High Court of A.P., Hyderabad v. This Criminal Appeal has been I

appellant/ accused, aggrieved by the judgment tr,r ssed by the Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, dated 07.O6.201O, in S.C.No 163 of 2008, where under, the appellant/accused was found 1 uilty for the offence under Section 377 of the Indian penal Code. 1 36O (for short 'lPC'), convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous mprisonment for a period of ten years ald to pay a hne of Rs. l, )OO/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple mprisonment for a period of one monl h.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties here.r are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. \ \\ i 2 -- \ 'l I '.] i t, .) 1 ution 1A nutsheII: The case of the t, The de facto comprainant rodged a compraint on 23.o7.2oo2 22-00 hours with the police, Rajendranagar police Station stating that his son Master Korani Rajesh, aged about 12 years, is studying 7th class in Vikas High School, Budvel. He is sending his son to the Tlrition Master Baddam prashanth Reddy, who is giving tuition to various students at the rented room at Budvel village nearby to their house, for the last one week for taking tuition in Maths, Science and English. On 21.07 .2007 evening accused subjected his son to anai sex and threatened to effect his failure in 7th class, if he revealed the facts to anybody, tor which his son kept quiet and when suffered from immense pain in his stomach, he told about the incident to his friend Master Suman s/o Mohan, who in turn informed the above incident to the complainant.s wife and knowing the same through her, he conhrmed the occurrence by asking his victim son. Immediately, he accompanied by the victim visited the place of tuition and found that the accused Prashanth Reddy was absconding. Hence, he requested to take .action against the accused for his indulgence in subjecting his son to abnormal sex. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.7O5 of 2OOZ was registered for the offence under Section 377 of IpC and the Investigating Officer after conducting necessary 3 investigation hled charge sheet and the learned Mz gistrate, took cognizance of the same and numbered it as PRC No.1 Z of 20O8 and committed the case to the learned Special Judge-cu:r -Metropolitan Sessions Judge, has taken the case on file under Sec -ions 377 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs/STs (POA) 1 ct, 1989. On constitution of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, t ris case was transferred to the said Court.

3.2. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 9 were :xamined and Exs.Pl to P8 and MO.l got marked. On behalf c I defence, no witnesses were examined and no document was marl. :d.

3.3. Learned Special Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence c n record ald after hearing the parties, convicted the accused tt r the offence under Sec[ion 377 of IPC and sentenced as rtated above. Aggrieved by the same, accused has preferred the pr,: rent appeal.

4. Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counse I appearing for the appellant, and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Iear red Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent-State.

5. Submissious of the learned counsel for the appe .lant:

5.1 Learned counsel subr:ritted that the appellan t /accused has \ 4 not committed the alleged offence levelled against him and the trial Court without properly considering the oral and documentary evidence on record erroneously convicted the accused for the offence under Section 377 of IpC. Especially the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the ingredients of the offence under Section 377 of IPC do not attract.

5.2 He further submitted that in the absence of any iota of evidence, the appellant has committed the offence as alleged by PW. 1 in the complaint, especially pW.2 was not referred for medical examination ald PW.6 in his evidence specifically deposed in the evidence that he has not given information about the cause of injuries. In spite of his advise, pW.2 refused for admission for medical examination. In the absence of medical examination, solely relying upon the testimony of PW.2 and also Ex.p3 potency Certilicate issued by PW.7, the trial Court convicted the accused and the same is contrary to the settled principles of law.

5.3 He further submitted that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5. PW. 1 in his complaint/ trx. p 1 , stated that his son has informed about the alleged incident, whereas PW.3, who is mother of PW.2, stated in her evidence that pW.2,s friend Suman informed about the alleged incident. He also l:d 5 submitted that neither the prosecution nor. the r arned Special Sessions Judge has followed the procedure as conte nplated under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872 while -ecording the statement either under Section 161 Cr.p.C. or while recording the deposition of PW.2 and the same is mandatory on tl e ground that PW.2 victim is a minor boy.

5.4 He further submitted that the trial Court sole y relied upon the circumstantial evidence and convicted the ap tellant. The impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is <;r ntrary to the settled principles of law and the same is liable to b,: set aside and the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence rnder Section 377 of IPC.

5.5 In support of his contentions, he relied upon th : judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradeep v. The State of Il rryanar.

6. Submissions of learned Assistant public prosecu tor: 6.1 Per contra, learned Assistant public prosecr-rr :r submitted that the trial Court after evaluating the oral anc documentarlr evidence on record has rightly convicted the accused I rr the offence under Section 377 of IPC by giving cogent reasons. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment p lssed by the t (2023) 19 SC.C 227 6 learned Special Sessions Judge. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Analysis:

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that even according to the prosecution, the alleged offence has taken place on 21.07.2OO7, whereas PW. 1, who is none other than the father of PW.2, lodged complaint on 23.07.2OO7. PW. t has not given any specihc reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. Learned counsei for the appellant has rightly pointed out that in the copy of the complaint, the name of the victim/PW.2 was mentioned as X.Kenny', whereas PW.2/victim name was 'Korani Rajesh'. He stated in his evidence that PW.2 informed about the said incident after one day of the incident. It is also relevant to mention that PW. 1 in his cross-examination specifically admitted that when the police referred his son/PW.2 to Government Hospital for treatment, PWs. 1 and 2 refused to get treatment. PW.3 in her evidence stated that she came to know about the said incident through PW.4 Suman, who is close friend of PW.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 ald 4. 8 It is very much relevant to mention that the learned Special ,/ 7 Sessions Judge soleiy relied upon the testimony of F iI/.2 and Ex. P3 Potency Certificate of the accused, came to a con(l usion that the accused has committed the offence against PW.2. Especially, in the absence of any other evidence including medica evidence, it is already stated supra that PW.2 refused for medical ,xamination in spite of PW.6, who is a Government Doctor referr examination. PW. I also admitted in his evidence rd for medical .hat when the police referred PW.2 for treatment to Government FL spital, he and PW.2 refused to get treatment. PW.6 in his evide r stated that it is not possible to give opinion abou injuries in the absence of medical examination. I ce specifically the cause of r spite of the same, the learned Special Sessions Judge simply t-r lied upon the testimony of PW.2 and Ex.P3 Potency Certihcate anc convicted the accused.

9. The record further discloses that the prosecut on as well as the trial Court has not followed the mandatory procedure as prescribed under the provisions of Section 1 l g ,f the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, especially PW.2 /victim is a mir or boy at the time of comlnission of offcnce. 10. In Pradeep a. Sto'te of Haryanaz, tl,re Hoc ble Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 1 1g of the Evid,: rce Act, 7gZ2 , (2023) t9 scc 227 8 a child witness is competent to depose only if the trial Court first satisfies itself, through a proper preliminary inquiry, that the chitd understands the questions put to him, can give rational answers, and appreciates the dufy of speaking the truth. The Hon'ble Supreme Court stressed that the Judge must record this opinion, preferably along with the preliminary questions and answers. Although Section 4 of the Oaths Act, 1969 permits children less t}ran 12 years to give evidence without oath, the obligation under Section 1 18 applies irrespective of age and further held that while corroboration of a child witness is not mandatory, prudence requires careful scrutiny, as children are susceptible to tutoring. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the trial Judge conducted only a superficial competency assessment and failed in his duty' Upon independently examining the minor's testimony and noted inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and investigative lapses, making the possibility of tutoring plausible. The testimony did not inspire conhdence, and it was held that a conviction cannot safely rest solely on such uncorroborated and unreliable evidence' 1 1. The above said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case, as the trial Court similarly failed to conduct the mandatory competency assessment of the child witness under Section 118 of the trvidence Act and the conviction here rests solely 9 on the uncorroborated testimony of a minor whos: capacity was not properly tested, making it unsafe to sustain the ronviction. he High Court of Delhi held that the trial Court's acquittal in a cas : of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 10 years old ch ld was lega1ly unsustainable. The High Court observed that the .r :tim had been correctly assessed as a competent witness under Sec tion 1 18 of the Indian trvidence Act, having demonstrated I re abiliff to understand questions and provide coherent and rrl iable answers, and his testimony was further corroborated b.,r medical and parental evidence. The trial Court nevertheles; ignored this material and wrongly doubted the child's age, despi -r unchailenged school records admissible under Section 35 of the I) idence Act. It has also failed to follow the procedure mandated b1, Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Fr .les, 2016 and did not invoke its powers under Section 31 1 c,I the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 165 of the lI zidence Act to address any doubt regarding age. The High Court characterised the trial Court's approach in this serious protectic n of Children from Sexual Offences Act matter as casual and corl 'ary to settled principles. 3 2018 SCC Online Del 8259 \ I t.

13. Subsequently, in State of Mad.hga Pradesh v. Bah)eer Singha, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified and strengthened the legal standards governing child testimony under Section 118 of the Evidence Act. The Honble Supreme Court held that a child is a competent witness once the trial Court conducts and records a preliminary interaction to ensure that the child understands the questions and can give rational answers. It emphasized that corroboration is not a statutory requirement but only a rule of prudence, and that a credible, untutored, and confidence inspiring child witness can, by itself, sustain a conviction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that allegations of tutoring must bc supported by foundational facts, and that Courts must assess the child's demeanor and voluntariness with heightened scrutiny.

14. In the case on hand, the trial Court relied solely on the testimony of minor PW.2 and the Ex.P3 Potency Certihcate, without conducting a preliminary competency assessment under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act' or recording any such interaction, and both the victim and his father refused medical examination despite referral by PW.6, who is a Government Doctor, resulting in absence of crucial corroborative evidence. Further, there are unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and ./ 4 [2025) I SCC 545 L-E--,-, - discrepalcies in the testimonies of other witr esses, which cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence on r :cord. As held in Dharmender supra, a trial Court must asses s a child witness's competence and consider corroborative mateli LI and procedural safeguards, whiie the Honble Supreme Court n Balaeer Singh supra, clarrhed that a child's testimony I ust be credible, voluntary, and untutored, and any allegation o. tutoring must be found on evidence. In view of these lapses, the er dence relied upon by the trial Court is materially delicient, mal< ng the conviction I legally unsustainable. CONCLUSION:

15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is :f the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed ._r prove the charge t I under Section 377 of IPC against the accusecl l eyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment, dated 07.C(.2O10, passed by the trial Court convicting the accused for the off: tce under Section 377 of IPC is liable to be set aside and the accu sed is entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Special Sessio;-r ; Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, dated 07.06.2010, in S.C.No. 163 of 2OO8 convicting tr : accused for the IZ offence under SecLion 377 of IPC is set aside and the appellant/ accused is acquitted for the said offence and his bail cf' bonds shall stand discharged As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice J.SREENIVAS RAO (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) I To

3. 4.

5. o- 7. PR/,DL The Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. (By Special Messenger) Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUTI 11 LR Copies The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad. One CC to Sri. Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 2811112025 Note: LR Copy to be marked I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.745 of 2010 ;i+ HE r; 1 (. C)o t 1 JAN [26 t l \+:_ti^._ C) L t ALLOWING THE CRL.APPEAL c\