Telangana HC Confirms POCSO's Conviction in Minor Rape Case

The bench, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha, was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by the two accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim, a 15-year-old girl who was raped by her maternal aunt’s son-in-law and his friend when her family members went to Vemulawada on a pilgrimage. The girl informed the incident to her mother, brother and sister-in-law, who approached police. A case was registered.

The prosecution stated that during investigation, the Forensic Science Laboratory [FSL] report disclosed that ‘there is evidence of recent intercourse’.

The sessions judge Warangal imposed life imprisonment on the two. Challenging the same, they went for the present appeal. The appellant contended that by merely relying on the victim’s deposition, the trial court cannot record a conviction against the appellants. He argued that there are serious contradictions in the version of the victim, more particularly, to that of the complaint and her deposition and there was also a delay of two days in lodging the complaint.

Counsel for the appellant argued that crucial witnesses did not support the prosecution case and also that the medical evidence did not support the claim of the prosecution. The bench observed that “the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that there is no sexual assault on the victim and prosecution failed to prove the offence by providing cogent evidence is untenable.”

Relying on various decisions of the apex court, the bench said, “In a matter like this, more particularly, when the victim is a minor girl, the offence is grave and serious in nature, the delay of two days is not fatal to the prosecution case”.

The bench, speaking through Justice Lakshman, considering the contention of the appellants that except the evidence of the victim, there was no other evidence which inspires confidence to convict the appellants and that conviction cannot be solely on the testimony of the victim, said “the apex court categorically held that there can be convictionon sole evidence of prosecutrix, and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same in such cases, as a rule, amounts to adding insult to injury. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars.

There is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Thus, 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 sole testimony of the prosecutrix.”

The testimony of the prosecution witness, the victim, is strongly substantiated by medical evidence, particularly the FSL report, which conclusively established traces of spermatozoa on the examined slabs, providing concrete evidence that the victim had been subjected to sexual intercourse and said the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution to prove that there was sexual assault on the victim girl cannot be accepted.

The bench accordingly upheld the conviction by the session's judge by rejecting the appeals, saying “The impugned judgment is a reasoned one and well-founded. The appellants failed to make out any case to interfere with the said reasoned and well-founded judgment”.

The bench further noted that the sessions judge did not award any victim compensation, which she is entitled to under Section-33 (8) of the POCSO Act by which the special court is having the power to determine the compensation to the victim and forward the same to the district legal services authority [DLSA] for disbursal of the award amount and the DLSA is under a legal obligation to give effect to the compensation determined by the special court and accordingly remanded the matter with regard to the determination of victim compensation to the special judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I additional sessions judge, Warangal and directed the court to complete the said exercise in consultation with DSLA within three months.

Net Ventures multi-storeyed construction up for judicial scrutiny

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court deferred the hearing of a PIL with regard to the alleged massive illegal construction at Nandagiri Hills on Road No 45 Banjara Hills , which is an eco-sensitive buffer zone. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, was hearing a PIL filed by Nandagiri Cooperative Housing Society Limited. The petitioner contended that Net Ventures Private Limited are proceeding with construction activities for a commercial complex at Road No. 45 Jubilee Hills, which is an eco-sensitive buffer zone. The petitioner argued that such illegal construction is contrary to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and violates the fundamental rights of citizens.

It was alleged that 56 plots are sought to be constructed on a hillock 40 metres away from KBR Park. It is also stated that the construction is for 5-7 cellars, ground and four upper floors. It is also contended that there was no access road to Road No. 45 and the access roads at different place cut through the KBR park or private lands. It is
contended that opposing the said arguments, Net Ventures, contended that all the necessary permissions were taken prior to the construction and no such illegal construction is being carried out. However, the bench after considering the submissions directed the respondents to file
their counter and posted the matter for further consideration on February 13

Armoor municipal vice-chief questions govt inaction

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court sought a reply from authorities with regard to the inaction of the district collector, Nizamabad, in not relegating the functions of the chairman to the vice- chairman after the removal of the former through a no-confidence motion.

The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Shaik Munnu, vice-chairman of Armoor municipality. The petitioner contended that a no-confidence motion was passed on January 4, based upon which the collector sent a report which was challenged by the chairman in the High Court.

In the present writ petition, the vice-chairman complained that despite the no-confidence motion and submission of two representations to the collector, the chairman’s powers were not relegated to the vice-chairman.

In the course of the day, it was brought to the attention of the court that contrary to the report submitted by the collector, the principal MA&UD secretary had required the collector to seek an explanation from the RDO in arriving at the conclusion for passing the motion and the required strength for the successful passage for no-confidence motion for removal of the chairperson.

The court after hearing the parties directed RDO of Arnool, and others, to respond to the petition and posted the matter to Friday.

NPDCL moves appeal against single judge order

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Namawarapu Rajeshwar Rao, suspended an order of the single judge requiring the Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Limited [TSNPDCL] to employ a person who moved the court after two decades. The bench admitted an appeal filed by TSNPDCL. Earlier, a writ petition was filed by Boddupalli Shankaraiah, who was attending O&M works Julapaili sector from 1987 where he was looking after the maintenance of transformers of the villages there.

While the petitioner was attending to the breakdown of 11 KY line on the pole and was connecting the jumpers, due to the negligence of the lineman, a power supply was given to the to the 11 KV, due to which, he met with an electrical accident and fell down from the top of the electric pole with burning injuries all over his body.

Thereafter a letter was made by the divisional electrical engineer to the superintending engineer for appointment in any suitable post due to the electric accident while on duty which went in vain. It is the case of the petitioner that his father was an employee of the NPDCL and the petitioner, on his father’s death in 2003, had made representation to the company on April 2022, seeking sanction of family pension in addition to providing him with a job for the accident that occurred to him.

The company rejected the same by observing petitioner's brother has already been provided with a compassionate appointment on the death of the employee. As regards the family pension, the petitioner contended that being a disabled person with more than 90% of disability as on the date of death of his father, he is eligible for family pension during his lifetime under Rule 50 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

In contrast, the respondents argued that the petitioner was only assisting his father, who was a lineman and he was never engaged by the respondents to undertake the works of the respondent organization.

The single judge after considering the relevant material on record and after hearing the parties ruled on the issue of the petitioner's eligibility to seek family pension of his late father, that “the contentions of the respondents that since the compassionate appointment has been given to the brother of the petitioner with his consent only, he is not eligible for compassionate appointment as well as the family pension is not correct.

The petitioner is not seeking the compassionate appointment on the death of his father, but he is seeking compassionate appointment in his own right for loss of his limb while discharging his duties and this issue has already been answered in favour of the petitioner” and directed the company to provide any suitable job to the petitioner and also pay compensation of Rs 10 lakh with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of his accident till the date of payment and also to process his family pension papers and provide family pension to the petitioner within three months.

Aggrieved by this the present appeal has been filed. The bench, after hearing NPDCL, while suspending the order, issued notice to the writ petitioner and posted the matter to March 4 for further hearing.