o H.No. 16-6-295/5, Osmanpura, Ch-adarghat, HyderaUbd (Presently.convict in prison & serving life imprisbnment in Ch"erlapaliy Jail, Hyderabad)

4. Shafi (Absconding) A2 5. Boy Juvenile Syed Jawad @ Jaweed, S/o Syed Jaffar Sadio @ Jaffar. Aoed - lPout 20. years, Occ Student (Nov Major), H.No.t 6-O-ZgStS, dsmanplra] Chadarghat, Hyderabad.

6. Boy Juvenile_Ved Prakasfr Mishra, S/o Lavlesh Kumar Mishra, Aged about 1g --- - years, Occ. Student Rl/o.Ptot No.29, Building No.24 faleev e nif,rliipi, Laxmig.uda Mailardevpally, R-R._District N/o-Chhibow Viltage, Ralapitr' Mandal, Chithrkut District, U.P. State.

7. Prad-eep Agarw-a! S/o Ghansham Das, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, - - -' and. Manager of Swapna Plastic Glass Company Opp. Swapna f neaire, [aft9dg1 Rajerd ra nagar, R/o H. No.2 l -2-735, N-earAganwai School, Ri(ab Gunj, Ghansi Bazar, Charminar, Hyderabad.

8. Boy Juv^enile Rethavath Anil Kumar Naik @ Anil, S/o Laxman Naik, Aged lbout 1B years, Occ. Strfgnt, Rl/o ptot NdIZ8, BuilOing No.26 Raje'ev"-- Gruhakalpa, Laxmiguda Maitardevpally, R.R. bistrict.

9. Sri Santosh Kumar Barik, S/o Dhaneshwar Kumar Barik, Aged about 34 fears, OcqOperator_in 51 Balal polymers Compan lDA, t(attedan, R/o Company Quarters of Sri BMaji Polyrirers Comp kattedan. Raiendranaoar. N/o BaC_aitha Gotha, post Nalgundd, Vi Motto, i:.S. CnanOOaii, Oist.gf,iOi'rt , Orissa State. l0.Supervisor of Plastic Company, (Accused No.9 Absconding) 11. Rahul.Mandal, S/o Nikkhil Mandal, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Operator in Parts lndustry Near Ramachandran 6il Mill, Katted'an, Rt/o Comoanv Q.ug(grg,Rajeldranagar N/o Matiyarkutti Viltage and post, Coo'ch 6inar District, West Bengal State. ...Respondents/Accused Counsel for the Appellant :SRl ALI MOHIUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent : SRI M RAMCHANDRA REDDY, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGM-ENT THE HON'B L SRI STICE P.SAM KOSHY AND ON'BLE SRI TI ENA A RAJESHWAR RAO CRIMINA L APPEAL N os.328 354. 391 an d 395 of 2O2L COMMON J UDGMENT : (per the Hon'ble Sfl Justtce P.Sam Koshy) Since all these appeals are filed assailing the same judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. These appeals are preferred by the five appellants - accused under Section 37aQ) of the Cr.P.C. challenging in the common judgment of conviction dated t6.08.202t in S.C.Nc.599 of 2Ol7 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District.

3. Heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel l'or the appellant / accused No.6 in Criminal Appeal No.32B of ZOZ|, Mr. Ali Mohiuddin, learned counsel for the appellant / accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.354 of 2O2l and for the appellant / accused No.5 in Criminal Appeal No.395 of 2021, Mr. C. Sharan Reddy, Iearned counsel for the appellant / accused Nos.8 and 10 in Criminal Appeal No.391 of 2O2t; and Mr. M. Ramchandra Reddy, learned PaEe 2 of 27 Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent - State in all the Criminal Appeals. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

4. Vide the impugned judgment, the trial Court found the accused No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 (Z)(f)(i)(n) of IPC and for the offence under Section 5 (g) r/w 6,7 r/w 8,9 (l)(m) r/w 10, 16 r/w t7 of Protection of Children Sexual Offence Acl, 2072 (for short, 'POCSO Act'). Accordingly, the trial Court sentenced accused No.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 5 (S) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and with default stipulation. The accused No.1 was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w 8 of the POCSO Act and with default stipulation. The accused No.1 was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 9(l)(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act and with default stipulation. Further, the accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years for the offence punishable under Section 16 r/w 17 of the POCSO Act and with default stipulation. The accused No.5 was t PaEe 3 of 27 found guilty for the offences undgr Section 37O @) r/w.109 and Section506 of IPC. Accordingly, the trial Court sentenced accused No.5 to under rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 370(4) of IpC and with default stipulation. The Trial Court also sentenced the accused No.5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and with default stipulation. Lastly, the accused Nos.6,8 and 10 were found guilty for the offences under Section 354-4 of IPC and Sections 5 (g) r/w 6, 1,r/y.8, 9(t)(m) r/w. 10 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, the accused Nos.6, g and 10 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 5(g) r/w 6 of the pOCSO Act, and with default stipulation. The accused Nos.6, 8 and 10 were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 354-A of IpC, and with default stipulation. Further, the accused Nos.6, B and 10 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Sectio n 7 r/w g of the POCSO Act with default stipulation. The accused Nos.6, g and 10 were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 9(l)(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act with default stipulation. BRIEF FAcTs 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the charge sheet is that on 03.11.2016 at about 2:00 p.M., the de_facto complainant i.e. PW.1 filed a compraint based on the directions of the chairman of child welfare Committee (cwc) regarding the sexuar assaurt of two minor victims ailegedry perpetrated by accused No.1 and his minor son (Juvenile in confrict with raw) at the residence 0f accused No.5 located at Rajeev Gruhakalpa, Laxmiguda, within the jurisdiction of MairardevpaIy porice station. Upon investigation, PW.1 and his team enquired the victims who discrosed that over the past year the victims had endured sexuar assault by the accused No.land his minor son. The mother of the victims i.e. accused No.5 exposed and forced the victims to sexual activities with accused No.1 and his son and accused No.5 arso abused physicaily incruding forced domestic labor as well as verbal abuse and also threatened them not to disclose those incidents to anyone ,since last one year.

6. The police authorities had registered a compraint as cr.No.597 of 2016 under Section 376 (g), 376 (2)(f)(i)(n), 37O,354-A, 506 r/w 1O9 of IPC and Sections 5(g) r/w 6,7,8,9 (l)(m) r/w l0 and 17 of the POCSO Act and took up the investigation. During the course I of investigation, PW.18 rushed to Mailardevpally Police Station and recorded PW.1's statement and conducted a scene of offence panchanama at the house of accused No.5.

7. While investigation was under process, the police authorities apprehended accused No.1 followed by his minor son on

05.11.2016. Both of them confessed to their crimes in the presence of mediator-PW.9 and LW.17. Subsequently, the minor son of accused No.5 and the brother of victims were examined by the Child Welfare Committee where the minor son revealed the details about sexual assault involving other perpetrators and also induced them to have physically assaulted the victims. Further, during the course of investigation, the accused No.6 was apprehended on 06.11.2016 and on interrogation he confessed the offence that he had committed before PW.10 and LW.19 leading to the seizure of his Vivo smartphone.

8. The prosecution in all examined eighteen witnesses i.e. pW's.1 to 18, marked eighteen Exhibits i.e. Exs.Pl to 18 and also marked four Material Objects i.e. MOs.1 to 4. Thsfe was neither any PaEe 6 of 27 evidence, nor was there any document marked on behalf of defence. SubsequenUy, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.p.C., the impugned judgment was finally passed where the Trial Court found the accused persons guilty of the offences punishable under section 302 of Ipc as also under the Pocso Act and sentenced them with fine as is refrected in the initiar part of this judgment. UBMI SION OF HE AP Nos.354 AND 395 0F 2O2L LLAN SI c MINAL PPEAL

9. Learned counsel for the appellants / accused Nos.1 and 5 challenging the impugned judgment contended that the alregations against accused No.land accused No.5 are highly improbable, particularly regarding the accused No.5 (mother of the victim) bolting the house from inside and ttTeatening the victims not to disclose to their father. Moreover, pw.2 in her testimony before the Magistrate did not disclosed about the mother bolting the door. He further contended that it is psychologically implausible for a mother to ask her children to sleep with her paramour or share her paramour with her daughter.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants / accused Nos.1 and.5 also contended that the medical and forensic evidence did not conclusively establish the offence of rape and also found no injuries in the victim's bodies. Further, the Trial Court also failed to appreciate that the clothes of the victims were not sent to forensic examination and the FSL report (Ex.p-18) also showed no detection of semen or spermatozoa which punch holes the prosecution case inasmuch as casting a shadow of doubt in respect of commission of rape. Additionally, the timeline of the event is questioned as the victims attended the school during the day and the father was present during the night making the commission of the offence impossible. The learned counsel further contended that suspicion, howsoever strong may be, cannot take the place of legal proof. SUBMI sSIONS OF THE APPE LLANT I N CRIM NAL APPEAL No. 28 0F 2021

11. It was the contention of the rearned senior counser for the appellants / accused No.6 that there is inconsistency in the evidentiary value submitted by the prosecution. It is submitted that the name of accused No.6 was not mentioned in the initiar FIR or in the statement of the victims recorded on 03.I1.2016, and later the accused No.6 was implicated without any proper evidence. Further, PaEe 8 of 27 it is submitted that the Trial Court has considered the presence of accused No.6's cell phone number as an incriminating evidence, however, the Trial Court failed to consider that there is a professional relationship between the parties where victims'father is an employee of accused No.6's industry. This circumstantial evidence alone cannot sustain the conviction of accused No.6.

12. The learned counsel for the appellants / accused No.6 further submitted that the prosecution had failed to conduct the identification parade and also the victims (PW.2 and PW.3) made no direct statement or allegation against the accused No.6 during their examination. Further, it is submitted that the Trial Court overlool<ed the confessional statement of the accused No.6 where there is no admission or confession relating to any POCSO offence against the victinrs, making the conviction of the accused No.6 questionable.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant / accused No.6 lastly contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that there is serious lapse in the investigation procedure. The investigating officer after facing criticism from the Magistrate during the bail proceedings, allegedly backdated the statements of the victims to

07.11.2076 with apparent motive of implicating the accused No.6. MI ON HE APPE IN IMI LAP EAL NO. 91 oF 202a 1,4. Learned counsel for the appellants / accused Nos.g and 10 also argued on the simirar grounds that victim girrs did not mention their names in statements before police authorities oi the Magistrate and their testimonies appeared to be improved from earlier statements. It is further submitted that the prosecution neither conducted identification parade nor victims identified the appellant / accused Nos.g and 10. This inadequate evidence weakens the prosecution's case and thus, for all the'aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and also prayed for acquittal of the appellants. SUB MISS oNs F THE RESPONDENT - STATE 15' on the other hand, the rearned Additionar pubric prosecutor submitted that there is compeiling evidence of how the appeilants / accused took the advantage of the vurnerabre position of these young children who were merely g years old at that time and causing them severe physicar and psychorogicar trauma. It is further submitted that accused No.1 emerged as the primary perpetrator who not only committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victims but arso invorved his juvenire son in these heinous acts. Page lO ol 27

16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that accused No.5 who is the mother of the victims actively abetted the appellants / accused Nos.6, 8 and 10 who actively participated in various acts of sexual assault and harassment against the minor victims. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly warranted the nraximum punishment under both the POCSO Act as also the IpC to ensure justice for the victims. On all the above grounds, tl-re learned Additional Public Prosecutor pressed for dismissal of the appeal. ANALYSI S AND DISCUSSION

17. At the outset, it is important to first refer to the testimonies provided by the key prosecution witnesses, as their depositions form a critical part of the case and provide essential context for the matter at hand.

18. According to the statement of PW.1-A.Devendra, who is the District Protection Officer of Ranga Reddy District, testified that on

03.11.2016, he received oral orders from Chairman of Child Welfare Committee that two minor victims who were sexually assaulted. Upon receiving this information, he immediately filed a complaint which led to the registration of the case. During the course of cross- examination, the defense counsel questioned the delay in filing the PaEe 17 of 27 complaint and the absence of written orders from the ,CWC Chairman. However, PW.1 submitted that he acted promptly upon receiving the oral communication, given the sensitive nature of the case involving minor victims and explained that the standard protocol in emergency situations allows for immediate action based on oral directives from the CWC Chairman.

19. PW.2 one of the victim girls aged 8 years, testified the repeated sexual assault committed by accused No.1 and others. She provided detailed statement of how accused No.1 sexually abused her and also forcedhis minor son to commit similar acts. She also identified all the accused persons in the Court and described how accused No.5 facilitated these crimes by taking victims to different locations. Even in her cross-examination, she maintained consistent statement and identification.

20. Similarly, PW.3 the second victim girl also aged g years, corroborated the testimony of pW.2 that how accused Nos.1,6, g and 10 sexually assaulted her repeatedly and she also identified all the accused in the Court. 2L. According to PW.4 - C. Nirmala (teacher of the victims) stated that after Diwali festival in the year,2ol6the victim girls refused to Page L2 of 27 go home after school, telling her that they faced threats at home and that their mother was forcing them into sex with others. After the children came back distressed the very next day, PW.4 informed the principal and contacted Prajwala Foundation, who took the children away.

22. According to PW.6 - Mohd. Saleem testified that he resides near the residence of accused No.5 who is the mother of PW.2 and

3. He observed that male persons used to visit accused No.S's house and leave at midnight. After a police complalnt was filed PW.6, he came to know that accused No.5 was allegedly involved in prostitution with PW.2 and PW.3 which was reported to police.

23. Likewise, PW.7 - K. Lakshmi testified that she lives opposite to accused No.5's house and observed male visitors in the evenings. She, initially thinking they were relatives, but later found that PW.2 and PW.3 were being exploited, with accused No.5 allowing them to be used for sex. She further identified accused Nos.1,8 and 10 as regular visitors who would arrive and depart by motorcycles.

24. According to PW.13 - P.Renuka, who is an Associate Professor at Gandhi Medical College, testified that she examined the 9 years old victim on 03.ll.2Ot6.In her report she stated that there are no external injuries except a cheek scar but found genital congestion, a broken hymen and white discharge. After collecting vaginal samples and receiving the FSL report, she concluded that recent sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. During her cross-examination, she ilarified that victims showed no signs of beating or mental disturbance, no bleeding during examination and also explained that despite repeated sexual activity the victims undeveloped genitalia would not necessarily admit two fingers due to her young age.

25. Lastly, PW.14 - Kousar Asra, testified that on 03.11,2016 she examined the Victim PW.3 at the request of SHO Mailardevpally. Her examination revealed no external injuries, but the hymen was not intact. After collecting and sending smears and swabs to FSL for analysis, she concluded in her report (Ex.P11) that while there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse, past intercourse could not be ruled out. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE SUBJECT MATTER

26. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to a couple of decisions on the subject matter. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Chhotey Lall, the Hon,ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.22 to 29 held as under, viz,, "22. In the backdrop of the above legal position, with which we are in respectful agreement, the evidence of the prosecutrx needs to be analysed and examined carefully. But, before we do that, we state, as has been repeatedly stated by this Court, that a woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime. Her evidence cannot be tested with suspicion as that of an accomplice. As a matter of fact, the evidence of the prosecutrix is similar to the evidence of an injured complainant or witness. The testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be reliable, by itself, may be sufficient Eo convict the culprit aqd no corroboration of her evidence is necessary. In prosecutions of rape, the Iaw does not require corroboration. The evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a conviction. It is only by way of abundant caution that the court may look for some corroboration so as to satisfy its conscience and rule out any false accusations.

23. In Stafe of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewal chand Jain l(r99}) 1 SCC 550 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 21Ol this Court at SCC p. 559 of the Report said: (SCC para 16) "16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of '(2Ott1 2 Supreme Court Cases 550 6 Page 75 of 2l physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluatron of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But lf a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entifled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.,, /".

24. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 3161 this Court made the following weighty observations at pp. 394-96 and p. 403: (SCC paras B & 21) "8. ... The court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventlng her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in nof being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility ot the statement of the prosecutrix ... The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. tii.cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case ... Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to a+!'ng insult to injury ... Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances' 2l" The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, lt must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations. " (emphasis in origina l)

25. In Vijay v. State ot M.P. l(2OtO) I SCC 191 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 6391 , decided recently, this Court referred to the above two decisions of this Court in Chandraprakash Kewalchand tain l(t99o) 1 SCC 550 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 2101 and Gurmit Singh UL996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 3161 and atso few other decisions and observed as follows: (Vijay case t(2010) B SCC 191 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 6391 , scC p. rga. para 1.4) l . $l J "J4. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the s.o1e testimony of the prosecutrix. "

26. The important thing that the court has to bear in mind is that what is lost by a rape victim is face. The victlm loses value as a person. Ours is a conservative society and, therefore, a woman and more so a young unmarried woman will not put her reputation in peril by alleging falsely about forcible sexual assault. In examining the evidence of the prosecutrix the courts must be alive to the conditions prevalent in the Indian society and must not be swayed by beliefs in other countries. The courts must be sensitive and responsive to the plight of the female victim of sexual assault. Society's belief and value systems need to be kept uppermost in mind as rape is the worst form of women's oppression. A forcible sexual assault brings in humiliation. feeling of disgust, tremendous embarrassment, sense of shame, trauma and lifelong emotional scar to a victim and it is, therefore, most unlikely of a woman, and more so by a young woman, roping in somebody falsely in the crime of rapel'The stigma that attaches to the victim of rape in lndian society ordinarily rules out the levelling of false accusations. An Incjian woman traditionally will not concoct an untruthful story and bring charges of rape for the purpose of blackmail, hatred, spite or revenge.

27. This Court has repeatedly laid down the guidelines as to how the evidence of the prosecutrix in the crime of rape should be evaluated by the court. The observations made in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 3 SCC 277 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 7 2Bl deserve special mention as, in our view, Page t9 of 27 these must be kept in mind invariably while dealing with a rape case. This Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 224, para.9) "9. In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. We must analyse the argument in support of the need for corroboration and subject it to relentless and remorseless cross_ examination. And we must do so with a logical, and not an opinionated, eye in the light of probabilities with our feet firmly planted on the soil of India and with our eyes focussed on the Indian horizon. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach made in the western world which has its own social milieu, its own social mores, its own permissive values, and its own code of life. Corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the western world. It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turnkey basis and to transplant it on the Indian soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitudes, mores, responses of the Indian society, and its profile. The identities of the two worlds are different. The ) solution of identical. " problems cannot, therefore, be

28. This Court went on to observe at SCC pp. 225_26: (Bharwada case [(1983) 3 SCC2t7 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 728], SCC para 10) "I0. Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because- (l) A girl or a woman in the tradition_ bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. (2) She would.be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members. relatives, friends. and neighbours. (3) She would have to brave the whole world. (a) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable Page 2L ot 27 match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (Z) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (S) She_ would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition_bound society where by and large sex is taboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband,s family of a married woman, would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (_I I ) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be pro.iscuois or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence. (12) The reluctance to face interrogation by the investigating agency, to Face the court, to f5ce ihe c.oss-exa -ination by the counsel for the culprit, and the risk of being disbelieved, acts as a deterrent.,. i I 29, We shall now examine the evidence of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix at the relevant time was less.than 1g years of age. She was removed from the lawful custody of her brother in the evening on 19-9-19g9. She was taken to a different village by two adult males under threat and kept in a rented room for many days where A-1 had forcible intercourse with her. Whenever she asked A-1 for her village, she was sexual return to I, threatened and her mouth was gagged. Although we find that there are certain contradictions and omissions in her testimony, but such omissions and contradictions are minor and on material aspects, her evidence is consistent. The prosecutrix being illiterate and rustic young woman, some contradictions and omissions are natural as her reccllection, observance, memory and narration of chain of events may not be precise.,,

27. In the case of Haneet vs. State2, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad held in paragraph No.17 as under, viz., "17. The pain and suffering of a child is a brutal assault oh her physical frame, when she is raped. She has no idea about the sex or rape. It is a nightmare. It is not a Utopian thought or,.floating fancy" of unwarranted assumption. It is the demonstration of reality in concrete terms. When a society moves in this way, there has to be instillation of fear of law and the punishment has to be definitive in a different way. In such a situation the classical understanding of crime by Marcus Aureiius, the Roman Emperor of 2nd Century A.D., who had said that poverty is the mother of crime may not hold good, for the crimes comm;tted on girl children has no nexus with the economic status of the perpetrator of crime; on the contrary, may have nexus with neurotic behaviour. In fact, this is a crime which is a shameless demonstration and total insensitive exposition of attitude to a victim. It is a gross violation of the social values and a failure of an individual. It is an act of extreme depravity.,, 'zor6 scc onLine nlt 3o58 Pagc 23 of 27 FINDING OF THE co RT 28. After careful consideration of all the evidences and depositions, we find accused No.1 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offences charged. The testimony of both the victim girls is found to be consistent on material aspects despite minor discrepancies. Their identification of accused No.1 as primary perpetrator remained unshaken throughout cross-examination. The medical evidence corroborates their testimony regarding sexual assault and the psychological assessment reports further supports the traumatic impact these incidents had on the victims. We also find that the prosecution has successfully established all elements of the offences under Section 376(2)(t)(i)(n) of IPC and Secrions 5(g) r/w 6,7 r/w 8, 9(l)(m) r/w lO, 16 rlw 17 of POCSO Act against accused No. 1

29. Similarly, accused No.5 - is also guilty of the offence under Section 370 (4) r/w irO9 and 506 of IpC. The evidence clearly establishes that she knowingly facilitated the exploitation of minor victims by bringing them to locations where they were sexually assaulted by the accused No.1 and others. This shows how her actions directly enabled the commission of this heinous offence against vulnerable children who were under her care. The prosecution has successfully proven their complicity beyond r I l I reasonable doubt through consistent testimonies of the victims and corroborative evidence from the other witnesses.

30. However, with respect to accuse( Nos.6, g, and 10, we find significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. whire the victims have identified these accused,. ttrere are material contradictions in their testimonies regarding the specific acts allegedly committed by these accused persons. The time gap between the incidents and the recording of statements has resulted in memory lapses affecting the reriabirity of identification. Additionally, no independent corroboration exists to establish their presence at the scene of offence. The alleged phone calls and messages linking these accused to the crime have not been conclusively proven through technical evidence.

31. This Bench emplrasizes that crimes against children, particularly sexual offences, warrant the highest degree of condemnation from society and severe punishment under law. The heinous nature of the offences committed against two innocent children aged merely 8-9 years has not only violated their bodies but has caused irreparable psychological trauma that wiil impact their entire lives. the Trial Court has maintained the While presumption of innocence where evidence falls short of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, it has imposed the maximurn punishment permissible under law where guilt has been conclusively established'

32. When addressing cases involving minor children or victims of rape, Courts must exercise heightened vigilance and sensitivity recognizing that child victims of sexual assault endure not only the trauma experienced by adults but also additional layers of vulnerability due to their developmental stage, limited understanding and reliance on adults for protection. The testimony of a child victim deserves special weight as their innocence and lack of sophistication make it unlikely for them to fabricate such traumatic experiences. The psychological impact on child victims is profound often leading to developmental challenges, educational setbacks, trust issues and lifelong scars. Behavioural changes, regression, and nightmares often corroborate their accounts underscoring the need for a child-friendly judicial process that safeguards their dignity and ensures their voiceis heard. Society bears a moral obligation to protect its most vulnerable members, and the legal system must reflect this by approaching such cases Page zo of 27 with care, prioritizing the well-being of the child while'gathering corroborative evidence without causing further harm.

33. Moreover, in our considered opinign while dealing \Jith such sensitive matters the gravity of such cases demands utmost attention and sensitivity. It is equally imperative that the prosecution exercises due diligence in implicating accused persons. This Bench observes that the prosecution cannot justify the implication of adding accused persons merely based on unreliable statements of co-accused, particularly when there eXists no direct testimony or statement from the victims against such persons. Thus, the sanctity of justice requires that only those against whom there is clear and reliable evidence primarily through the testimony of the victims should face prosecution. To do otherwise would not only compromise the integrity of the judicial process but also dilute the focus from delivering justice to the actual victims of these heinous crimes, and at the same time, also subjecting the innocent persons to traumatic trial leading to anxiety and also resulting in damage to their reputation within in the society and within the family and outside the societY. ' c NC USI N

34. In view of the factual matrix and also taking into consideration the judicial precedents discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Criminal Appeal Nos.32g and 391 of ZOZ| stands alloweQ. As a consequence, the appellant / accused Nos.6, g, and 10 are hereby acquitted of the charges leveled against them. They be released from the jail forthwith if not required in any other case. The criminar Appeal Nos.354 and 395 of 2O2l stands dismissed and the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court against.appellant / accused Nos.1 and 5 stands affirmed.

35. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these batch of appeals, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K SRINIVASA RAO R R : i :. To, 1 2 The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District The Station House Officer, Mailardevpally police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The Superintendent, Central prison, Cherlapalli, Ranga Reddy District 4. One CC to SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGH|, Advocate tOpUCI 5. One CC to SRt ALt IMOH|UDDIN, Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to SRt C SHARAN REDDY, Advocaie IOpiJCl 7. Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the State of rerangana at 8. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) ADK s I ! I HIGH COURT DATED:12 t03t2O2S COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA Nos.328, 354, 391 and 395 of 2021 4. _-=\ .t l+- .. .', t' t 2 B APn ?s6 a .b * T L) S PA'f 6,$13 ALLOWNG THE CRLA Nos.328 and 39f of 2021 AND DISMISSING THE CRLA Nos. 354 and 395 ot 2021 C0c{'d {